THE BBC SMEARS MEDIA LENS - an email exchange with the BBC

Dear Peter [Barron, BBC's Newsnight's Editor],

I hope all is well.

I am writing about “Virtual war follows Iraq conflict”, By David Fuller, BBC News

Kindly and politely could I invite you to read (or read again) today Media Lens’ alert: MAELSTROM OF VITRIOL - THE BBC SMEARS MEDIA LENS

A few days ago you wrote: "Another organisation that tries to influence our running orders is Medialens... In fact I rather like them. David Cromwell and David Edwards, who run the site, are unfailingly polite, their points are well-argued and sometimes they're plain right."

I can’t understand how you can write the above and at the same time saying about Fuller’s article: “I believe the piece is a fair and even-handed account of the dispute” (your email to ML’ editors)

It would be an oxymoron. Do you agree?

Thank you once again for your time and kindness.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

PS I saw another (would seem) oxymoron in your replies. You may read this one on here: link

***

Dear Gabriele,

Thanks for your email.

I don't see inconsistency in any of those comments.

David Cromwell and David Edwards have always been polite to me.

They have been leading a campaign of criticism of IBC.

That campaign has led to what David Fuller described as a maelstrom of criticism and abuse.

I've been on the receiving end of similar criticism and recognise the description. It doesn't mean that the Davids aren't polite.

On your second example there is again no inconsistency.

David Fuller's comments on the Medialens site are his private views and do not represent the BBC or Newsnight. The BBC's policy is that employees - while able to express private views on blogs and messageboards - should not advocate particular positions on issues of current public controversy or debate. David Fuller has been reminded of this.

Best wishes

Peter

***

Thanks Peter.

In his BBC’s article, David Fuller writes:

“But for the last few months, John Sloboda and his team have found themselves in the middle of a maelstrom of criticism and vitriol. But not from the right. Their attackers have been anti-war activists.”

Interviewed by Fuller, Mr Sloboda says:

“Their behaviour is far worse than most of our right-wing or pro-war critics, who, on the whole, have behaved rather more honourably. These people, I trust them less than just about anyone else in the world, and they would have to do 50 to 100 times more in order to regain my trust. (...) I think it's because we don't fit into their worldview. The hard left and the hard right, they're both utterly rigid, and the stuff that's going on in the middle, they can't handle. They want certainty. They want something they can latch onto and say - this is what I believe. They like the sense of being a beleaguered minority. What's most chilling is if you look at people's allegiance to much more dangerous causes than either of our critics are adopting. This is also the mindset that draws angry young men towards terrorism. And it's ultimately self-destructive."

Reading Fullers’ article is clear that Mr Sloboda’s comments, remarks and accusations have influenced Mr Fuller’s point of view, so much so that he acted as a defender of Mr Sloboda and his IBC. It’s Mr. Fuller himself who tells us this in most of his posts on ML message board.

Of course you have the right to agree with Fuller (and therefore with Mr Sloboda), but you should provide factual evidence upon which you base your judgment. Lacking this factual evidence, the accusations by Mr Sloboda and BBC’s Fuller (and yours?) fall in defamation’s territory.

Once again, I politely and kindly must insist and reiterate my request for an explanation. I believe the BBC launched a brutal, biased, violent and dishonest attack against respectable people without providing proofs for its claims.

Because of the gravity of Mr Sloboda accusations, I hope you and the BBC will dedicate this matter all your attention.

Thank you very much for your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini