Post by Teddy Bear on Apr 6, 2010 19:12:46 GMT
Janet Daley at The Telegraph has written a very insightful article concerning the fact that the BBC Director general has felt it necessary to make a statement to confirm that the BBC will be impartial during the upcoming elections.
Considering that according to its charter it's supposed to be impartial at all times, why does he feel the need to make clear that they will be? What would you think if the chief of Police was to make a statement that from now on the police would make every effort to maintain law and order? Wouldn't you wonder what they had been doing instead until now?
The fact that the head of BBC feels it necessary to make clear what should already be clear shows just how far up his own arse he is. If he wasn't so corrupt he would see what a monstrous and devious joke he really is along with the rest of his cohorts.
Considering that according to its charter it's supposed to be impartial at all times, why does he feel the need to make clear that they will be? What would you think if the chief of Police was to make a statement that from now on the police would make every effort to maintain law and order? Wouldn't you wonder what they had been doing instead until now?
The fact that the head of BBC feels it necessary to make clear what should already be clear shows just how far up his own arse he is. If he wasn't so corrupt he would see what a monstrous and devious joke he really is along with the rest of his cohorts.
BBC feels obliged to say that it will be impartial during election campaign
The Director General of the BBC Mark Thompson has made what I believe to be an unprecedented statement prior to a general election campaign: he has apparently thought it necessary to give a public undertaking that the Corporation’s coverage will be impartial and even-handed. I wonder why.
Even if you don’t normally bother to access links, I suggest that you go to the one above and read Mr Thompson’s blog which needs to be consumed word-for-word if the full impact of its defensive (and, at the same time, oddly aggressive) tone is to be appreciated. Mr Thompson begins on a peculiarly patronising note: “The public looks to the BBC’s expertise to help them navigate and make clear some of the political complexities they face.” But this complacent hint of old-fashioned paternalism is then transformed into a quite nasty insinuation that the BBC’s competitors are corrupted by their lack of independence: “It is vital that the BBC is able to provide a strong and independent space where the big debates can take place, free from political or commercial influence.”
What does this mean? That ITN is less than impartial because it is relies on commercial sponsorship, that Sky News cannot be neutral because it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, that Channel 4 has its own political agenda which makes its news coverage politically biased? In fact, ITN news rarely reveals any political prejudice, Sky News has generally been more noticeably favourable to Labour than the BBC in contradistinction to the Murdoch newspapers, and despite the well-known predilections of some of its presenters, Channel 4’s political coverage is remarkably fair-minded.
But is Mr Thompson out of touch with the real danger of the BBC’s pose of absolute impartiality when so many of its own “experts” are not impartial? When, for example, a supposedly neutral BBC economics “expert” presents, as if it were a statement of fact, Labour’s claim that the Conservatives’ refusal to implement the rise in National Insurance contributions would be “taking money out of the economy”, it is more influential precisely because it is thought to be neutral reporting.
The really alarming aspect of this is that the management of the BBC is so immersed in the Corporation’s internal culture that it is unfit to judge what counts as impartiality, or how skewed its own “expert” opinions often are. It seems even to assume that the licence fee gives it freedom from “political pressure”, when it does quite the opposite. The funding of the BBC is directly in the gift of whichever political party is in power. What kind of “independence” is that?
The Director General of the BBC Mark Thompson has made what I believe to be an unprecedented statement prior to a general election campaign: he has apparently thought it necessary to give a public undertaking that the Corporation’s coverage will be impartial and even-handed. I wonder why.
Even if you don’t normally bother to access links, I suggest that you go to the one above and read Mr Thompson’s blog which needs to be consumed word-for-word if the full impact of its defensive (and, at the same time, oddly aggressive) tone is to be appreciated. Mr Thompson begins on a peculiarly patronising note: “The public looks to the BBC’s expertise to help them navigate and make clear some of the political complexities they face.” But this complacent hint of old-fashioned paternalism is then transformed into a quite nasty insinuation that the BBC’s competitors are corrupted by their lack of independence: “It is vital that the BBC is able to provide a strong and independent space where the big debates can take place, free from political or commercial influence.”
What does this mean? That ITN is less than impartial because it is relies on commercial sponsorship, that Sky News cannot be neutral because it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, that Channel 4 has its own political agenda which makes its news coverage politically biased? In fact, ITN news rarely reveals any political prejudice, Sky News has generally been more noticeably favourable to Labour than the BBC in contradistinction to the Murdoch newspapers, and despite the well-known predilections of some of its presenters, Channel 4’s political coverage is remarkably fair-minded.
But is Mr Thompson out of touch with the real danger of the BBC’s pose of absolute impartiality when so many of its own “experts” are not impartial? When, for example, a supposedly neutral BBC economics “expert” presents, as if it were a statement of fact, Labour’s claim that the Conservatives’ refusal to implement the rise in National Insurance contributions would be “taking money out of the economy”, it is more influential precisely because it is thought to be neutral reporting.
The really alarming aspect of this is that the management of the BBC is so immersed in the Corporation’s internal culture that it is unfit to judge what counts as impartiality, or how skewed its own “expert” opinions often are. It seems even to assume that the licence fee gives it freedom from “political pressure”, when it does quite the opposite. The funding of the BBC is directly in the gift of whichever political party is in power. What kind of “independence” is that?