The BBC's Charter and its Producers Guidelines state:
...'Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth? [BBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world??
In the Radio4 "pm" programme on 21.v.2015 Robert Jenwick asserted (unchallenged, of course) that the Assad regime had committed worse atrocities than the self-styled Islamic State, and hence should not be helped by Western nations to resist the invaders.
I don't really have enough information to assess the comparative brutality of these two parties, but I do know that the reported (and self-advertised) atrocities by IS are enough for me to support action against them.
Frankly I don't know what one would have to do to commit worse atrocities than IS. I do know that Assad is no saint and is probably doing what he feels he must to hang on to his regime, whatever it takes. I also know that Christians were relatively safe in his regime prior to the 'Arab Spring'.
The government and the Queen had no problem inviting Assad for a get together when his agenda against Israel was quite evident, as well as his tie to Saddam. Now they're all more interested in appeasing Islamists. I don't trust any of them but he's the lesser of two evils.
Post by thehighlandrebel on May 23, 2015 1:20:23 GMT
Assad would seem to be the lesser of two evils. At least he gives support to the Kurds who are the only ones capable of defeating IS at the moment. The Kurds have also saved the lives of tens of thousands of Christians and other minorities and that of course will make them guilty of 'crimes against humanity' in the eyes of the BBC and the UN. If the minority groups could be given a safe haven I personally wouldn't mind seeing the Sunni and Shia fighting each other to extinction.
At present, the BBC is only answerable to itself in deciding its standards and coverage. How does it measure up to what you consider good quality, and impartial and unbiased reporting as required by its charter? All TV viewers in the UK are forced by law to pay for this 'service'. Do you believe that what is received truly 'serves' the society, - or merely increases the problems within it?
Your perceptions of BBC output are important and welcome. Register and activate your account to be able to post