Complaint Against Kuennsberg – Escalated!

It is now over seven months since we complained to the BBC about Laura Kuennsberg’s appalling coverage of Keir Starmer’s decision to deny the parliamentary whip to Jeremy Corbyn (News at Ten, 17/11/2020).

The BBC’s initial reply referred to a different article to the one we’d complained about (!!) and flatly denied Laura Kuennsberg had stated “When the (EHRC) report came out, Mr Corbyn said it had been exaggerated.”

We replied with a link to the correct article, attributed to Laura Kuennsberg, which unequivocally states “When the report came out, Mr Corbyn suggested it had all been exaggerated.” (underline shows that what Laura K said was even worse than what the BBC denied she’d said!)

We then heard nothing from the BBC for…3 months. When we chased them we were told they “hadn’t received” our response and were sent two further letters blaming a subsequent delay in responding on Covid.

We thought we’d update you on what has happened since and our escalation of the complaint. Full transparency and social media support for the complaint can only help so we’d appreciate any shares of this article – especially on social media with @BBCNEWS tagged in!

BBC DeLAY. Then Dismiss.

You can read our initial complaint here.

As highlighted above, we have had to pursue the complaint with patience and determination. Our reward for seven months of perseverance, amidst misdirection from the BBC, was the following derisory response (received 28/7/21):

“We don’t accept that the line in question (“When the report came out, Mr Corbyn suggested it had all been exaggerated”) misrepresents Jeremy Corbyn and have nothing further to add on this point”

The Free Press have something further to add!

We have escalated our complaint to the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU), who upheld our previous complaint on a BBC environmental article.

You can read our escalated complaint below. It cites the main elements of the BBC editorial code Ms Kuenssberg violated and substantiates them with evidence we believe to be irrefutable. Let us know if you think we have a case!

ECU Letter to Escalate Complaint

Dear ECU

We write in reference to complaint CAS-6457699-Q8W4K9

For clarity, the complaint refers to this article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54996354) published on the BBC news website and the associated piece on News at 10 delivered by Laura Kuennsberg on 17/11/20.  

BBC editorial standards state “we seek to establish the truth and use the highest reporting standards to provide coverage that is fair and accurate”

The article in question breaches these standards multiple times.

1) “When the (EHRC) report came out, Mr Corbyn suggested it had all been exaggerated”

So said Ms Kuennsberg in reference to Jeremy Corbyn’s statement of 29/10/2020 (the day the EHRC report was published)

This is a shocking misrepresentation of Mr Corbyn’s statement, which we request that you read in full. 

The majority of the statement is dedicated to acknowledging the evil of anti-Semitism and the processes by which he tried to clamp down on it as party leader.

This includes two direct phrases which show, beyond doubt, that Mr Corbyn accepts there was a problem within the Labour Party and that he considered it a problem: “anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong” and “one antisemite is one too many”.

In his only reference to exaggeration Corbyn highlights that “the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents”

Ms Kuennsberg completely removes this statement from its context and ignores direct comments acknowledging the seriousness of anti-Semitism and Mr Corbyn’s attempts to deal with it.

In doing so she presents the viewer/reader with an inaccurate and unfair picture of Mr Corbyn’s statement and his attitude to cases of anti-Semitism within Labour.

2) Ms Kuennsberg concludes her report by asking a rhetorical question – “if he wanted to keep the promise he made solemnly to the Jewish community, did (Keir Starmer) really have any choice?” – implying that Keir Starmer had “no choice” but to deny Jeremy Corbyn the whip

This is an astonishingly inaccurate assertion.

We note that main recommendation of the EHRC report is that Labour leaders should not interfere in disciplinary matters. Given that Ms Kuennsberg was reporting on these very recommendations she could hardly be unaware of them – yet she suggests Mr Starmer had “no choice” but to immediately violate the EHRC report.

The defence that Starmer “wanted to keep the promise he made solemnly to the Jewish community” can hardly be said to apply – Jewish Voice for Labour, a significant Jewish group within the party, pointed out in the aftermath of Corbyn’s suspension that it was “precisely the political interference condemned by the EHRC”

The EHRC report also includes a proviso that comments about “the scale of antisemitism within the [Labour] Party” are protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Corbyn was, in effect, suspended then denied the party whip for making a statement protected by both the EHRC report AND the European Convention on Human Rights.

Again, Ms Kuennsberg should be familiar with this report, relevant surrounding legislation and as a public service broadcaster has a duty to report on them accurately. Does she genuinely feel that Starmer had “no choice” but to violate the EHRC report and Jeremy Corbyn’s human rights? If so, why did she not inform BBC viewers of this?

Finally, we note the immediate outcry that greeted denial of the whip to Corbyn. High-profile figures such as Diane Abbott, Len McCluskey and John McDonnell criticised the decision severely. The decision sparked furious debates on social media and led to a third of Labour branches passing motions condemning the decision, despite the party leadership attempting to ban them from doing so.

As we’ve already mentioned, the outcry included criticism from Jewish Voice for Labour and prominent Jewish activists such as Andrew Feinstein, a former South African MP and colleague of Nelson Mandela.

On what basis did Ms Kuenssberg decide to ignore the views of a large proportion of the Labour Party, prominent Jewish groups/activists and former shadow cabinet ministers who evidently thought, not only that Starmer had a choice, but that his choice was highly controversial?

It was certainly neither “fair” nor “accurate” to do so

We could raise further issues regarding this report by Ms Kuennsberg. However, we have chosen to focus only on clear, indisputable factual errors.

We note, in support of our complaint, that Ms Kuennsberg has been censured in the past for her coverage of Mr Corbyn. This suggests she may well have a bias (possibly an unconscious one) and struggles to report on him impartially.

In addition, we would like to note the BBC’s appalling response to our complaint. Their reply to our initial complaint addressed a different article to the one we complained about and claimed that “Laura Kuenssberg did not say “When the (EHRC) report came out, Mr Corbyn said it had been exaggerated.”

We replied with evidence that Ms Kuennsberg did say this and had to wait the best part of SIX MONTHS (with two letters blaming the delay on Covid) for a reply that simply stated “We don’t accept that the line in question (“When the report came out, Mr Corbyn suggested it had all been exaggerated”) misrepresents Jeremy Corbyn and have nothing further to add on this point”

We look forward to a more satisfactory response from the ECU,

Steven McCracken and Sean Rankin

If you enjoyed this article please let us know in the comments below and feel free to use the share buttons to spread the word on social media!

You can also subscribe to our mailing list below and receive the monthly edition of The Free Press direct to your mailbox!

Processing…
Success! You're on the list. You can unsubcribe by clicking the link in any Free Press e-mail

22 thoughts on “Complaint Against Kuennsberg – Escalated!

  1. Keep going folks. When you have a Tory propaganda unit like the BBC, you know you’ve got a fight on your hands to get past the lies and obfuscation. People should stop paying the licence. We certainly don’t get the quality of journalism or standards that we expect. Lots of folk unhappy with the BBC.
    Thanks. Joe

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Very unhappy with the BBC. Cannot trust it to give an unbiased view point. In fact it appears to be a mouthpiece for the Torys.
      Go for it wishing you the very best of of luck!

      Liked by 3 people

    1. ¹Brilliant work. Wish I had come across you before! Appreciate your tenacity. Long gone are the days when the BBC was s public service broadcaster, it is nothing more than a Tory party mouthpiece in a one-party state.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for the positive feedback. We’re not sure the BBC was ever a public service broadcaster though it does seem to have become more blatantly pro-Tory in recent years

        Tom Mills’ book “The BBC: Myth of a Public Service” contains excellent info on historical examples of the BBC actively conspiring against the public. From its inception it has been closely linked to power and the ruling government of the day – “The government know they can trust us not to be really impartial” said John Reith, arguably the most important figure in the establishment of the corporation

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting article – VERY surprised the journalist wasn’t censured in any way for using the word “scum”

      We suspect the BBC deal with complaints by:

      a) Always denying the initial complaint in the hope complainers simply go away
      b) Look at the complaint to see if there are any weak technical grounds it can be dismissed on (in the above case the *doubt* over whether “scum” was aimed at an individual)
      c) If they really can’t find a way to wiggle out of things they give the weakest possible rebuke to the journalist – the case with our environmental complaint when the journalist phrased things in a blatantly biased way “without intent”

      Still worth keeping on at them though! If not the bias will be even worse!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Replies against a RED background are incredibly hard for some [me included] to read. A beige/cream background increases readability [as I understand it]. Maybe an off-pink if it MUST have that colour theme?

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for the comment Jan. We do everything ourselves at The Free Press and aren’t web developers. The text formatting is a default of the WordPress theme so not sure we can alter it but we will look into it!

        Like

      2. I find it ridiculous trying to read what I’ve typed in turquoise on a grey background. Why make it frustrating?
        Black type against light pink would be much clearer..
        .

        Like

  3. I have made multiple complaints about Laura Kuenssberg to the BBC. I have only ever got a standard acknowledgement of reception and then a templated “We do not agree” reply. They do not even bother replying to the points in my complaint. Utter waste of time. The BBC might as well have Kuenssberg operating from an office in No 10. It would save Licence Payers money. Tory propaganda machine.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I find it ridiculous trying to read what I’ve typed in turquoise on a grey background. Why make it frustrating?
      Black type against light pink would be much clearer..
      .

      Like

      1. Thanks for the comment. We use a standard WordPress theme and, unfortunately, have no control over colour contrasts. We are, however, looking into upgrading our package to resolve these issues.

        Like

      2. Kuennsberg did everything she could to destroy Labour/Corbyns credibility in the run up to the election. I assumed she was funded by the Tories. As she was paid by the BBC, much the same thing.

        Like

  4. The BBC have NEVER retracted, or accepted criticism, let alone apologise for their content, in my long experience. eg their Feedback prog on R4 is just an exercise for their yesmen in dismissing writers. If you have the patience you might slip a real comment into their listeners feedback after Any Questions – having been accepted for proposing a bland topic. They might then pull the plug. It’d be far quicker to tweet!

    Like

    1. Thanks for the comment. Our experience with the BBC has been mixed so far.

      There is no question the BBC attempt to wriggle out of complaints and use delaying tactics (some of their wriggling is documented above) but the ECU upheld our only previous complaint – https://the-free-press.co.uk/2020/12/23/complaint-to-the-bbc-on-environmental-article-19-12-20/

      We will push them all the way on this complaint – to Ofcom, if need be.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Thank you for pursuing this. I’ve stopped watching BBC News since LK had that appalling feature about Jews fleeing the UK if Mr Corbyn became the PM, in 2019 GE campaign. Not many facts where present so difficult to prove. Clearly partial and often uninformed to boot. Doesn’t the public deserve better for £260,000/year?!

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s