Ben
30th March 2005, 01:28 PM
I emailed the BBC's Watchdog programme after the recent story on Three UK. My main points were that the story did not convey the seriousness of some of the problems, and that there was a lot of useful information the programme failed to provide to viewers.
Unfortunately I don't have my original email as I submitted it via their website, but I daresay it was somewhat rambling. Still, I was pleased to get a response, and am posting it here to give you all some idea of why they addressed the issues in the way they did:
Dear Ben,
Watchdog features more than a hundred investigations in every series. More than 80 of these are filmed as very straightforward journalistic exposures of what went wrong with a product or service.
Every so often Watchdog punctuates this approach with a lighter treatment if the subject merits it. A lot of people complaining about an inanimate object like a mobile phone or computer, or furniture does not always provide a compelling reason to watch. Watchdog does not have to be unremittingly solemn over what sometimes amounts to just one of modern life's irritations.
The item you watched, was preceded by two very strong films, simply featuring personal recollection of disastrous events for the people involved. The programme opened with five minutes of direct testimony about a family car that exploded, nearly killing two teenage girls. Then there was an expose of a property scamster selling expensive, next to valueless 'courses,' then a film authored by a woman whose family had suffered appallingly at the hands of a greedy, unreliable builder.
It would have been an insult to the people in these other stories if we had taken the same approach with consumers complaining about mobiles that only work if you stand on the window-sill. So, twenty minutes into the programme, we lightened up. And we make no apologies for it.
Best wishes
(name removed)
As this is the second time Watchdog have covered Three UK's service in the last 18 months, perhaps there was no need for a more serious angle. However, I will let you draw your own conclusions as to whether the issue was handled appropriately.
Unfortunately I don't have my original email as I submitted it via their website, but I daresay it was somewhat rambling. Still, I was pleased to get a response, and am posting it here to give you all some idea of why they addressed the issues in the way they did:
Dear Ben,
Watchdog features more than a hundred investigations in every series. More than 80 of these are filmed as very straightforward journalistic exposures of what went wrong with a product or service.
Every so often Watchdog punctuates this approach with a lighter treatment if the subject merits it. A lot of people complaining about an inanimate object like a mobile phone or computer, or furniture does not always provide a compelling reason to watch. Watchdog does not have to be unremittingly solemn over what sometimes amounts to just one of modern life's irritations.
The item you watched, was preceded by two very strong films, simply featuring personal recollection of disastrous events for the people involved. The programme opened with five minutes of direct testimony about a family car that exploded, nearly killing two teenage girls. Then there was an expose of a property scamster selling expensive, next to valueless 'courses,' then a film authored by a woman whose family had suffered appallingly at the hands of a greedy, unreliable builder.
It would have been an insult to the people in these other stories if we had taken the same approach with consumers complaining about mobiles that only work if you stand on the window-sill. So, twenty minutes into the programme, we lightened up. And we make no apologies for it.
Best wishes
(name removed)
As this is the second time Watchdog have covered Three UK's service in the last 18 months, perhaps there was no need for a more serious angle. However, I will let you draw your own conclusions as to whether the issue was handled appropriately.