The BBC not understanding their own systems

In response to my complaint re the BBC Newsnight's misrepresentation of a piece I wrote about Peter Mandelson's chances of becoming leader of the Labour party, Newsnight changed the page.

However the BBC complaints department don't seem to understand "stealth editing" as this email correspondence shows:

"2009/8/6

Dear Sir/Madam

Thanks for your e-mail regarding a 'Newsnight' blog.

I understand you posted a blog under the heading "Peter Madelson for Prime Minister?" and believe that this was presented inaccurately on the 'Newsnight' website.

I'm not sure where you have read the section which contains the word "laugh" as I have checked the site and it contains the following:

"Under the posting Peter Mandelson for PM, Not A Sheep concludes Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson... a downward slope of honesty and probity there but ability?"

This can be found at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8176099.stm

I can assure you that we would never deliberately distort a blog post by one of our users.

Thanks again for taking the time to e-mail us.

Regards

Ross Montgomery
BBC Complaints
____________________________
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

-----Original Message-----

Newsnight's The Buzz seems to be incapable of understanding a simple blog article. They report under the title "PETER MANDELSON FOR PRIME MINISTER?" the following:
>
> "Peter Mandelson admitted on Newsnight that it will be very tough for Labour to win the next General Election.
>
> Dr Peter Slowe, chairman of Labour's finance and industry group, this week called for MPs to oust Prime Minister Gordon Brown and replace him with Lord Mandelson, saying he is "the only one with the clout, intellect and charisma who could realistically take on the Tories and win".
>
> Could Lord Mandelson ever oust Mr Brown and become the next PM? News Junction thinks it's certainly possible.
>
> However, Not A Sheep laughs at the suggestion saying Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson... a downward slope of honesty and probity there...."
>
>
>So Newsnight say that I laugh at the suggestion that Peter Mandelson could ever become Prime Minister, read my original post and you will note that I say exactly the opposite:
>
> "How could Peter Mandelson become Prime Minister when there is no provision for a Life Peer, as opposed to an Hereditary Peer, to resign his peerage? This was the shout whenever anyone expressed the view that Peter Mandelson had his eyes on the big prize, becoming Prime Minister, even if it was for only a short time. As I have blogged before there are several Labour "big beasts" who would be only too delighted to be PM for a few months and thus get their hands on the special PM pension that they would then be entitled to. So it was hardly a surprise that I read in the Financial Times that:
>
> "Labour is to change the law to allow life peers to quit the upper house, raising the prospect that Peter Mandelson could stage yet another unlikely comeback and return to the political fray in the House of Commons."
>
>
> Then we get an interesting aside:
>
> "Asked last month by the Financial Times whether he might renounce his peerage and stand again as an MP, Lord Mandelson said: "It's not legally possible to do that. I am trapped. I believe it is for life."
>
> He then added: "Of course, you could always change the law." Although Lord Mandelson insisted he was "teasing", the first secretary apparently only has to muse aloud and his wishes are fulfilled."
>
>
> And then the kicker:
>
> "Tackled on the subject, Lord Mandelson said: "The legislation has to get on to the statute book. I'm not anticipating any change for myself. Goodbye.""
>
>
>
> Who better to ensure that the UK is forever bound into the EU than Peter Mandelson, the man with the EU pension and thus the possible question mark regarding his loyalty to the UK relative to the EU?
>
> Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson... A downward slope of honesty and probity there but ability? Taking a maths exam stance for a moment; how would you continue such a series?"
>
>
>Typically inaccurate reporting by the BBC, just 100% wrong which is I suppose par for the course. However I would request that you publish a correction to your original piece, assuming that facts matter to Newsnight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this."

My emailed response was:

"I am sorry to inform you that you are quite incorrect in your assertion. The Newsnight web page was been "stealth edited" as I reported here. If you check the Newsnight Buzz website update record, assuming that good practice is followed and such records are kept, you will see that the original wording was replaced by the new wording sometime between 3pm on Sunday 2 August and 11pm on Sunday 2 August.

I look forward to your confirmation of this fact.

Kind regards

NotaSheep"

I await their reply with interest...