Dear BBC,

Regrettably, I do not feel that any of the BBC reports (or indeed, some of the local ones) reflect the simple but honest clarity of the description of the incident as given in the statement (below) from the FMA.

The BBC report "Philippines siege: Dozens charged" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7124819.stm) says "The charges are in relation to last week's siege, in which 14 soldiers walked out of a trial for a previous mutiny and seized the Peninsula Hotel" and concludes with "The Peninsula Hotel has now formally re-opened, after repairs said to cost more than $100,000. It estimates it lost $1.2m through the alleged coup attempt".

Earlier reports apparently unjustly claimed that the soldiers had "broken out" instead of simply "walking" out of the courtroom as is now stated.

While listening live to several local radio reports -there appeared no indication or suggestion that the soldiers "siezed" the hotel as stated in the BBC report. The local reports suggested only that they were "present" in the hotel (as indeed was at least one of your reporters apparently). The "siege" (and the damage) seems to be the result of government action -and not the soldiers who stand accused of "rebellion". This is not made very clear in most reports. Apparently the BBC had a witness -so what is missing from the local reports that justifies the use of the claim that the hotel was "seized"? What did we miss (in local live reports) that suggests that there was a "coup attempt" and not simply (as stated by FMA) a reafirmation of their (previously stated) withdrawal of support for the government?

Previous BBC reports of the incident either seem to support governemnt claims of a dangerous coup attempt "Manila coup bid ends in surrender" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7118456.stm), "Arroyo vow after Manila coup bid" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7119123.stm) or to trivialise and ridicule the event "Watching the Manila siege unfold" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7118778.stm), "Idealism that drives Philippine plotters" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7118536.stm), "Philippine press weary at coup attempt" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7120591.stm).

None of these reports seem to offer any evidence that would contradict the simple description of the event as stated by FMA. In this account there is no mention of "siezure" of the hotel and no mention of a spurious "coup attempt" and so seriously differs from the BBC reports in tone and substance. Why then is the BBC reporting so emotionally and factually biased? Clearly BBC reporting does have global political and emotional implications: By implicitly supporting governemnt claims and adding to the demoralised state of many in the Philppines it can, and presumably does, affect local politics and the way they are viewed by foreign investers. However, in none of the BBC reports mentioned above does there seem to be any evidence which suggests that the FMA report is not accurate. Nor is there any serious attempt by the BBC to analyse or understand the local problems in such a profound and simple way as the FMA description does.

with regard to the apparent continued bias in BBC reporting it becomes difficult not to believe that the BBC is partisan -and therefore complicit in the situation that lead up to the incident being discussed here. Concidering the apparent intractability of the political situation and the poverty it perpetuates, perhaps even encourages and possibly even exploits in conjunction with the international community -accusations of complicity are nothing to be proud of. Real human suffering by real human beings is being perpetuated partly by the result of unrealistic reporting by foreigners who live and work under extremenly different situations far away. Reporters who live in reletively well paid conditions, in contrast to many whose lives may be affected by their reporting. Unfortunately, in many cases, it may even be these "international" outsiders who (complete with cultural bias) subsequently set standards for national use.

I only wish I knew a way to make you concider more carefully the practical consequences of your reporting.

Yours sincerely,
Trevor batten
www.tebatt.net
December 4, 2007

Without commenting on, or pre-judging in any way, the actions of any of those involved in the incident referred to above -I would like to compliment the author of the above statement for what seems to me to be the most accurate and succinct description of the event I have yet received.

Indeed, for me, the most worrying aspect of all such incidents is the way they are reported and discussed by intellectuals and the media -generally seeming to prefer sensationalism and propaganda to simple reporting or discussion of what actually happened.

Presumably, nothing can ever be corrected unless there is a reasonable understanding of the situation that needs to be corrected and the ways in which it should be changed -all of which requires accurate information on which to base such an analysis. In a democracy, it is surely the social duty of all concerned to make sure the debate is as honest and open as possible, if the social debate is to transcend partisan power politics and have any social problem solving capability at all.

Of course I am fully aware that any call for "honesty" appears to rely on a belief in "facts" which can be generally agreed to be disputable, both in specific cases and as a general principle.

However, I understand that modern physics decades ago developed conceptual tools to deal with such problems: As I understand it, the "Shroedinger Wave" is a conceptual space representing all the possible results of an experiment -which "collapses" into a specific event at the moment the results are known. Presumably, the parameters of the "wave" are dependent on the description given to the phenomena referred to -so alternative "waves" are probably possible. The behaviour of each of these alternative can be compared both with each other and with the experimental results. This suggests that even without the belief in a single "objective reality" it is possible to examine and understand complex and obscure systems -provided that those involved pursue their craft honestly and openly.

However, outside the obviously (and unfortunately) esoteric disciplines of experimental and theoretical physics -it seems the opposite movement has been taking place in society: After decades of work by individuals and institutions promoting political-social discussions and art-science interactions it appears that these attempts have generally tended to focus on spreading various bits of fashionable or partisan dogma, self-promotional activities and the marketing of (commercialized) "lifestyle" -rather than any useful clarification of the debate regarding either the nature of science, art, culture or society.

Likewise the media: We are told by the apologists that we are living in the "Information Age". Governments even use taxpayers money to build "information super-highways" supposedly to enable the flood of "information" to flow freely. Around the world, locally owned news and entertainment media are often sold to giant international companies in order to "improve" (commercial) information flow. Additionally, Wiki's, Blogs and other commercial information and networking systems such as YouTube and Facebook abound -and are increasingly used by the traditional mainstream information and news media to supplement, or perhaps even replace, their normal practice. All these apparently increase the ease with which "information" can be connected, collated, processed and used -but for what practical purpose -and to which end?

Amongst the plethora of "information" and the cacophony of clamouring voices -where can one read (with such clarity as shown in FMA's statement) the basic "facts" (or parameters) of the various local and international events that are bound up with our lives in various ways? Where are the fora, where the analysis of the situation and the search for remedies can take place, in simple honest and open terms? Where indeed, are the places where the various levels of the complex problems facing us can be clarified and related to each other in public -without self-promoting obfuscations and propaganda based chit-chat? In my experience, the unfortunate answer is that such accurate and intelligent information systems and fora seem almost impossible to find.

So long as this hypocritical and misleading situation continues -then I personally feel that the intellectuals are as guilty as anybody else. If the result is that the wrong people are being arrested and charged for the wrong reasons -then surely it is the duty of intellectuals and media workers everywhere to mend their ways and do their sincere best to provide accurate information and intelligent, relevant, debate aimed more at problem solving than career advancement. Until this happens, then we have no right to blame others if things go wrong.

Trevor Batten
http://www.tebatt.net/