We're listening. And then we're selecting what we want to hear.

It is not just politicians.

'Today on Breakfast TV, Declan Curry advised that Andy Bond of ASDA would be there to answer questions.

What I submitted was one of those responses featured, but only the preamble and not the question.

Preamble: Supermarkets are improving a lot environmentally. But most initiatives seem to still be either self-serving (alternative energy reduces fuel bills, which is great, but helps the bottom line mainly), or a response to official pressure (recycling is great to provide and meets targets, but still throws the onus on consumers to do the work and dispose of waste).

Question: What is planned to help consumers with reuse, from ways to make more of existing packaging design, to encouraging new designs and stimulating ideas that can find life beyond the additional energy consumption of recycling or, worse, the bin and landfill?

In fact most of what was covered from the public on this topic was more opinion - 'We love your store!' - than questions.

If you ask for questions, I expect the questions to be asked, not the out-of-context, and often more contentious (or hardly newsworthy or troubling to the guest) editted sections.'

He answered.
Is it just me or did he come off a tad defensive? Of course I had to reply:

Dear Declan,

Your question arrived AFTER the interview with Mr Bond. He was here to
answer questions at 0645 and 0745 this morning.

It may have arrived with you after 0745, but it was sent at - 21 February 2007 07:29:39 GMT, and in immediate response to your on-air request to pose questions to him.

If this is a problem, maybe it would help in future at this final 25% of slot run-down period, to clarify that no further questions will be posed on air?

As I thought you made an interesting point nonetheless,

Thank you. And it is true that I have a concern a lot of CSR coverage is on issues that look and indeed are often green...er, but actually serve the consumer less than the business' PR and bottom line.

I decided to include your email in my brief round up of comments at 0825.

Thank you.

The emphasis here is on the word brief. That slot was 60 seconds long, and I
needed to include around 6-8 remarks, so your comment had to be subbed
down because it was, frankly, much too long. But I think I captured the
essence of it.

I appreciate the need to edit for time, but agenda comes into play.

The first section was not a question, but established context.

Re:use was the question, which as opposed to commentary was what was asked for, and was identified by a question mark.

It is a small, but significant aspect of environmental good practice, barely addressed by anyone. A shame, because along with repair it can be the most personally rewarding and likely to get consumers and the general public on board.

Recycling, via government, local authorities, some very comfy contractors and various quangos and their comms budgets gets massive attention and support. But it is low down the re:hierarchy. And getting people to stand at the sink each night as unpaid sorters is not exactly rewarding. Nor is it that carbon neutral as it does require energy to collect and process. Biodegradability of packaging is also often mooted, but I do wonder what the by-products of biodegrading are, in a more immediate global warming gas sense. Reduction is best, but there's a lot of 'looking at' but not much I can see by way of 'doing'.

My reason for writing was because I was disappointed that the editorial preference was more for a commented negative, though constructive criticism (if valid, and nothing new), as opposed to a posed positive question that could have opened up new and worthwhile ways to improve matters.

I'd be interested in how you view news editors', and the BBC as a public service's responsibilities and duties in the way such issues get portrayed. Stir the pot and add spice? Or try and make it acceptable to all tastes at the table, and in so doing bring them closer together?

There wasn't much point in asking the specific question as the man
himself wasn't there any more. I had said many times when the interviews
would take place.

In light of the discrepancy between what I thought I heard and acted upon, and what you think you said and happened, this aspect is moot until we have access to a time-indexed transcript, so I will for now refrain from addressing it further. If I am wrong I will of course apologise.

The comments at 0825 reflected the balance of opinion that arrived in
our mailbox between the end of the previous business update and the
start of that one.

Repeat. In light of the discrepancy between what I thought I heard and acted upon, and what you think you said and happened, this aspect is moot until we have access to a time-indexed transcript, so I will for now refrain from addressing it further. If I am wrong I will of course apologise.

You may not like it that Asda has satisfied customers, but they're every bit as valid as the supermarket's critics.

I am unsure as to where I expressed any such view, and so do still wonder how what was read out counts as a question, as opposed to what was not. Maybe you would be kind enough to clarify? [Still waiting]

Round 3...?

STOP PRESS - Just heard back from Breakfast to thank me for my original post.
Time: 21 February 2007 14:09:29 GMT. Bless.

24 Feb - A reply from the BBC:

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the 21 February edition of 'Breakfast'.

I understand that you were unhappy that your extensive question on supermarkets and the environment was not featured in its entirety. I also note that you feel that the questions sent in were edited to make them easier for the ASDA representative, Andy Bond.

However, I can assure you that there is absolutely no intention to edit feedback from 'Breakfast' viewers to make life easier for guests like Andy Bond. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. However, it is not feasible to include every message or question sent in by 'Breakfast' viewers on the programme itself.

Further information on the programme and means of discussing the issues covered is available on the following webpage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/breakfast/default.stm

Please be assured that your comments have been registered on our daily log for the attention of the 'Breakfast' production team and BBC Senior Management.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

____________

I am drafting my reply, which will be self-explanatory:

Thank you for your reply. It can be no fun having to catch up with such issues at the weekend.

I understand that you were unhappy...

Mr. Curry also made the point that it was too long, though you have done so more charmingly. However I do not recall suggesting at any point that I was upset that it was not featured in its entirety.

I also note that you feel ...

In fact, I think you will note that the reason for my complaint was the exact reverse. I was dissatisfied that the question, which was what was asked for, did not get posed, and the preamble, which was merely an opinion and entirely deletable, was. Also the question was an opportunity for a positive engagement and response by Mr. Bond. The opinion was negative, and that was what was chosen, which if different from editing the distinction will need to be further explained to me.

However, I can assure you ...

I note your assurance. Were all news media so free of subjective influence or ratings driven agenda.

However, it is not feasible ...

And I fully understand this constraint. Hence the need to ensure what is asked for is what gets broadcast in good faith.

Please be assured ...

I note this assurance, but would like to ask what happens next as I do not feel my complaint has been understood properly, which may explain my view on the adequacy of the reply.

I have had occasion to write before, and so far have noticed the procedure does seem to follow a certain path, and one that leads fairly quickly to a dead end. Which begs the questions as to why it exist at all. I will reply to this, but am sure will get a bounce instructing me to return to the start of the complaint procedure again, which raises questions on the structure and sincerity of the dialogue system.

Thank you again ...

You are welcome. It is good to know that a complaint is valued, especially if constructive and in the spirit of improvement. Because it shows the person who made it cares enough to take the time to offer such feedback. And not all have their time funded to do so.

I therefore look forward to seeing how this may be progressed and the answers I sought before, and the new answers I seek may be delivered.

So. Most questions ignored or points denied. Explanations just plain wrong or inadequate. The state of our publicly-funded media today. Round 3???

Bingo! - 'We are sorry but our email system will not receive your email unless you use one of our pre-formatted webforms. We realise the inconvenience but hope you will understand that this helps us handle the many emails we receive every day more efficiently and makes best use of your licence fee. '

How does me not being able to reply directly to the person who wrote to me make this... more efficient?

Indy - Ads on BBC websites

ADDENDUM:

11 April - Again on the 'Declan does Big Biz' Commercials show', we had a full piece, with commercial, followed by a fawning slot with ASDA's boss about their changing their strapline. Who are the BBC trying to kid?