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??
The deliberate release of viral material, possibly in an act of sabotage, may have caused the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, officials said last night.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said in a report ordered by the Prime Minister that “release by human movement [of the FMD virus] must be considered a real possibility”.
Inspectors all but discounted theories that the virus escaped by air or water from the laboratory complex close to where the outbreak started, although they are continuing to investigate the possibility of equipment failure or a security breach.
The HSE concluded in the report — which was sent to Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, last night — that there was “a strong probability” that the virus came from the research centre three miles from the first outbreak in a herd of cattle in Surrey.
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