No - wait.... - it is just the BBC.
Or - no.... actually it is the BBC management. (Am I right??)
Read this BBC "news" story. And Hurrah for Tony Ben!
I am so angry at the BBC I find myself resorting to that great british form of anger - sarcasm. (This for non British readers who happily do not suffer from this rather unattactive trait.)
I am shocked that once again the management of the BBC are going to stifle "charity" in the name of "objectivity". It is quite clear to me that BBC management understand the true meaning of neither of these words. (There I go again - sarcasm....)
This reminds me of the ridiculous coverage of Live8 - where in the name of balance they covered all of the music (where musicians had signed up to play in order to make a point) but cut the very sections (the videos between acts) that explained why. Again - in the name of "balance".
Now I have written and read broadcast news, I have even taught it. - So I am not totally ignorant about these things. (Just a bit)
The thing is this is not an issue of balance being made by professionals in the field - ie journalists and news editors - no this seems to be being made by managers!
BBC MANAGEMENT: "I'm so sorry that you appear to be dying, and I could help you with very little effort, but it is my principles you see"
My heart bleeds - or something does.
I'm off to write an email.
1 comment:
This is only the latest example of the bbc caving in to the right over "neutrality".
There is a substantial body of right-wing opinion, esp people with a lot of internet presence who believe the BBC is institutionally left-wing (and even pro-Labour). Anyone with half a brain can see that it isn't. It may not reflect the institutional prejudices of the rest of the media but a reasonably neutral news source shouldn't agree with the Sun, Mail, Express, NOTW, etc. But the BBC gets sensitive about such attacks and ends up appointing Tories to run its political news in order to show "balance". Hence Nick Robinson and Andrew Neil - active Tory members.
This latest case is of course much the worst example of this tendendy as it's a life and death issue. However, I do wonder if some people are playing a clever game as the appeal has got far more news coverage than it otherwise would do, and has appeared for a while as the top story on the BBC website.
I also get ticked off at the BBC's view of what "impartiality" is when they do a panel interview with someone from a pro-migrant organisation, they feel they have to have an out-and-out racist on as well, even if they have fascist or eugenicist links. I've contacted them about this and they say it's for "balance". It's a very weird kind of balance that says if you have a non-racist on you have to have a racist too.
Post a Comment