Latest, and most positive, from the BBC

[Justin]

Helen Bowden, Director BBC News, has just sent me this in response to my last - another step, perhaps a significant one:

[pap]

Well done, Justin.

You've done better getting a positive response from the BBC than I ever have, but my emails went exclusively to Paul Reynolds. Anyone else had an experience with him?

Seriously, I think this is an excellent format for any correspondence. I have always thought that simply listing credible people who question the official account is a sound plan. We're basically telling people stuff that can be incredible to some ears, so this is a real plus.

Let us know how you get on.

[Sinclair]

I buzzed of the POSITIVE flag in your message Justin & we need to keep this momentum going.

For your BBC event it'll be a good idea to try & muster the ideas of different disparaging voices critical of the 'Official Story' .

The dissemination of info must have increased with the amount of DVD's distibuted over the past week. We have to build on this.

For a media event to work, it has to be 'media savvy, i.e we could do wth (need) a UK Charlie Sheen event that would propel the quest for 911 Truth more into the UK collective conciousness.


Does anyone have any novel ideas how we can drive things forward? In particular ideas that Justin can put forward in order to make this BBC opportunity WORK!

Some people with a public persona must now be aware of the rising awareness of the 911 Blag Story.


Do you know of/can we enlist any?

[ian neal]

Great stuff Justin, we have a bit of dialogue going at least. I'm only catching up with all the background correspondence that has led to this latest email.

I recommend people read up on past correspondence
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1220&highlight=bbc

Our response should be public (ie posted here for the public record), addressed to Emily Buchanan and copied to Helen Bowden.

The previous correspondence has been with you Justin so ultimately the response should come from you, unless we agree to work on a more collective response.

But prior to responding it would good to see what others feel should be the core messages or questions for the BBC (both in terms of their understanding of the evidence and their coverage of the 9/11 truth movement).

My first response would be to clarify a few things from Helen's email.

When Helen says "looking into this issue." What is the issue: the story of Charlie Sheen's support for a further inquiry, the BBC's coverage of 9/11 or basic research into the evidence and the story of the wider 9/11 truth movement?

When Helen says "Emily Buchanan, is one of those ..." We should request who else in the BBC is researching 9/11 and on what specific issues? Both within the News Dept and other Depts. Is this background research or leading to a possible news feature or programme? What plans do they have

When considering what new evidence we may have that Emily and other BBC reporters/researchers may not be aware of, we first need to establish what evidence they are familiar with. What 9/11 books have they read? David Ray Griffin's 2 book? Ian Henshall's 9/11 revealed? Are they familiar with Steven Jones paper? Surely they have seen Loose Change and alternative 9/11 DVDs? Are they familiar with the 9/11 truth movement, its history and who the key actors are? What is their understanding and analysis of this evidence and the 9/11 truth movement? What plans are there to recognise the 5th anniversary of 9/11 in BBC programming?

This is a lot to ask but is necessary before considering how to respond. And obviously this is more quickly done face to face or on the phone. Although email is nice because it gives us a public record that is open to debate and scrutiny.

So I agree that a face to face meeting would be ideal and more productive than occasional email exchange and that David (along with yourself Justin) would be a good candidate to open discussions if they are willing. In terms of who would be the best UK candidate to present the case for a further inquiry, we should consider Michael Meacher MP.

I know for some Michael Meacher is an unlikely candidate in that he is very measured and cautious, (I can anticipate cries of gatekeeping from some) but as much as anything this is about getting BBC news to cover the 9/11 truth movement. As far as I'm aware Michael Meacher has never appeared on the BBC to discuss his views on 9/11 and I only recall Channel 4 news in terms of a short interview and that was years ago. (Any publicity is good publicity in this regard) Second objective is to ensure this coverage is accurate, fair and balanced. Thirdly we want to avoid giving the BBC any excuse as to portray the 9/11 truth movement (both in this country and internationally) as in a way a fringe, crank movement lacking in either hard evidence or siginificant credible support (because we are not)

On the back of any opening coverage we get, we want to provoke follow up debate and awareness. We want to give the 9/11 truth movement story the legs and profile it deserves. That is when there is the opportunity for a wider range of opinion and evidence (than someone like Michael Meacher would be likely to present) to come forward.

Our basic demands/asks should be simple and effective: US authorities should release the evidence and answer the questions that would prove or disprove many of the central tenets of the 9/11 truth movement, a truly independent inquiry and proper public scrutiny of the evidence and fair media coverage.

Any way my initial thoughts. I'm going to go away and think on this. It's a good opportunity.

Well done again Justin

Best wishes

Ian

[Justin]

Here's a bit about Emily for your interest:

Emily Buchanan
World Affairs Correspondent

Emily Buchanan is a World Affairs Correspondent for BBC World and BBC FOUR’s international affairs programme, as well as the presenter of Head to Head, BBC News 24’s debate programme.

She started at the BBC 20 years ago as a radio producer in political programmes including A Week in Westminster and The World Tonight, before moving to television to become a reporter for the political weekly On The Record and Newsnight.

She then joined BBC TWO’s Assignment programme, where her reports included Let Her Die, a film about female infanticide in India, which was awarded the Golden Nymph at the 1994 Monte Carlo Television Festival. She also received two award nominations from Amnesty International for her documentary The Disposables about the killing of the under-class in Colombia, and the One World Broadcasting Trust for a film about the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, a special bank which lends mainly to women.

In 1995 she became the BBC’s Developing World Correspondent, travelling extensively around South America, Africa and Asia, highlighting issues of international debt, disease and poverty. She later became the BBC’s Religious Affairs Correspondent, covering a wide range of stories including the 1998 Lambeth Conference, the death of Cardinal Hume and the paedophile scandals that hit the Catholic Church.

In 2001 she won the Radio Documentary Award at the One World Broadcasting Trust for Seeds of Hate, a BBC Radio 4 programme about the impact of war-time rape on Muslim women in Bosnia. It was also short listed for the Amnesty International Awards.

Until recently she presented the BBC Radio 4 series about global radio stations, A World in Your Ear, as well as Reporter’s Notes which focused on foreign correspondents’ lives and the music that accompanied them on their travels.

Emily and her husband Gerald have adopted two girls from China.

[Andrew Johnson]

I think most people should have seen the response I sent, but here it is, nevertheless (I personally am NOT releasing ANY pressure yet):

(I am currently in Italy, so have limited Net Access)
===

Dear Helen,

Thanks again for contacting me/us and taking the time to listen to us etc. We appreciate your position and the attention you have focused on our concerns.

May I just briefly re-iterate that coverage of the issues is most definitely and urgently required. I don't see how there can be a question of "merit" involved. The formation of the Scholar's Group and the way it challenges the official account of 9/11 (through its initial Press Releases etc) in the most fundamental way is, because of the clear evidence involved, of profound importance.

This is why I am continuing to explore the legal aspects of the BBC's adherence to its charter, which I spoke of previously.

Thanks for reading this message,

Yours Sincerely

Andrew Johnson