This is the text of an official complaint made to the BBC Complaints dept.
There are several instances of misleading information in this piece:
Misleading statement 1. "Iran says that it is entitled to enrich uranium".
As you actually point out further down in the article "Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection."
Consequently this should read 'Iran IS entitled to enrich uranium according to the NPT''. The word 'says' could imply a claim without substance.
Misleading statement 2. "However, Iran has not implemented a more intrusive Additional Protocol it signed in 2003, so the IAEA says it cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material."
You do not point out that
a) this Additional Protocol (AP) is a voluntary measure
b) although Iran signed the AP, it was never ratified by the Iranian Parliament
c) your statement "the IAEA says it cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material" is not accurate. The latest IAEA report states categorically that it is "able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran" while "unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclearprogramme" which is not the same as your statement. With regard to "the absence of undeclared nuclear material" this is referred to but in terms:of confidence-building meaures such as the AP:
"24. Once Iran’s past nuclear programme has been clarified, Iran would need to continue to buildconfidence about the scope and nature of its present and future nuclear programme. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally important, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, through the implementation of the Additional Protocol." IAEA Board Report, 30 August 2007
d) the AP was implemented without being ratified (as noted in the Tehran Agreed Statement of 21 October 2003) but later suspended as a result of what Iran called ""illegal and unlawful" US attempts to use the IAEA and the UN Security Council to effectively circumvent the NPT. Indeed the Iranian Parliament bill bound the government "to suspend its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) until Tehran succeeds in obtaining recognition of its right to complete the nuclear fuel cycle."
How can people be expected to understand the complexities if you leave out valuable information?
UPDATE 19 OTCOBER 2007 19.45 hrs:
I have not yet received a reply to the above complaint, but have just made another on the same subject:
Official complaint sent 15 mins ago:
I would like to complain about a statement in your online article "Iran's nuclear negotiator resigns".
In the unattributed article, the BBC states: "Iran says it has the right under the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear power."
As you actually point out in the online analysis: "Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue"
"Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection."
The word 'says' could imply a claim without substance, whereas according to the terms of the NPT what Iran "says" coincides exactly with what the NPT states:
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty."
Consequently this should read 'Iran IS entitled to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes according to the NPT''.