Exclusive: BBC misrepresented me over Ukip article, says Peter Hitchens

[-:Undertaker:-]

Presumably someone realised that it was out of context, because there's no mention of the same story being repeated in further bulletins throughout the day? Just seems like a small mistake - whoever wrote that piece up was being biased, and whoever checked it either didn't do a good job, or didn't check it. I do think that this story really is nothing, I mean it's only over 30 seconds of biased comments at 5am in the morning.

Probably as the bulletins will change throughout the day.

You see the story as nothing because you want it to be nothing. They've been caught out, and I hope Peter Hitchens gets to the bottom of it with his enquiries with the BBC although I don't hold much hope as as the article above explains, the BBC likes to hide behind various acts to avoid Freedom of Information requests.

You've lost your mind if you think Ukip has any chance of coming into power.

Oh really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...election,_1993

Senior Ukip officials have been in contact with former Reform officials too, so I hear.

However, the party came under persistent partisan attack of being extremist and intolerant due to a number of statements by Reform MPs which were considered to be racist, homophobic, and sexist remarks.

Sounds familiar... and here is the Canadian Prime Minister of 2014.

[-:Undertaker:-]

BBC apologises to Peter Hitchens: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....ys-sorry-.html

The BBC Says Sorry

Tedious technical problems have prevented me from posting news of an extraordinary development in my latest tussle with the BBC.

They have, promptly and apparently without reservations, apologised for misrepresneting me in 'News Briefing' on Radio 4 on Sunday morning.

The apology runs thus :' We acknowledge that the quote used in the paper review did not accurately reflect the full nature of your article. We apologise, and would like to assure you that your concerns were raised with the relevant editorial staff at BBC News.'

Obviously, this can only be the start. The clear and swift admission of fault by the BBC only strengthens my desire to pursue the matter, since the action has much wider significance than my annoyance at being misrepresented.

How did this happen? How was it a) done and b) approved for transmission?

What about the context? Why were the articles selected for the press review all hostile to UKIP (except mine, which was made to seem so)?

And what about the breach of due impartiality, enjoined on the BBC in its Charter and especially important in the days immediately before an election?

I have submitted a further complaint, pointing out that these matters have not been dealt with. I will let readers know what happens.