Willie Pete Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 [michael winner]Calm down dear, it's only a report[/michael winner] Think this through. If you're a gaffer at the BBC and you suspect there is bias creeping in around an issue is it going to be more likely that you commision a report to establish if it's the case if it remains an internal document which you can act on or ends up all over the papers? The BBC used to be, in my view, blatently biased on this issue, they are not these days. So the report worked, job done. We don't need to see the gory details. So it just remains hidden and we 'hope' the BBC stops the propaganda? Doesn't sound right. Should we have left News Int to sort out their problems themselves too? The evidence doesn't seem to support your assertion that things are changing. After all, Jeremy Bowen is still their chief middle east editor and he was admonished by the BBC trust for his pro-'palestinian' reportage. This should be made public and the BBC's changes should be seen by the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I think what the OP is trying to say is the BBC is guilty of not hiding attrocities done by Israel, and report on the truth. I know it hurt Israel to have shown when they are killing and maiming children but hey don't do it. Simple. Well done to the BBC for not pandering to these people and telling it how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'm not publicly funded. That's not the point. Why should someone working as a journalist as the BBC be open to public critisism if they make a mistake, but if they work for Sky they only have to deal with their bosses? The dealings with News International are on a different scale. They have reporters who have been breaking the law and jailed as criminals. Jeremy Bowen, even if your allegations are true, has not broken any laws. This is why NI can't be left alone to investigate themselves (along with the fact that they have at least twice and come out saying there isn't a problem, only for another whisteblower to say there is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 It's funny how the left jumps all over the centre-right press like News Int, demanding transparency and investigations to within an inch of News Int's life. Yet when the BBC hides a report from the public, fails to be transparent and in Mafioso-style allows no-one but selected members of the inner circle to view it, the left support it. News International has broken the law. News International has admitted to have broken the law although James Murdoch has selective amnesia on the subject. If you're defending an organisation that has hacked the mobile phone of a murdered schoolgirl then say so. Say that they should have had the right to keep that embarrassing little fact a secret. What the BBC is alleged to have done in this thread isn't really in the same league as what News International has been up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Pete Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 News International has broken the law. News International has admitted to have broken the law although James Murdoch has selective amnesia on the subject. If you're defending an organisation that has hacked the mobile phone of a murdered schoolgirl then say so. Say that they should have had the right to keep that embarrassing little fact a secret. What the BBC is alleged to have done in this thread isn't really in the same league as what News International has been up to. It might not be in the same 'league' - although to Israel, a 12 year long campaign of propaganda by the BBC would be as serious to them as the phone hacking scandal here. Secondly, BBC impartiality is legally binding. They have to, by law, be impartial. So it could be that the BBC has broken the law, but won't publish the findings. I see that as quite a serious matter - the left wing however are hypocrites as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 So it just remains hidden and we 'hope' the BBC stops the propaganda? Doesn't sound right. Should we have left News Int to sort out their problems themselves too? The evidence doesn't seem to support your assertion that things are changing. After all, Jeremy Bowen is still their chief middle east editor and he was admonished by the BBC trust for his pro-'palestinian' reportage. This should be made public and the BBC's changes should be seen by the public. If we establish the principle that anything the BBC looks into internally is fair game for public scrutiny then there would not have been a report into this matter. This "its my right to know everything anyone does" culture is utterly tedious and counterproductive. It's an internal matter for the BBC, that's been established by the highest court in the land. Accept it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 It might not be in the same 'league' - although to Israel, a 12 year long campaign of propaganda by the BBC would be as serious to them as the phone hacking scandal here. . If there really has been a 12 year long campaign it's been rubbish and ineffective, Israel keep carrying on killing children with impunity. The IDF shoot schoolchildren on their way to school and nothing happens. It doesn't seem as if Israel is cowed and weakened to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Secondly, BBC impartiality is legally binding. They have to, by law, be impartial. Would you mind posting a link to that law? There's lots of references to it by people accusing the BBC of being biased, but the only things I can find from official sources talk of "duty" or a "committment" to be impartial as opposed to being a legal requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Pete Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 It's an internal matter for the BBC, that's been established by the highest court in the land. Accept it and move on. Interesting. I wonder if you would feel the same had the opposite been found? that it was pro-Israel bias? I suspect you and your ilk would be banging on the doors demanding it be released. Or some other subject that concerned you. If the BBC were secretly undermining it - you wouldn't be this diplomatic about it So hypothetically, if an internal report by the BBC found damning evidence that the BBC supports one of the political parties (let's say....Labour) and senior BBC officials had met senior Labour in secret meetings to discuss policy and when the BBC can report on something, and when to 'play things down' etc. Would that also be ok to suppress in the courts using our licence money? you'd be quite happy for that report never to see the light of day and just 'trust' that the BBC fixes things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 1. Introduction 1.1 Background For the BBC, impartiality is a legal requirement. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/govs/olr_audienceresearch.pdf The BBC is a trusted source and is perceived to be impartial in its coverage of the conflict amongst those able to volunteer an opinion on this issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.