Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
Search
[www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Responding to inaccuracies: BBC, others
|
Barbara Scrivens
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýDear Martin, ? Thank you for your critique of responses like mine to the BBC. I hope you did not think I was being impolite in my response to the BBC¡¯s set letter to complainers like me. I completely agree one will catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but I will remain, if you don¡¯t mind, my own person and if I wish to complain with polite assertiveness, and careful, measured thought, I will. I do not believe obsequious pleas for attention will get any attention at all. ? Kind regards - Barbara ? From: Kresy-Siberia@... [mailto:Kresy-Siberia@...] On Behalf Of martin stepek
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013 8:25 p.m. To: kresy Subject: [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Responding to inaccuracies: BBC, others ? ? I¡¯m writing this in response to messages about the BBC¡¯s lack of response or poor response to the various messages they received; also John¡¯s message about the Holocaust and how some people perceive Central and Eastern European countries have been quick to say they were victims but not acknowledge involvement in the Holocaust. ? I believe we need as a group to approach these related matters but skilfully and strategically. Organisations like the BBC are of huge importance and potential assistance to our cause. Yes, the make mistakes, yes they can be evasive or just not see our point. This happens. I think we should combine unwavering politeness with consistent clear evidence to support our case and to show that others¡¯ views (as in the recent matter on Radio 4) are not supported by the evidence. If we get no reply we write again, perhaps to a higher manager, and so on, always remaining polite and clear, but adding within our polite manner that a response should have been expected. ? Needless to say calling the BBC?¡°morons¡± does not quite fit this strategic approach :-) ? Similarly and even more sensitively with Jewish groups. Many are with us, many Jewish people had the same fate as our families in Siberia; and the Holocaust was undoubtedly one of humanity¡¯s most unbearable evils, if not its single worst act. We should not, in my view, seek to create a league table of suffering by nation or by historical events. We should rather, be supportive of and helpful towards Jewish and other groups who seek to ensure the world remembers their grievous loss. This is not only humane and compassionate but strategically the best approach. ? If we have to correct inaccuracies coming from individuals or groups within the Holocaust-related community we should, as with the BBC combine great politeness, sensitivity and empathy on the one hand, with clear neutrally-stated corrections on the other. ? None of this is easy, particularly when the issue relates to something so painful and personal as the fate of our families. But we are here for two reasons; to find out more about the facts of our families¡¯ fates and those who shared their experiences, and to help promote remembrance and awareness. We do this best by being skilful and strategic. This is best helped by building alliances - as Poland has done so well with Israel despite opposition from some within both countries -not alienating. Of course some people and organisations have extreme and prejudiced views - all causes have this problem - but it is probably not worth engaging with these. ? Warm regards Martin ? Sent from Windows Mail ? No virus found in this incoming message. |
|
To All: We have given the world and all its historians 73 years to correct their views about Poland and it great kind and gentle people. For all of these years we have taken pains not to offend anyone, any country, media or any group of people and have asked politely that our voices be heard and corrections be made but nothing has really changed. The same old negatives remain. My question remains why is this so? This is not the first nor will it be the last time that we try and correct the same ¡°old mistakes¡± (notice I did not say lies) and we hear the same pleas from many to refrain from direct confrontations and to use a language that would never offend anyone. In following this soft path based on appeasement rather confrontation (based on 73 years of past experience) it has accomplished so little that it really means nothing. So shall we continue to be a doormat or take a positive stand and call out these liars (can be removed for those who are offended) that have continued to be totally anti Polish and tell the truth about these individuals, countries and groups using every media element that we have now at our disposal. Today we are not limited to a media that is controlled by anti Polish sediment. The price to contact enormous groups of people is relative inexpensive. We can and should speak our mind and use the truth to back up our position and at the same time point out in full the short comings (short comings is a mild form of what should be used) of the individuals, countries, groups or media involved in perpetuating anti Polish sediments. There are some Polish Patriot Groups that have taken a position stand already. I suggest that we should try and procure the entire e-mail list of Great Britain. Become pro-active and send to them a complete analysis of the BBC inaccuracies of the past and present and the pains that the Polish nation and its people have endured but has tried to correct (nicely) only to be rebuffed by the BBC with some crazy comments that they are never responsible for anything that reflects negatively against them. The truth is they are not a responsible organization when they do not correct their errors (lies) and try to blame everyone but themselves. No one or any organization has called them out in other mass media public arena on these and other erroneous facts that they continue to present as their versions of their limited corrupted minds as truths. When they are slightly pressed to make corrections they hide behind a fa?ade that even a Polish educated 12 year knows to be phony. These are my thoughts on the subject and I am always interested in hearing from those who wish to continue using kind and gentle words when writing to the BBC, other anti-Polish groups, individuals or media. Julek USA ? ? On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Barbara Scrivens <scrivs@...> wrote:
|
|
You are right Julek - 'nothing has really changed'. Some inaccuracies are erroneous? - however others are are deliberate.? For example in November 2009 the Sydney Morning Herald published an article taken from the Guardian, written by Ian Traynor.? The article was about Polish Independence Day commemorations in Warsaw.? (I wrote to our group about it at the time, message no 36864) Original article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/museum-warsaw-rising-poland-nazi-occupation SMH article? - http://www.smh.com.au/world/a-new-battle-to-reclaim-history-in-eastern-europe-20091113-ieqs.html I had read the original article online from the Guardian and there were several differences in the one published in SMH, including the photograph, even though it was acknowledged as Traynor's article .? Concerned, I contacted the editor about this - please see below.?? From: Frances Gates To: letters@... Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:28 PM Subject: Stalin vs Hitler Dear Mr Fray - Editor ? I object strongly to a totally false phrase attached to a paragraph in the article by Ian Traynor (Guardian) SMH 14/11/09 on Eastern Europe. The statement "and are watching closely the activities of Europe's neo-Nazi movements" - tacked on to the end of the paragraph beginning "The East European campaign is offensive to many Jews............"?? does not exist in the original article.? There is no comment at all about 'neo-Nazi movements' in Traynor's article in the Guardian? - and the insertion of these words implies that the campaign to commemorate the terror suffered by Poland and others under Soviet occupation from 1939, is somehow neo-Nazi related. How can the Herald insert this phrase - and remove the correct phrase? - to skew the meaning of the article? Who gave permission for this falsification? ? I support the call for recognition of the horrors suffered by Polish people (and other Eastern Europeans) under Stalinism during the war as being equal to the Holocaust; the massacres, imprisonment in gulags and deportation of civilians totalling millions during the war? - must be remembered.? Unlike the Jewish Holocaust this 'Forgotten Holocaust" could not be discussed or even mentioned after the war in Poland (and in the UK to avoid offending Stalin) until during the past few years when the spectre of communism has been fading. All those who fought for the Allies and returned to Poland after the war - also those in the resistance during the Warsaw Uprising,1944, were seen as enemies of the people. This meant execution, prison, gulag or many years of surveillance. ? Only now? can the people of Poland become patriotic and truly celebrate Independence Day (11 November 1918 - the day of Independence) as post-war communism prevented any recognition of this anniversary. ? I know a great deal about the Forgotten Holocaust as my father - a Polish Officer - was arrested in October 1939 by the invading Russians (after fighting against the invading Nazis) and imprisoned in a Siberian gulag.? He was released during Stalin's 'amnesty' in 1941 and travelled thousands of kilometres with others through Russia, Iran and Palestine, arriving in England to join the Polish Air Force to fight for the Allies.? He and his crew were shot down by the Nazis while flying supplies to the Warsaw Uprising in August 1944.? All tragically perished.? I therefore treat Hitler and Stalin as equals.? This was the first reply, after a reminder email from me. Dear Ms
Gates,
I apologise for the delay in responding to your letter. The matters you raise have been discussed in detail on the paper's foreign desk and have been reviewed by senior editors at the newspaper. We apologise for any offence that the editing of The Guardian story may have caused. This was certainly not intended. It is normal and necessary practice for articles to be edited due to space constraints. It was for this reason that elements in the original story, including reference to the far right in Eastern Europe, had to be condensed. The line that you are concerned about was added to retain this element in as brief a way as possible given space restrictions. It is absolutely true that Jewish observers are watching the rise of neo-Nazi movements in the context of the re-examination of the history of Eastern Europe in the 20th century. The writings of Ephraim Zuroff, whom Ian Traynor quotes in the original Guardian article, are an example of this. We do not believe, however, that noting the concerns of some Jewish observers undermines the efforts being made to recognise the horrors suffered by Polish people, or that it suggests that all those who wish to recognise the crimes of Stalin are neo-Nazis. Nevertheless, we understand your very personal and emotional connection to these issues and apologise if any offence was taken. Yours sincerely, Julie Lewis
Deputy Foreign
Editor
1 Darling Island
Road
Pyrmont NSW
2009
Australia
and Dear Frances, Thanks for your further comments on this issue, I understand your continuing close interest in how the story was edited. My apologies again for not replying sooner, however recent weeks have been particularly busy as you might have noticed. We did not have access to the photo you mention, so chose the relevant ones which were published. We appreciate your additional comments however we do not believe that the editing decisions altered the meaning of Mr Traynor's article. Nevertheless
I have discussed the issues you have
raised further with the Foreign Editor, Executive Editor and others. We
appreciate you bringing these concerns to our attention and we will bear them in
mind when making these kinds of decisions in the
future.
Yours sincerely, Julie Lewis
Deputy Foreign
Editor
1 Darling Island
Road
Pyrmont NSW
2009
Australia
My rationale for revisiting this episode is to remind everyone to remain vigilant for this type of journalism, whereby existing articles can be skewed to suit someone at the newspaper's desks, irrespective of the intentions of the journalist. Frances Sydney --- In Kresy-Siberia@..., Julian Plowy wrote: > > To All: > > We have given the world and all its historians 73 years to correct their > views about Poland and it great kind and gentle people. > > For all of these years we have taken pains not to offend anyone, any > country, media or any group of people and have asked politely that our > voices be heard and corrections be made but nothing has really changed. The > same old negatives remain. My question remains why is this so? > > This is not the first nor will it be the last time that we try and correct > the same "old mistakes" (notice I did not say lies) and we hear the same > pleas from many to refrain from direct confrontations and to use a language > that would never offend anyone. In following this soft path based on > appeasement rather confrontation (based on 73 years of past experience) it > has accomplished so little that it really means nothing. > > So shall we continue to be a doormat or take a positive stand and call out > these liars (can be removed for those who are offended) that have continued > to be totally anti Polish and tell the truth about these individuals, > countries and groups using every media element that we have now at our > disposal. > > Today we are not limited to a media that is controlled by anti Polish > sediment. The price to contact enormous groups of people is relative > inexpensive. We can and should speak our mind and use the truth to back up > our position and at the same time point out in full the short comings > (short comings is a mild form of what should be used) of the individuals, > countries, groups or media involved in perpetuating anti Polish sediments. > > There are some Polish Patriot Groups that have taken a position stand > already. I suggest that we should try and procure the entire e-mail list of > Great Britain. Become pro-active and send to them a complete analysis of > the BBC inaccuracies of the past and present and the pains that the Polish > nation and its people have endured but has tried to correct (nicely) only > to be rebuffed by the BBC with some crazy comments that they are never > responsible for anything that reflects negatively against them. > > The truth is they are not a responsible organization when they do not > correct their errors (lies) and try to blame everyone but themselves. No > one or any organization has called them out in other mass media public > arena on these and other erroneous facts that they continue to present as > their versions of their limited corrupted minds as truths. When they are > slightly pressed to make corrections they hide behind a fa?ade that even a > Polish educated 12 year knows to be phony. > > These are my thoughts on the subject and I am always interested in hearing > from those who wish to continue using kind and gentle words when writing to > the BBC, other anti-Polish groups, individuals or media. > > Julek > > USA > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Barbara Scrivens scrivs@... wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Dear Martin,**** > > > > ** ** > > > > Thank you for your critique of responses like mine to the BBC. I hope you > > did not think I was being impolite in my response to the BBC's set letter > > to complainers like me. I completely agree one will catch more flies with > > honey than vinegar, but I will remain, if you don't mind, my own person and > > if I wish to complain with polite assertiveness, and careful, measured > > thought, I will. I do not believe obsequious pleas for attention will get > > any attention at all. **** > > > > ** ** > > > > Kind regards - Barbara**** > > > > ** ** > > > > *From:* Kresy-Siberia@... [mailto: > > Kresy-Siberia@...] *On Behalf Of *martin stepek > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 24 April 2013 8:25 p.m. > > *To:* kresy > > *Subject:* [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Responding to inaccuracies: BBC, others > > **** > > > > ** ** > > > > **** > > > > I'm writing this in response to messages about the BBC's lack of response > > or poor response to the various messages they received; also John's message > > about the Holocaust and how some people perceive Central and Eastern > > European countries have been quick to say they were victims but not > > acknowledge involvement in the Holocaust.**** > > > > **** > > > > I believe we need as a group to approach these related matters but > > skilfully and strategically. Organisations like the BBC are of huge > > importance and potential assistance to our cause. Yes, the make mistakes, > > yes they can be evasive or just not see our point. This happens. I think we > > should combine unwavering politeness with consistent clear evidence to > > support our case and to show that others' views (as in the recent matter on > > Radio 4) are not supported by the evidence. If we get no reply we write > > again, perhaps to a higher manager, and so on, always remaining polite and > > clear, but adding within our polite manner that a response should have been > > expected.**** > > > > **** > > > > Needless to say calling the BBC "morons" does not quite fit this strategic > > approach :-)**** > > > > **** > > > > Similarly and even more sensitively with Jewish groups. Many are with us, > > many Jewish people had the same fate as our families in Siberia; and the > > Holocaust was undoubtedly one of humanity's most unbearable evils, if not > > its single worst act. We should not, in my view, seek to create a league > > table of suffering by nation or by historical events. We should rather, be > > supportive of and helpful towards Jewish and other groups who seek to > > ensure the world remembers their grievous loss. This is not only humane and > > compassionate but strategically the best approach.**** > > > > **** > > > > If we have to correct inaccuracies coming from individuals or groups > > within the Holocaust-related community we should, as with the BBC combine > > great politeness, sensitivity and empathy on the one hand, with clear > > neutrally-stated corrections on the other.**** > > > > **** > > > > None of this is easy, particularly when the issue relates to something so > > painful and personal as the fate of our families. But we are here for two > > reasons; to find out more about the facts of our families' fates and those > > who shared their experiences, and to help promote remembrance and > > awareness. We do this best by being skilful and strategic. This is best > > helped by building alliances - as Poland has done so well with Israel > > despite opposition from some within both countries -not alienating. Of > > course some people and organisations have extreme and prejudiced views - > > all causes have this problem - but it is probably not worth engaging with > > these.**** > > > > **** > > > > Warm regards**** > > > > Martin**** > > > > **** > > > > Sent from Windows Mail**** > > > > **** > > > > **** > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.932 / Virus Database: 2641.1.1/5759 - Release Date: 04/24/13 > > 05:53:00**** > > > > > > > |
|
John Halucha
What is "the" right way to challenge historical revisionism in popular media? Unwavering politeness with consistent clear evidence to support our case. Skillful and strategic approaches. Group and individual responses. Great politeness, sensitivity and empathy. Polite assertiveness. Careful, measured thought. Hoisting offenders with their own petard. Challenging unfounded assertions and myths. Condemning racism and bigotry. Scorn. Reductio ad absurdum. Humour. All of the above (though not necessarily in a single communication). Even derision and sarcasm can be effective if wielded with a deft hand. The worst approach to challenging historical revisionism is not challenging it at all. Again, kudos to all here who sent responses to the BBC's latest debacle. None of you need lessons from me or anyone else about what is the best way or the worst way to react - the point is that you reacted. Any frustration about this ongoing battle has my empathy. I have been challenging media misrepresentations since the 1980s,
privately and publicly, and have often felt near despair that the tide could ever be turned. Sometimes I was disheartened because there seemed to be so few other voices. But it is clear that there are many people demanding accuracy today, as we see with the BBC example on this forum. It is also my perception that the tide is starting to slow down if not yet recede. There is still much work to be done, but it seems to me that our message is heard and is having an effect. I concur that we should not?"seek to create a league table of suffering by nation or by historical events." Such tables have been promoted by some others for years, but we should seek an inclusive approach rather than promoting new and competing exclusivity. All people are human beings, all suffer
when they are tortured and all are equally dead when murdered by tyrants of whatever stripe.? That's why I often point out the broad dangers of revisionism and avoid asking for an apology specifically to the Polish community for misrepresentations. The offense is against history and humanity, not "just" Polish people. I also agree that, "We should rather be supportive of and helpful towards Jewish and other groups who seek to ensure the world remembers their grievous loss. This is not only humane and compassionate but strategically the best approach." Dividing people by ethnicity, race, religion, etc. was a Nazi method that deserves to be repudiated utterly. I don't understand how anyone hopes to fight discrimination by discriminating. There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination," only discrimination. Jewish writers and commentators have been magnificently successful in sensitizing the wider community to such issues and can teach us a lot. They are indeed our allies in common cause. I frequently quote prominent Jewish sources that have eloquently denounced expressions such as "Polish death camps." I also use the "substitution" method to quickly make others recognize defamatory remarks
or "jokes". When invited to read "Jewish" where "Polish" appears they usually see the bigotry instantly. Bottom line: let's not waste our precious energy telling others how they used the wrong method to fight media misrepresentations. Rather than being constructive, such criticism risks silencing these precious few at a time that the cause can use all the help it can get. Short of destructive approaches such as bigotry, name-calling and ad hominem attacks, doing something, anything, is always better than doing nothing. John Halucha Sault Ste Marie, Canada |
|
Sometimes it is important to know who you are dealing with. I suggest that we should review all of these and others in the future who we are trying to discuss issue of importance and see what is?underneath their thoughts and the?management?philosophy of the entire staff.
We all know that we make decisions based on our upbringing, education and life?experiences. If the?management?of any?organization has deep ingrained false beliefs, faulty?education or other??biased life?experiences we should knew that no matter what we say, what proof we produce nothing will change. In many cases that is no fault of a particular?individual?unless?they?realize?the error in their thinking but still refuse to change because of group pressure.
I have on many?occasions?submitted documents and links (on the Kresy-Siberia site) of such examples (the life?experiences?and education of people and groups) so I will not raise the issue again but feel it?important for each of us to make our own conclusions.
See link below to the BBC?management?staff current and some past members and where some of the past staff was "relocated". I do not wish to?influence?anyone one way or another but wish to supply general?information?for your individual review. If the BBC was/is a problem then the move of a past?member?of BBC might also have an effect on the person's new position in a new corporation of position in the same organization.
You can search for the bio of each member and get some idea of their?philosophy?and how they might react to a particular?issue or even if they will react at all.
Julek ? ? Executive Board The Executive Board manages the BBC. It is responsible for operational management and for the delivery of BBC services according to the plans that have been agreed with the BBC Trust. The Board delegates some of its responsibilities to?: Audit, Fair Trading, Nominations and Remuneration. It is also supported by a number of management groups, including the BBC Management Board, the Finance and Business committee, and boards at the Group level, such as Television and Radio. The boards of BBC Commercial Holdings and BBC Worldwide support the Executive Board on commercial matters. The BBC Trust assesses the performance of the Executive Board in the?, which is published in July each year. The Report also includes the Board's own review of the year. The Board is made up of executive directors from within the BBC and 4 non-executive directors from outside. It is chaired by the Director-General. The Director-General is chief executive and editor-in-chief of the BBC and is appointed by the BBC Trust. The other Board members are appointed by the Nominations Committee and Executive Board, with non-executive appointments requiring approval by the BBC Trust. The Executive Board meets once a month, and a summary of the minutes is published online once they have been approved at the following meeting. Changes to the BBC Executive Board were announced on Thursday 14 February 2013. The changes took effect on Tuesday 2 April 2013. Further information can be found on the?.? On Tuesday 16 April 2013 it was announced that James Harding had been appointed to the role of Director of News and Current Affairs. He will take up his post in August 2013, until which Francesca Unsworth will continue as Acting Director of News.? It was announced on Tuesday 23 April 2013 that Danny Cohen had been appointed Director of Television. He takes up his role on 7 May 2013.? ? Executive directors (April 2013)
Tony Hall is Director-General. He assumed the role of Director-General on 2 April 2013.
Helen is the Director of Radio and has overall responsibility for BBC Radios 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the BBC digital radio stations 1Xtra, 6Music, BBC 4 Extra and Asian Network.
* On Tuesday 23 April 2013 it was announced that Danny Cohen had been appointed to the role of Director, Television. Until Danny takes up his role on 7 May 2013, Roger Mosey will continue as Acting Director of Director, Television.
Francesca Unsworth leads BBC Newsgathering with responsibility for the deployment, coverage and safety of over 800 journalists and operational staff operating out of more than 40 countries. She is currently Acting Director of News.
* James Harding's appointment to Director of News and Current Affairs was announced on Tuesday 16 April, he will take up the role in August, 2013, until such time Francesca Unsworth will continue as Acting Director of News.
James Purnell is Director, Strategy & Digital. He took up his role on Wednesday 20 March, 2013.
Lucy is the Director of Human Resources, the BBC Academy and Internal Communications.
Zarin Patel has overall responsibility for the BBC's financial management and control. Non-executive directors¡¤??????? ¡¤??????? ¡¤??????? ¡¤??????? ? ¡¤???????December 19, 2012 03:39 p.m. The BBC's 2011 decision to not air an investigative report on a deceased BBC personality was "seriously flawed" but wasn't made "for any improper reason," or because of managerial pressure, a review concluded. ¡¤??????? November 16, 2012 04:06 p.m. Former BBC head Mark Thompson is coming under increasing fire over when he learned about sex-abuse allegations against the late BBC disc jockey Jimmy Savile. ¡¤??????? Subscriber ContentRead Preview November 12, 2012 05:27 p.m. Mark Thompson's debut at the helm of New York Times Co. Monday signals he has survived the doubts that have dogged him since the Jimmy Savile scandal erupted at the BBC. But big challenges await him at his new job. ¡¤???????November 16, 2012 09:34 a.m. Here¡¯s your morning roundup of the biggest media industry news and happenings. ¡¤???????August 17, 2012 10:13 a.m. New York Times new Chief Executive Mark Thompson will receive an annual base salary of $1 million and is eligible for sign-on incentive awards valued at $3 million in company stock and stock options. ¡¤??????? August 15, 2012 08:08 p.m. Mark Thompson, known for having a tough skin, steered the BBC through painful cutbacks and a digital transformation. Now, as CEO of the New York Times, he will have similar challenges, but fewer resources and more-limited power. ¡¤??????? August 14, 2012 07:14 p.m. Mark Thompson, outgoing director general of British Broadcasting Corp., will be the next president and chief executive of New York Times Co. ¡¤??????? March 19, 2012 01:45 p.m. Mark Thompson, the head of the BBC, said he will step down this fall. During his eight-year tenure he set in motion major plans to overhaul the network. ¡¤???????November 12, 2012 04:27 p.m. The BBC cannot catch a break lately. The BBC¡¯s director general
stepped down over the weekend over a botched ¡°Newsnight¡± report about an
alleged pedophile ¨C but not the one everyone has been talking about for the
last month.??? ?? On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:16 AM, John Halucha <john.halucha@...> wrote:
|