The indispensable Daily Ablution has an audio clip of Nick Clarke silencing discussion of BBC News Director Richard Sambrooke’s role in the Kelly affair. And there’ll be skid marks all over the Guardian diary tomorrow.
“Shall we just leave that there?”
Bookmark the permalink.
“What’s the public’s verdict on Hutton?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3439895.stm
Is it just me or does it seem that these people chosen by the BBC to give their views do not represent the actual views of most people? Every one of them seems to think that the BBC has been hard done by, and affirm their trust in the BBC.
Today’s Guardian cartoon is as gracious as ever:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1134032,00.html
Actually it’s business as usual at the BBC. Read their report on the Jerusalem suicide bombing, and see who they blame:-
“The attack comes a day after eight Palestinians were killed in clashes during an Israeli army raid on the Gaza Strip – the deadliest incursion for weeks.”
This coupled with Orla Guerin’s woefully biased report from Gaza the day before, showing Palestinian youths cowering before Israeli tanks. However, she “forgot” to put it all into context ie. the Israelis were acting on a security tip off that a terrorist attack was planned from this part of Gaza, and that the IDF was met by a barrage of gun and rocket fire upon entering the area.
13:55 and it’s bye bye Dykemeister
Forget The Office; the BBC is great comedy all on its own.
The BBC News today is as subjective, self important, defensive and biased as ever. Suddenly the issue has become terribly ‘complex’ and ther presenters and thier biased guests are in total wonder about what has happened, even though to the rest of the population it’s bloddy obvious.
To us it’s clear – Sambrook, Dyke, Davies and Milligan are all going to go. The BBC will provide a formal apology. After the review in 2005, it will be changd dramatically.
“even though to the rest of the population it’s bloddy obvious.”
Yes, they are running the hare of loss of independence etc.
But nobody can criticise if the story is correct. Nobody would harbour a grudge if they quickly apologised when they made a mistake.
But Davies & Dyke (supported by Marr & a thousand old BBC staffers brought in to comment) consider that as Gilligan got part of his story right there is no need to apologise for the monumental falsehood he added. They see an apology as a loss of independence.
“Is it just me or does it seem that these people chosen by the BBC to give their views do not represent the actual views of most people?”
No, you’re not alone and I lodged a complaint where I stated that either coverage should rest on scientific polling or there should no such coverage at all. It seemed totally biased.
It’s 3.15 on the 29th, 51 hours after the BBC received its copy of the report, and Andrew Gilligan is still a BBC employee. Dyke and Davies have fallen on their swords. Why hasn’t he?
Henry,
You are forgetting chief culprit Sambrook, he HAS to walk as well.
Rob
You’re right. And Marsh should go too. If they had a shred of decency all three of them (Gilligan, Marsh and Sambrook)would have walked the second Davies and Dyke did. Whatever they think about the rights or wrongs of Hutton’s analysis, the fact that D & D have taken the bullet for the actions of G, M & S, while G, M & S try to cling on, shames them and the institution for which they work.
However, I suspect that they are merely haggling over the terms of their departure and, once they’ve settled how much licence-payers money they can take with them, they’ll be out too.
I’d include John Humphrys in the list. He was up to his neck in it with Gilligan, and his subsequent interviews with people protesting at the BBC allegations were a total disgrace. This was NOT at the instruction of the Editor, Kevin Marsh – Humphrys makes up his own scripts.
You should have heard the chanting outside Broadcasting House.
Middle class female vocal – “What do we want ?”
“Greg Dyke !”
“When do we want him”
“Now !”.