Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 4, 2010 16:47:22 GMT
I can state from the outset that I haven't watched the particular exposé Panorama episode about supposed corruption among FIFA officials in determining who will host the World Cup. Nor do I care about the outcome, I actually have an aversion to football, at least the way the 'sport' is conducted. Sport should SupPort the society, and I can't see much value to the way professional football is doing this in its present form.
That having been said I have seen the various media have run numerous articles daily recently on whether this particular Panorama programme should be aired just prior to FIFA deciding who they will elect to run the 2018 and 2022 World Cup. Then, following England being rejected, various opinions on whether Panorama affected the decision.
My opinion is based on purely one observation, - the BBC doesn't do anything they think will damage them personally. So they had no personal interest in the outcome of FIFA's decision, it didn't matter to them whether the World Cup would be held here or in Timbuktu. In fact, one can argue, the further away it would be the better for them, as the public would be dependent on their coverage.
I recall during the Pope's recent state visit that the BBC ran two documentaries about the issues of paedophilia within the Catholic Church. We have documented enough material already to show the anti-Church bias of the BBC, so it was clear this negative coverage was designed to affect the public perception during the Pope's visit.
This kind of timing does permit them to demonstrate that they are independent of other interest groups no matter how high, so they show their power, and I can well imagine they are secretly delighted that their programme might have changed the FIFA outcome. They can also flaunt how they are fearless champions of the freedom of the media.
I just wish they'd do it when the issue could be seen to go against their own recognised interests, instead of the usual cover-up we get at these times. This instance just shows how they are mean bullies, and highlights the lack of concern for the many licence fee payers who are the football supporters that wanted the World Cup here.
That having been said I have seen the various media have run numerous articles daily recently on whether this particular Panorama programme should be aired just prior to FIFA deciding who they will elect to run the 2018 and 2022 World Cup. Then, following England being rejected, various opinions on whether Panorama affected the decision.
My opinion is based on purely one observation, - the BBC doesn't do anything they think will damage them personally. So they had no personal interest in the outcome of FIFA's decision, it didn't matter to them whether the World Cup would be held here or in Timbuktu. In fact, one can argue, the further away it would be the better for them, as the public would be dependent on their coverage.
I recall during the Pope's recent state visit that the BBC ran two documentaries about the issues of paedophilia within the Catholic Church. We have documented enough material already to show the anti-Church bias of the BBC, so it was clear this negative coverage was designed to affect the public perception during the Pope's visit.
This kind of timing does permit them to demonstrate that they are independent of other interest groups no matter how high, so they show their power, and I can well imagine they are secretly delighted that their programme might have changed the FIFA outcome. They can also flaunt how they are fearless champions of the freedom of the media.
I just wish they'd do it when the issue could be seen to go against their own recognised interests, instead of the usual cover-up we get at these times. This instance just shows how they are mean bullies, and highlights the lack of concern for the many licence fee payers who are the football supporters that wanted the World Cup here.