Further to this story, the BBC have sent me a rather supercilious reply:
I have responded by email, but since this particular desk seem incapable of responding to my emails, I will also log another complaint.
Here's my response:
And here is what I wrote on my follow-up complaint, managing to use all available characters:
Dear Mr MaybeaGoatDo you think they're not happy being questioned?
This is not an issue which deserves apologies or admissions of right or wrong - in other words, point-scoring. We were happy to add the label of Egypt to the map, but as we said in our previous reply, it was not out of necessity.
Kind regards
Middle East desk
BBC News website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/middle_east/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/
I have responded by email, but since this particular desk seem incapable of responding to my emails, I will also log another complaint.
Here's my response:
Excuse me but I am not point scoring, I am simply asking why the BBC omitting the label Egypt in 2012 was apologised for by the BBC, calling it 'plain shoddy work for which we apologise' but in 2013 when the same omission on the same map is repeated I am told that the subsequent correction was 'not done out of necessity' and that no apology was required.
Why was the BBC apologetic in 2012 but today I am told that 'This is not an issue which deserves apologies or admissions of right or wrong'? Was the BBC wrong to apologise in 2012 or wrong not to apologise now? Was what was 'plain shoddy work' in 2012 deemed acceptable in 2013?May I remind you of the BBC Charter, Guidelines, Section 1: The BBC's Editorial Values, Editorial Values, 1.2.11 AccountabilityRegards
'We are accountable to our audiences and will deal fairly and openly with them. Their continuing trust in the BBC is a crucial part of our relationship with them. We will be open in acknowledging mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them.'
NotaSheep MaybeaGoat
And here is what I wrote on my follow-up complaint, managing to use all available characters:
'Your response to my complaint was 'This is not an issue which deserves apologies or admissions of right or wrong - in other words, point-scoring. We were happy to add the label of Egypt to the map, but as we said in our previous reply, it was not out of necessity.'
This response didn't answer my complaint.
I am not point scoring, I am simply asking why the BBC omitting the label Egypt in 2012 was apologised for by the BBC, calling it 'plain shoddy work for which we apologise' but in 2013 when the same omission on the same map is repeated I am told that the subsequent correction was 'not done out of necessity' and that no apology was required.
Why was the BBC apologetic in 2012 but today I am told that 'This is not an issue which deserves apologies or admissions of right or wrong'? Was the BBC wrong to apologise in 2012 or wrong not to apologise now? Was what was 'plain shoddy work' in 2012 deemed acceptable in 2013?
May I remind you of the BBC Charter, Guidelines, Section 1: The BBC's Editorial Values, Editorial Values, 1.2.11 Accountability
'We are accountable to our audiences and will deal fairly and openly with them. Their continuing trust in the BBC is a crucial part of our relationship with them. We will be open in acknowledging mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them.'
Please have the decency to answer my legitimate questions relating to BBC Editorial Values rather than sending me another terse, dismissive response.'
