Having pondered their second response over the weekend I decided that I couldn’t leave my complaint as it stood.
So for anyone wondering what’s happened to date, the story so far is linked below:
- Initial complaint – BBC … get your act together
- BBC response – The BBC’s response … *sigh*
- Follow up complaint – Hmmmm BBC I’m not convinced
- BBC follow up response – The BBC’s second response, I’m not sure I’m done
I feel like I’ve made my point about Tom Lonsdale’s Raw Meaty Bones and they’ll either dismiss me as a hippy or read it and see there’s a story there if they’re brave enough!
What I cannot accept is ignoring the question I have asked again below and also drawing conclusions that they are now saying were outside the scope of what they were reporting on.
Here’s my third complaint in the chain, submitted today:
I do not feel that your response addressed the questions that I asked, however rather than chase in circles let me focus on the one that concerns me the most.
You once again state “the item concluded that ready-made dog food can contain pretty much all a dog requires” and yet you failed to explain how you “test significant views rigourously and fairly on behalf of the audience.” Therefore I am asking again are you able to support this statement by explaining how you tested (both rigorously and fairly) the view that pet food is “complete and all you need to feed your dog every day”.
I am also concerned that you go on to say that “It was outside the scope of the series to examine the nutritional requirements of humans or any other mammal (or animal) …” and yet the conclusion above is drawn. I suspect that most viewers (myself included), unless they are knowledgeable on a subject and therefore know what you are reporting omits important information, will assume that they can rely on what you tell them. To report conclusions on something that is outside the scope of examination does not appear to be responsible reporting to me.
(Copied to http://www.tinkerwolf.com)”