Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 25, 2011 16:32:45 GMT
There are numerous sites like ourselves on the web that show a clear bias by the way the BBC reports (or doesn't report) stories on a variety of topics that show a clear agenda. Occasionally a BBC journalist comes on to one of these sites and attempts to justify what the BBC has done and is inevitably shown up.
If the BBC were truly ethical, and interested in sorting out these continual violations of its charter, it would address these issues and we would see a change. The proof is there that they continue to seriously misuse their power in defiance of 'the trust' that is given them. This in my book makes them sleazier and more disgusting than the run of the mill criminal who doesn't pretend to be otherwise. They are con artists that in the pursuit of their 'gains' are completely uncaring as to the damage they do to the society.
Which is why, when the Director General Mark Thompson has to answer criticism of BBC output. one of the mantras constantly spouted is that people “trust [the BBC] more than other sources of news”, and adopts a stance of 'integrity'. Something he is totally devoid of. This in real terms means that many people are taken in by the BBC.
Here's how Janet Daley at the Telegraph sees the BBC trying to prevent any loss of monopoly or power to themselves in the same way they managed to put a halt to Murdoch's aspirations.
If the BBC were truly ethical, and interested in sorting out these continual violations of its charter, it would address these issues and we would see a change. The proof is there that they continue to seriously misuse their power in defiance of 'the trust' that is given them. This in my book makes them sleazier and more disgusting than the run of the mill criminal who doesn't pretend to be otherwise. They are con artists that in the pursuit of their 'gains' are completely uncaring as to the damage they do to the society.
Which is why, when the Director General Mark Thompson has to answer criticism of BBC output. one of the mantras constantly spouted is that people “trust [the BBC] more than other sources of news”, and adopts a stance of 'integrity'. Something he is totally devoid of. This in real terms means that many people are taken in by the BBC.
Here's how Janet Daley at the Telegraph sees the BBC trying to prevent any loss of monopoly or power to themselves in the same way they managed to put a halt to Murdoch's aspirations.
The BBC goes on the offensive – and misses the point
By Janet Daley Politics Last updated: August 25th, 2011
With that remarkable tone deafness which he has shown throughout his tenure as BBC Director General, Mark Thompson has gone on the offensive against critics of the Corporation’s dominance.
This latest effusion is, in fact, a blatant gloat over the expected downfall of his arch enemies at BskyB, in particular James Murdoch who once dared to question the principle of state subsidised broadcasting.
Now that Mr Murdoch and his crew have been publicly called to account, Mr Thompson can openly mock the the younger Murdoch’s assertion in 2009 that “the only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of [broadcasting] independence is profit.” The Director General triumphantly crows that he would amend only one word in that sentence: “The only reliable, durable and perpetual etc… is not profit.” It is, he pronounces gravely, “integrity”. Which, by implication, is the province of the BBC because it is untainted by commercial concerns.
Well, who could argue with the idea that integrity was essential to genuine independence in broadcasting? The difficulty lies in defining integrity – and deciding what “independence” actually means in journalistic terms. The BBC seems to regard independence as the freedom to propagate its own values and received opinions in the face of however much public annoyance (or even rage) that evokes.
Because it is free from the pressures of advertisers or even popular opinion - relying as it does on a huge subsidy whose collection is enforced by legal penalties – it can decide for itself what counts as integrity. And that is the point that Mr Murdoch was making: one with which many exasperated licence-fee payers would still agree however much the Murdoch family may fall into disrepute.
Not stopping with the Murdochs, Mr Thompson also criticises David Cameron for suggesting that the public inquiry into phone hacking and media standards should examine the role of the BBC as well as that of tabloid newspapers.
As the Prime Minister put it, “Above all, we need to ensure that no one voice, not News Corporation, not the BBC, becomes too powerful.” The income of the BBC, he said, “was so outstripping that of independent TV that there was a danger of BBC News becoming rather dominant.”
And he might have added that the income of the BBC was guaranteed by its charter: that it was effectively protected from economic vulnerabilities which means that its self-referring, insular attitudes and views may prevail indefinitely without consequences.
Mr Thompson reiterates the endlessly quoted finding that people “trust [the BBC] more than other sources of news”.
Maybe they do – or maybe that is just what they tell the opinion polsters because they think it is what they are expected to say. The question is whether they should – whether the BBC’s official stance of neutrality is to be taken at face value. Exulting in the embarrassment of the Murdoch empire is scarcely a way to encourage confidence in the Corporation’s independence.
By Janet Daley Politics Last updated: August 25th, 2011
With that remarkable tone deafness which he has shown throughout his tenure as BBC Director General, Mark Thompson has gone on the offensive against critics of the Corporation’s dominance.
This latest effusion is, in fact, a blatant gloat over the expected downfall of his arch enemies at BskyB, in particular James Murdoch who once dared to question the principle of state subsidised broadcasting.
Now that Mr Murdoch and his crew have been publicly called to account, Mr Thompson can openly mock the the younger Murdoch’s assertion in 2009 that “the only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of [broadcasting] independence is profit.” The Director General triumphantly crows that he would amend only one word in that sentence: “The only reliable, durable and perpetual etc… is not profit.” It is, he pronounces gravely, “integrity”. Which, by implication, is the province of the BBC because it is untainted by commercial concerns.
Well, who could argue with the idea that integrity was essential to genuine independence in broadcasting? The difficulty lies in defining integrity – and deciding what “independence” actually means in journalistic terms. The BBC seems to regard independence as the freedom to propagate its own values and received opinions in the face of however much public annoyance (or even rage) that evokes.
Because it is free from the pressures of advertisers or even popular opinion - relying as it does on a huge subsidy whose collection is enforced by legal penalties – it can decide for itself what counts as integrity. And that is the point that Mr Murdoch was making: one with which many exasperated licence-fee payers would still agree however much the Murdoch family may fall into disrepute.
Not stopping with the Murdochs, Mr Thompson also criticises David Cameron for suggesting that the public inquiry into phone hacking and media standards should examine the role of the BBC as well as that of tabloid newspapers.
As the Prime Minister put it, “Above all, we need to ensure that no one voice, not News Corporation, not the BBC, becomes too powerful.” The income of the BBC, he said, “was so outstripping that of independent TV that there was a danger of BBC News becoming rather dominant.”
And he might have added that the income of the BBC was guaranteed by its charter: that it was effectively protected from economic vulnerabilities which means that its self-referring, insular attitudes and views may prevail indefinitely without consequences.
Mr Thompson reiterates the endlessly quoted finding that people “trust [the BBC] more than other sources of news”.
Maybe they do – or maybe that is just what they tell the opinion polsters because they think it is what they are expected to say. The question is whether they should – whether the BBC’s official stance of neutrality is to be taken at face value. Exulting in the embarrassment of the Murdoch empire is scarcely a way to encourage confidence in the Corporation’s independence.