The BBC sure knows how to slow-walk a correction.
On August 30, 2024 the BBC published a story about Trump reversing on his support of a proposed “abortion rights” amendment. That amendment would have allowed abortion on demand up through the point of viability and in addition allowed abortion in any case and at any developmental stage where the service provider determined the procedure was medically necessary.
The BBC story failed to accurately describe the far-reaching effects of the amendment, and moreover called it false when Trump said Democrats wanted abortion at any stage of pregnancy:
<Post comes to screeching halt>
This Changes Everything
When I went to an early archived version of the flawed BBC story, I was astonished to discover that the original version had none of the problems for which I sought correction.
Unbelievable.
And to make the story more shocking, the BBC added no notes to the story to indicate updates or corrections. It was stealth-edited into journalistic malpractice.
But, with everything changed, let’s still go back to the version of the article that prompted my complaint.
Correct This, Please
He [Trump] then falsely alleged that Democrats in the US supported allowing abortions at any point during a pregnancy, which he used as his explanation for deciding to vote against the ballot measure in Florida as a voter in the state.
Hmm? What was false about Trump’s allegation?
The proposed constitutional amendment sought by reproductive rights advocates in Florida does not specify a number of weeks, but would protect abortion access in the state until the point of foetal viability, which is about 23-25 weeks of pregnancy.
Given the information in the article I had to wonder: Had the writer and/or the editor read the proposed Florida amendment?
The would-be amendment read: “Limiting government interference with abortion.— Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”
The amendment text after the word “viability” allows abortion at any stage of pregnancy at the discretion of the patient’s healthcare (abortion) provider and makes that provider the judge of what constitutes the protection of the patient’s health.
Put another way, the amendment allows abortions at any point during a pregnancy. So what Trump said was true even though the BBC said it was false. And Democrats supported the proposed amendment, as shown on this Ballotpedia page.
The story’s description of the proposed amendment admits it doesn’t specify any number of weeks, but then cues the reader to expect the number of weeks to match the time frame for fetal viability, near 24 weeks. But the amendment’s permission for abortion would extend to any number of weeks up through delivery.
Correction Request, Round One
We fired off our initial correction request pointing out the text of the amendment supported Trump’s claim. We noted the BBC could significantly remedy the misleading nature of its story by merely including the text of the amendment, not knowing at the time that the BBC had removed that language mere hours before.
I received a confirmation email on Sept. 1, 2024, saying in part “Our normal aim at this stage is to reply within 10 working days (two weeks). We hope you will understand that sometimes it may take us longer. If we think that will be the case here, we'll try to let you know in advance.”
I received a follow up email on Sept. 9, 2024. In summary, “We wanted to let you know that we have referred your complaint to the relevant people and are still looking into it.”
Hours later the BBC responded with something more substantive:
We are sorry to read of your concerns, feeling that the report incorrectly states Donald Trump "...falsely alleged that Democrats in the US supported allowing abortions at any point during a pregnancy".
Reading the report in light of your complaint it provides context stating "Abortion laws vary widely in states across the US, but procedures after 21 weeks of pregnancy are rare and are often related to foetal anomalies or threats to the mother's life, according to the non-profit health organisation KFF" also adding that "The proposed constitutional amendment sought by reproductive rights advocates in Florida does not specify a number of weeks, but would protect abortion access in the state until the point of foetal viability, which is about 23-25 weeks of pregnancy".
Overall, we know that not everyone will agree with our choices on which stories to cover, the level of detail in any one report or the order in which they appear. Our news editors make these complex decisions, based on the editorial merit of all the stories at hand. We accept that not everyone will agree with each decision – various factors are at play and there’s often debate in the newsroom too.
However we understand you felt our report should have further analysed the intent of Donald Trumps claims and explained how that relates to an inferred meaning of the proposed amendment details around decisions made by the patients healthcare provider.
The foregoing response, from “BBC Complaints Team,” said little, and I still don’t see how it was supposed to address my complaint. Democrats don’t favor abortion at any stage of pregnancy because third trimester abortions are rare? Is that logic?
And saying that the bill protects abortion before viability won’t make readers think the unspecified number of weeks is going to be 23-25 weeks?
Did the complaints team notice that the story had been stealthily edited?
Correction Request, Round Two
I responded to the BBC that same day, concluding “In a nutshell, the response ignores the fact that the original reporting inaccurately paraphrases the proposed amendment by completely ignoring how the amendment goes way beyond protecting abortion prior to fetal viability. There's no excuse for such a twisted paraphrase.”
I next heard from the BBC on Sept. 17, 2024. In essence, “This is to inform you that although we normally aim to investigate and reply at this next stage of the complaints service within 20 working days (around four weeks), we are currently dealing with a higher than normal volume of cases.”
On Oct. 29, 2024 the BBC touched base to communicate further delay. The message also gave me the option of referring “this delay and the substance of your complaint to the BBC’s regulator Ofcom.”
But before I got around to considering that option an Oct. 30, 2024 reply arrived in my inbox. At the bottom it was credited to “Linda Lewis.” Skipping to the meat of the response, such as it was:
I have looked carefully at the article. I appreciate you would have preferred us to go into the details of the Florida amendment, however this article focused on Donald Trump and how he was intending to vote over a ballot measure in his home state of Florida that would protect abortion rights after facing backlash from conservative supporters.
We reported:
The former president's announcement came one day after an NBC News interview in which he appeared to support the measure - a statement that caused anti-abortion activists to openly criticise him.
On Friday, Trump told Fox News that he still thinks Florida's ban on abortions after six weeks is too strict. There was certainly no intention to mislead readers. Rather we homed in on the fact that Trump appeared to be continuing to support Florida’s near total abortion ban which his rival Kamala Harris said was “so extreme it applies before many women even know they are pregnant."
I trust this response provides some reassurance and an explanation as to why we covered the story in the way we did, in line with our commitment to accuracy and impartiality.
I have responded in as much detail as I am able to.
With respect to Lewis, my recommendation for including the language of the proposed amendment was as an antidote for the BBC’s misleading description. Lewis’ message didn’t own up to any deficiency at all in that description. Nor did it address the BBC saying Trump “falsely” said something true. How then does it address my complaint? One might summarize her message as “We really tried to do a good job and we think we basically got it right. Run along, now.”
Did Lewis uncover the stealth edits associated with the story?
Lewis concluded by telling me her message concluded Stage 1 of the BBC’s complaints process. I’d need to contact the Executive Complaints Unit if I still wasn’t satisfied.
Correction Request, Round Three
The ECU confirmed receipt of my complaint on Nov. 15, 2024. That email contains the text of my complaint, fairly summarized in the opening paragraph:
The initial (and subsequent) responses from the BBC conspicuously failed to address the point of the original complaint, that the BBC said Trump "falsely alleged that Democrats in the US supported allowing abortions at any point during a pregnancy" when Florida's Democrat-supported amendment would have done exactly that, limited in the amendment only by the discretion of would-be abortion providers.
The ECU’s message said the ECU would aim to reply wihtout 20 working days of receipt, though they target 35 working days for more complicated responses.
It’s been well over 35 working days, unless the UK has added quite a few secret holidays to its calendar.
Perhaps this is a job for … Ofcom!
Correction Request, Round Four
I sent my complaint to Ofcom early on Feb. 20, 2025.
I’ll look forward to updating this saga with new material from either the ECU or Ofcom. Hearing from both would make it even better.