Post by Teddy Bear on May 7, 2007 20:50:51 GMT
A typical BBC ploy, in their mealy mouthed way, is to make reference to criticisms of themselves from left wing groups. This makes it appear that they are 'balanced'.
This is from the BBC Editors Blog, and when I read the comment I thought that 'Medialens' must be a right wing group until I looked at their material. This is a group that lauds Noam Chomsky, and not surprisingly therefore thinks the BBC is right wing.
What did you do in the war?
This is from the BBC Editors Blog, and when I read the comment I thought that 'Medialens' must be a right wing group until I looked at their material. This is a group that lauds Noam Chomsky, and not surprisingly therefore thinks the BBC is right wing.
What did you do in the war?
Peter Barron 4 May 07, 12:01 PM
Newsnight is under attack again from Medialens, the online group whose self-appointed task is to "correct the distorted vision of the corporate media".
They take issue with an interview Gavin Esler did recently with the US Under Secretary of State Nick Burns on Iran and Iraq. I don't think it was the greatest interview we ever did, and nor does Gavin, but does that make us, as some Medialens adherents have claimed, complicit in war crimes or agents in preparing for war with Iran?
Unlike some in the media who studiously ignore them, I've always thought Medialens make a noteworthy contribution. Along with other lobbyists and pressure groups they invite us to question what we do and when they make a valid point we should reflect it. But how many people do they actually represent?
We had a different complaint this week about our coverage of the Iraq war from Michael Gove, the Conservative front bencher. He said: "It is still the case that around one third of the British population believes, despite all the errors and horrors, that the decision to remove Saddam was right. But where, and how often, is that perspective presented on the BBC?" Should we listen more to that view than Medialens's? Gove at least represents Britain's currently most popular political party.
Where I do agree with Medialens though is that we shouldn't try to please everyone by adopting a safely uncontroversial stance somewhere in the middle. Our job is to ask uncomfortable questions reflecting views from right, left and centre and not just from those who shout the loudest.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight
Newsnight is under attack again from Medialens, the online group whose self-appointed task is to "correct the distorted vision of the corporate media".
They take issue with an interview Gavin Esler did recently with the US Under Secretary of State Nick Burns on Iran and Iraq. I don't think it was the greatest interview we ever did, and nor does Gavin, but does that make us, as some Medialens adherents have claimed, complicit in war crimes or agents in preparing for war with Iran?
Unlike some in the media who studiously ignore them, I've always thought Medialens make a noteworthy contribution. Along with other lobbyists and pressure groups they invite us to question what we do and when they make a valid point we should reflect it. But how many people do they actually represent?
We had a different complaint this week about our coverage of the Iraq war from Michael Gove, the Conservative front bencher. He said: "It is still the case that around one third of the British population believes, despite all the errors and horrors, that the decision to remove Saddam was right. But where, and how often, is that perspective presented on the BBC?" Should we listen more to that view than Medialens's? Gove at least represents Britain's currently most popular political party.
Where I do agree with Medialens though is that we shouldn't try to please everyone by adopting a safely uncontroversial stance somewhere in the middle. Our job is to ask uncomfortable questions reflecting views from right, left and centre and not just from those who shout the loudest.
Peter Barron is editor of Newsnight