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