18th November 2014 Ref: CT/1400416 Thank you for your communication of the provisional findings of the Editorial Complaints Unit’s investigation into Nick Robinson’s report on 11 September 2014. I do in fact wish to make some comments. You state at the opening of your findings: “We received a number of complaints about this, and, in order to be able to respond to them within a reasonable time, I’m sending broadly the same reply to each. I hope you will find that it addresses the points you made, and that you’ll excuse me if it also deals with points you haven’t made (though others have). The complaints we received make one or more of the following points: · that Nick Robinson’s account of what Alex Salmond had said was inaccurate; · that it was intentionally misleading; · and that his report was, in consequence, biased.” To begin I would like to state that I do not accept the terms in which you are dealing with my complaint. The above three points narrow the range of my complaint significantly. Sure, taken together it covers some of what drew my complaint, but it leaves out significant points (which I will go into below). My complaint was addressed to the BBC Editorial Complaints Team. As such, I addressed my complaint to that level. It contains questions about the IMPARTIALITY, BALANCE, BIAS and FRAMING of the report. That you begin your response to me by insufficiently re framing my complaint, is an irony not lost on me. Your framing leaves many areas unaddressed. I will go through them below. My format here is as follows: ITEM in report. ------------- EFFECT of ITEM & PROBLEMS/ QUESTIONS arising from ITEM 1- Begins by discussing the announcements of various banks and supermarkets. No examination is made of these claims. ------------- This positions extra costs and job losses as likelihood of Scottish Independence. Also, through lack of scrutiny places authority on the statement of business’ and the banks. 2- Mr Robinson mentions he is at an international press conference. His voice-over then saying: “Alex Salmond knows that for victory he will have to reassure voters at home.” ------------- This is an act of calculated framing, as it turns the report into an assessment of Mr Salmond’s trustworthiness rather than an assessment of the proclamations by business leaders. On a side, but not unrelated note, and given this is a report about Scottish Independence, why is Mr Robinson playing the man and not the issue? 3 - Mr Robinson is then shown asking the following question: “Why should a Scottish voter believe you, a politician, against men who are responsible for billions of pounds of profits?” Mr Robinson then says he: “he did not answer”. ------------- Reinforces the framing of the report as one on Alex Salmond’s trustworthiness. The set-up is now Business Leaders vs Alex Salmond. Put to the side for one moment the notion that Mr Robinson “genuinely did not regard” Mr Salmond had answered the question, we will come to that in a moment. Mr Robinson undeniably sets-up the report as being about Mr Salmond’s trustworthiness. By saying “he did not answer” a viewer watching this report and not the longer report (ie the vast majority of your viewers) were being fed the distinct impression that Mr Salmond did not answer the question, at all, in any way. They were being given the strong impression that Mr Salmond was being evasive. They were being given indicators that he was being untrustworthy. Given the very distinct framing of the report, I posit to you that this was Mr Robinson’s intention. Just to be clear, I believe it was Mr Robinson’s intent to make Mr Salmond look untrustworthy. Of further concern for me is that the question Mr Robinson asks is a loaded one, and this is an issue that you have not come back to me on. Clearly, it is a method used by Mr Robinson to narrow the path for Salmond. From my earlier correspondence: “This is a clear example of a leading question. It is a question that presumes one must be more trustworthy than the other. It presumes a binary response. It is a black-or-white fallacy. For Salmond to begin his response by stating “People should trust me over business leaders because...” is to tarnish all business leaders with being less trustworthy than him, which would be an inept response, one that would open him to a barrage of attacks for denigration of the business community. Faced with a false dichotomy, Salmond must answer the question less directly, but does so in a very thorough way. Mr Salmond explains that the a business moving a head office would not affect tax revenues by explaining how corporation tax works. It is based not on where the brass-plate of a company is, but where it does business. Thus, he is laying to rest fears of tax revenue losses. Mr Robinson does reference this, by saying “Mr Salmond said there would be no loss of tax revenues either. It was simply a matter of shifting brass plates.” The decision to leave out Mr Salmond’s explanation seems a very odd one. From the longer clip it is clear that even Mr Robinson did not understand how corporation tax worked. Therefore, one must assume that members of the public would have benefited from the same lesson given to Mr Robinson by Mr Salmond. It is clear that it would have gone a long way to assuaging fears of tax-revenue losses in the minds of many viewers. Furthermore, given the framing of the article, having Mr Robinson mention that “Mr Salmond said there would be no loss of tax revenues either. It was simply a matter of shifting brass plates.” is not the strongest way to explain things to Scottish voters, is it?” Your response does not go anywhere near covering this. 4 - The next section has Mr Robinson saying “Waiving the BBC’s story (about the bank and business statements) he said there should be an official inquiry into The Treasury for what he says was the leaking of market sensitive information. Attack, he clearly thinks is the best form of defence.” This then cuts into Mr Salmond saying “they have now been caught red-handed as being part of a campaign of scaremongering.” Then a little bit of Salmond reading from and RBS statement, which is presented, not as a response to the original question, but as an attack "on the metropolitan media”. The segment ends with Mr Robinson surmising Mr Salmond’s responses to the claims about business and the banks as “scaremongering, intimidation and bullying”. ------------- There are a handful issues here. Firstly, we know that Mr Salmond did not waive the BBC story, he answered in depth (but this was just not the answer Mr Robinson wanted). One of the parts presented (the RBS statement) is presented as something else (an attack on the metropolitan media). The other (the Treasury item) is presented as Mr Salmond being on the attack. The editing, choice of moments, Mr Robinson’s voice-over framing and chronological disorder imposed on Mr Salmond, again, has the effect of making him seem unable or unwilling to answer questions. 5 - Then there is a snippet of Mr Ed Miliband saying “do not listen to the lies and the scaremongering of the SNP. The only person who can privatise the NHS in Scotland is Alex Salmond.” ------------- Given the NHS is not being discussed in this segment, it seems a very curious choice to even have Mr Miliband shown saying this. Again the effect is to bring into question Mr Salmond and the SNP. 6 - This is then followed by Alastair Darling saying “its not about brass-plates, its about brass tacks. This will cost jobs, this will cost us the funds we need to pay for the NHS and schools. And Asda have just announced that prices will go up if there is Independence. And all Alex Salmond can do is shrug his shoulders and say it doesn’t matter. Well it does matter.” These statements by Mr Darling go unquestioned, as though they are fact. ------------- It is at this particular point that the decision to leave out Mr Salmond’s explanation of how Corporation Tax works takes on even great import in terms of impartiality and bias. Had Mr Salmond’s explanation been aired then Mr Darling’s assertions would have been severely undermined. The tenor of the report would be changed dramatically. The understanding of the viewer would have been significantly different. Please explain to me how it is not biased reporting? 7 - Mr Robinson ends his report by saying of Mr Salmond “..as for all those questions, all those doubts. He dismisses those as scaremongering.” ------------- This closes the framing of the report as Mr Salmond being dismissive and untrustworthy. Outside of the framing, I also want an answer to this, which would undermine the whole way Mr Robinson has gone about his report. “On Monday 8th of September, Prime Minister David Cameron summoned business leaders to Downing Street and, as reported in the Financial Times, asked them to fight to keep the UK together. Amongst this group of more than 100 business leaders were the boss of John Lewis and Lloyds TSB. Two figures mentioned in Mr Robinson’s report as warning against economic consequences. The report from the FT, published the morning of Mr Salmond’s press conference and Mr Salmond’s report, can be found here - http://on.ft.com/1xYmTr1. To understand just how extraordinary an omission this is, we must revisit Mr Robinson’s question again: “Why should a Scottish voter believe you, a politician, against men who are responsible for billions of pounds of profits?” In his full response Mr Salmond references the Downing Street reception with business leaders. This is also omitted. Had both these pieces been brought to the attention of the Scottish Electorate, it may have changed the way some people voted. However, I am not here to speculate on that. The question here is one of framing, impartiality and bias. Mr Salmond makes the whole report about Mr Salmond’s trustworthiness. He uses the assertions on business leaders to do this, some of whom are the very same business leaders who were in collusion with Downing Street to save the UK. The BBC Political Editor is either hugely out of the loop on matters, or is acting with extreme bias.” These are my comments. To reiterate, I do not accept your findings. I will not consider your response in anyway satisfactory until you address the points above. Your initial findings cover a small BBC and Nick Robinson friendly part of this. Please answer the complaint properly. You are the Editorial Complaints Team. Answer my editorial complaints. I look forward to your response. Many thanks, Patrick McFadden