Conjunctions

I do not often complain to news organizations about their reporting, or politicians about their actions, mostly I expect it to be a waste of time, and the few times my impulsiveness did get the better of me I invariably regretted some of my language the moment I pressed the send button.  I have also never received more than an automated acknowledgement of receipt back, thereby of course reinforcing my notion of its uselessness.

I therefore blame the availability of an easy-to-complete customer complain web form for enticing me to complain to the BBC News about their reporting on the Honduran coup, specifically their report on the death of Micheletti’s nephew.  Here is what I felt compelled to moan about at the time:

COMMENTS: This article contains the following instances of misleading
reporting:
- the title: referring to Micheletti as 'leader' lends unwarranted legitimacy to his coup.
- Micheletti did not merely 'come to power'
- It is implied that Zelaya's actions were illegal. Not true - see http://www.counterpunch.com/toussaint10222009.html
- If 'they' say he was legally disposed, what do some other people say, and better still, what do the facts say?

As with your reporting on Venezuela and Israel, you are being biased.
Shame on you.

Yes, I regretted mentioning Israel the moment I pressed send.  It is an illness born from a lot of frustration.

But nevertheless, to my surprise this landed in my inbox a few hours later:

The situation in Honduras is complex and we have done numerous stories and background articles about it. This short news story condenses what happened. We have in other material written more extensively about what led to Mr Zelaya's removal from office, the actions taken to remove him and how Mr Micheletti was sworn into the presidency by Congress. As you indicated, the legality or not of all these actions is disputed.
We have reflected both what Mr Zelaya has said and what his opponents have said.
We do not believe our reporting is biased.

I have to admit this pleases me.  I mean really – some real flesh-and-blood person at the BBC offices took the time to type up a few sentences to boldly reassert their position and to deny any possible culpability on their part.  This is fine, this is what they should be doing: responding to me in person and defending themselves.  By pointing to their other reporting on Honduras, they are even forcing me into the defensive.  If I wish to continue arguing, my arguments would soon resemble nitpicking, arguing about the choice of specific words. 

By replying to me in person and not just sending me an automated response, the BBC actually made me content to have my complaint nipped in the bud.  Remarkable.