Well, the sun rises on a new day and the BBC continues to attack on The Sun’s proprietor, Mr Murdoch. Yesterday Millie Driver provided the emotional attack line, today it is the families of our Armed Forces personnel killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan. BBC is in overdrive on this one and the aim seems to be to stop the acquisition of BskyB by Newscorp. The morally virtuous Labour MP Chris Bryant (above) along with the integrity-proofed Mr Miliband are given the opportunity to preen meanwhile The Guardian was eulogised. In essence, the BBC is lobbying like mad to scupper the BSkyB deal, to damage Cameron and to take the heads of Wade, Coulson and as many other NOTW journos as possible. Is this the appropriate role for the State Broadcaster? Is it manufacturing the intensity of this story? Is it cynically manipulating the news agenda in order to take a pot shot at those broadcasting rivals with which it disagrees? Is NOTW the ONLY newspaper to have hacked into mobile phones? Has the BBC ever used illegal and inappropriate methods?
THE BIGGEST STORY IN THE WORLD
Bookmark the permalink.
One more question. Why doesn’t B-BBC think this IS a story?
Answering questions is good. And I wish all in the media, especially the BBC, would be more open to it.
Can’t speak for the site owners, but as a poster one often it seems gets lumped when convenient under a B-BBC banner, I can’t see that anyone is saying it isn’t A story.
Just… not the second coming it is being treated as in certain quarters, and for reasons that are becoming more cynical and suspect with each less than subtle attempt at scoring a point or securing a concession.
Especially when the cherry orchards are being grazed even more selectively with show upon show giving unchallenged airtime to guest after guest whose memories are as short as their new found ethical streaks.
Trying to conflate a few views, entirely welcome to be stated (so long as accepted as being open to critique) of a few with an entire entity is a dubious creek to head down.
On this basis, I might hold you responsible, along with 10,000 others for the words and actions of Ms. Kennedy or Mr. Bacon. or the Middle East reporters and Editors who get their ‘news’ from twitter or tabloid stories they like the look of.
When it is clear they are not speaking for all.. one hopes, at least.
However, they and the superiors who installed them and indulge them, and those who abuse positions as they do, should consider their professional positions.
Because, beyond what happens here as a free blog, the BBC is paid for by the public to be impartial. There is a significant difference there, and being ‘unique’ does not plaster over that gaping sore any longer.
Indeed. I am always having to point out to the Beeboids who visit here that this is not a collective and that I post my own views and do not speak for B-BBC or anyone else here.
That said, I happen to agree with DV’s post above.
I am interested to know whether the scope of this inquiry will extend to the Beeboid Corporation. I do hope so. I would welcome any scrutiny of the conduct of that organisation so I hope it is not confined to the press. They are all in the same game and who knows what methods Beeboids employ? Well, we know some of them, from recent incidents of misrepresenting such as The Queen and Primark. And of course the Beeboid Corporation regularly abuses its special position, standing and influence.
Perhaps it should have been a story several years ago when all this hacking took place. Just who was in power then? The Tories? Nope.
Rebecca Brooks admitted back in 2003 I think it was that they paid plods for info, why didn’t Alistair Campbell go running around the BBC demanding an investigation then? What about Prescott, oh hang on he was shagging some fat bird, Bryant? Too busy promoting himself on gay dating sites.
If the Liebour party (who are the promotors of this) had been so vocal back in 2003 and forward as they are now you might have a point David, as it is, now you don’t.
This is political, the BBC and Guardian don’t want Sky to be fully owned by Murdoch, the BBC fear for their future, remember once on digital Sky will be able to promote themselves even more against the BBC and the Guardian fears murdoch will use Sky’s money to subsidise his papers, which is funny as the Guardian loses 30 million a year and is propped up by other parts of the parent company, so the Guardian don’t see that as a problem.
You are right , Martin. If Murdoch was supporting Labour we wouldn’t hear a squeak about this from Labour’s lickspittles at the BBC.
This is politics , pure and simple, and the dirty fingers of Beeboids are all over it.
Who’s said that? I haven’t see anyone here deny it’s a story. The complaint is the extent to which the BBC has allowed the story to take over its airwaves and the barely concealed aganda to get at Murdoch.
Do you seriously think that “the Murdoch Empire” is the only organisation that has been hacking phones? If a BBC journalist was asked “has the BBC, or any private investigator hired by it, ever illegally accessed people’s phones?” do you think they could honestly be able to answer “No”? Why this lack of curiosity by the Beeb? Could it be that it would not suit the agenda and might reveal some rather uncomfortable truths?
Take the latest claims, emblazoned on the front page of the BBC News website. “Dead soldiers’ families ‘hacked‘”. In fact, it seems the claims are that “the phone numbers of relatives of dead service personnel were found in the files of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.” Gosh, a journalist with people’s phone numbers. Who’d a thunk it. Sure, in the current climate it’s worthy of comment but it’s being treated as read that the numbers were hacked into and used to cynically fan the flames of this scandal. A scandal that the BBC has a vested interest in prolonging. Can you not see that the story is being manipulated? The smell isn’t just emanating from Murdoch Towers.
You can ask me. I’d honestly answer no to that question.
‘You can ask me. I’d honestly answer no to that question.’
Perhaps a failing of the system, but what question are you answering?
Really? You know exactly, for certain, how every piece of information obtained by all investigators hired by the BBC was obtained?
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
If I may quibble, Roland, it’s not so much the extent as the angle.
The story is being exploited for commercial interest by the BBC/Guardian.
Nobody said it’s not a story. It’s huge. But this is one of the occasions where BBC bias slots in well with the newsworthiness of a story, luckily for the little leftie dears.
“Why doesn’t B-BBC think this IS a story?”
Is B-BBC saying this isn’t a story? As others have already pointed out that’s not an accurate representation of the site. The extent of, and motives behind, the coverage have been questioned by some, but to suggest that the B-BBC blog is in some way collectively claiming this isn’t a story is nonsense.
Personally, I think it’s a big story but also feel that the BBC has gone overboard. I believe every non-sports programme on Radio Five Live has featured it as its main topic of discussion since Tuesday morning. Such unrelenting coverage on one topic is extremely rare, and quite possibly unique.
Some who contribute to B-BBC think the story is less of a big deal than I do. They are probably more in tune with the general mood than I am:
“Stats say readers aren’t as hyped by #notw scandal.”
That’s from Michael Hirst – BBC multimedia journalist.
The reply from BBC Washington correspondent Adam Blenford is instructive too:
“And media companies love Murdoch-bashing”
The real story is whether the BBC should continue to have a monopoly over our TV tax.
‘wild<img src=”http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png”/>
A good example of their complete disconnect from reality. A story which is of no interest to anybody’
That is my opinion Ben. It happens in life. People have opinions. I am sure you must have come across this before.
I have no connection with BBC Biased other than the fact I sometimes leave comments expressing my views. You know, that “opinions” thing again.
My opinion is that those who are arguing that the BBC is agenda pushing here are right. But I would go further and say that (contrary to what most people are saying here) these are not Earth shattering revelations.
I understand that private investigators used by newspaper reporters have been known to go through private rubbish bins in search of material. Shocking.
Read my words. I am not saying it is not a story. I am saying that the hysterical coverage afforded it by the BBC is a disgrace and the all too evident glee at Murdoch’s misfortune cannot be missed.
Hmmm, given today’s events I would venture our coverage was pretty proportionate. Otherwise the closure of Britain’s biggest newspaper after 168 years might have come as even more of a surprise.
And I note, with its customary cunning, the BBC chooses today to admit to the biggest mistake in its ignoble past – how they reported the immigration scandal. Thompson admits “we got the immigration story wrong”. But hey, at least we’re not Murdoch!
NOw really, which is the biger story? The vile antics of a few tabloid hacks and their managers, or the selling out of a nation?
For me the BBC confession is vastly more important. Because no, Mr Thompson, your stinking, grasping BBC did not “get the immigration story wrong”. It sanctioned it, respectablisised it, made it the intellectual norm. In other words your grasping, amoral BBC is liable for the most fundamental and dangerous challenge to British identity for centuries. And much besides….
So one day, when people rake over todays news and try get a measure of the times, how will they compare the comparative importance of these 2 stories, and these 2 villains?
We’ll have Beeboids swinging from the trees.
Bar the last sentence (I think going a pit beyond ‘position consideration’ and even to pension terms review might be good starts for whiet collar abuse such as this), I have to agree with the rest.
ps that’s ‘bit’, in reply to magiclantern1’s post
Nice to know the bit about slaughtering my colleagues and friends by hanging them from trees till they are dead was a bit too much for you.
well big story…but yes bbc appears to be at erm “fever pitch”. 😉 doesn t it.
However in this case have to repeat, Wades postion is untenable,
she cannot be allowed to “clean house” on herself.
Mind you, can you ask the Met? to do it…after being caught out again
Nice, dignified pic. But it’s Millie Dowler, not Driver!
7 July, 2005, London.
One more question. Why does INBBC think this ISN’T a story?
I note that Radio 4 ‘Today’ has no item on remembering the 7/7 Islamic jihad massacre in London, 2005; but ‘Today’ does find a slot to discuss whether ‘reading fiction is good for you’ (7:20).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9532000/9532445.stm
“Director-general admits BBC steers clear of sensitive or ‘taboo’ topics”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012052/Stand-Britains-silent-majority-Patten-tells-BBC-director-general-admits-We-failed-address-immigration.html#ixzz1RP18OcjH
What gets steered towards and away from these days makes the BBC’s ethical course more like that of a WW11 convoy.
And it seems to be having an effect on the stomachs of those being taken along for the ride.
What that really means, is topics decreed by the Beeboid Corporation, in its characteristic totalitarian, political and undemocratic mode, to be sensitive or taboo, not topics which the broad public has decided are sensitive or taboo. The proles must be given what the Beeboids deem suitable for them.
I’m starting to get a bit exhausted by this story, important as it is. But is it really so great that it has to dominate the Beeboid airwaves day after day? Cui Bono?
At least they allowed Boris J to speak on Today more widely about how this story seems to be turning into a crusade against Murdoch, which of course it is for the BBC.
And did anyone hear that excruciating, patronising item where a “streetwise” beeboid journalist deigned to visit a council estate in Southampton to ask the locals about buying NOTW? Probably the first time a Beebouid has gone into a newsagent without buying the Grauniad.
Yes, this represents a high point in synthetic bbc over-reporting of a story that fits nicely in with their agenda to damage Murdoch, the Tories and anyone the grauniad doesn’t like !
Their attempts to float the story as a major event, rather than as a scuzzy scandle sheet being caught out, does give you the opportunity to e-mail your MP, pointing out what the bbc are up to and what are his views on reforming the bias in the bbc.
“There’s no excuse for the News of the World scandal – but the smug hypocrisy of the Left is pretty revolting, too”
(by Norman Tebbit)
“There can be no excuses for what was done by investigators or journalists in the pay of editorial executives at The News Of The World. However, it would take a strong stomach not to be revolted at the smug, self satisfied journalists of the Left, who were ready with excuses for one of their kind recently uncovered as having regularly stolen the work of other writers and made a living by passing it off as his own, but are writhing with delight at the exposure, humiliation and possible downfall of their enemies in the far more popular and successful Murdoch press.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100095656/theres-no-excuse-for-the-news-of-the-world-scandal-but-the-smug-hypocrisy-of-the-left-is-pretty-revolting-too/
Meanwhile, what’s going on at BBC-NUJ?
“BBC to end sky-high wages of senior staff, says Patten.The BBC will never again pay its director-general a salary as high as £668,000, the new chairman of the broadcaster said yesterday as he announced that two thirds of its senior managers faced redundancy.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8621946/BBC-to-end-sky-high-wages-of-senior-staff-says-Patten.html
When are they going to get rid of that overpaid unshaven scruff? That’s what I’d like to know. He would be overpaid at a quarter of what he gets. He’s no better than those freeloading MPs helping themselves to anything the system would allow them to get away with.
Has the BBC ever used illegal and inappropriate methods?It sure has:Remember the Sarah Bell episode – she was the senior political reporter who cheerled for her LibDem friend in Richmond Park shortly before the election while trashing the Tory candidate. The Editor of the News Website reacted to complaints by deleting the evidence of her unprofessionalism and putting up a mealy-mouthed ‘explanation’ which avoided any mention of her favouring the LibDems or trashing the Tories.
Remember whatshisname who misrepresented that North London parish in order to push his own narrow agenda. I’m guessing he is still happily employed as religion “reporter” and will go on to greater fraud in future.
And of course there was the fiddling of game shows and the gentle and respectful treatment of overpaid “comedian” whatshisname Ross who played that obscene prank on a grandfather and his granddaughter.
And the guy who fiddled with the video so he could misprepresent the queen as storming out of the place when she was actually going in. (At least he had the decency to resign.)
The BBC seems intent on becoming the broadcasting equivalent of a tabloid.
Then there is the deliberately-engineered maze of a “Complaints” website where you will be alternately led on a wild goose chase and ignored if you are foolish enough to complain about BBC output.
And of course the Balen report on bias in Israel/Palestine reporting, which the BBC refuses to air, paying good money (yours if you’re British) to stifle it.
And this is before we get to the implacable leftie bias it demonstrates in practically all its reporting while cheerfully leeching money off those it doesn’t represent.
The Vatican will cheerfully open its archives to scrutiny before the BBC comes clean.
Yes, and I laugh when people tell me to complain to my MP – a LibDem!
I totally condemn what Ross/Brand did and the controller Radio 2 lost her job over it. It was appalling that Blue Peter selected the second most popular name suggested for their new cat and not the first one. All BBC staff were sent on a compulsary course after that one. Hutton? We lost a DG AND a Chairman that time. Although you could well argue the orignal report (at least on the BBC) was correct with hindsight.
I just wonder if those stories (which dominated the headlines in the newspapers for days of course) really compare to “hacking” the phones of missing children, victimes of terrorism and the families of our war dead. And since the company in question is about to significantly increase it’s control of UK media, since there are at the very least interesting questions to ask about the assurances the PM was given about what went on… I just think it’s a slightly more important story than the BBC not naming a cat “cookie”
First David Gregory claimed this blog doesn’t think the NOTW scandal is a story, and now implies we think it is no more significant than the naming of a cat on a children’s TV show.
Got any more straw men Mr Gregory?
I think the fact that David Gregory thinks it is all about Murdoch says it all really. I would never have guessed he works for the BBC.
“hacking” the phones of missing children, victims of terrorism and the families of our war dead.”
He sounds like a man trying to work himself up into a frenzy by banging a tin drum.
I love the sanctimonious tone. This from a man who agrees with a system that forces the poor to pay his wages. Because he thinks he is worth it. Another example of a Guardian reader who is a passionate believer in wealth distibution, into his own pocket.
‘I just think it’s a slightly more important story than the BBC not naming a cat “cookie’
How important then say, in comparison to trying to inflame an already tinderbox region with misinformation based on partiality and incompetence?
Whilst accessing private phone messages is grotesque and tasteless (and illegal), practices by the BBC and employees seem a smidge more dangerous in real terms to equally vulnerable innocents.
All I recall by fallout was a few tucked away ‘Whoops, sorry’s’ and a quick moving on, and no one’s position was considered.
Anyway, as some questions can get (selectively) answered, a technical one: what is the extent of the information/data that BBC detector vans can extract from signals buzzing around within our private residences?
Hope that is not too unique to share?
ps: here’s the thread discussing it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/06/story_removal.html
Unlike those around it, it’s well and truly closed now
Don’t forget the recent Primark affair, where evidence was faked and the BBC falsely claimed they had been cleared by their own inquiry.
Beeboids, you are not fit and proper persons to run a media empire.
The hacking into mobiles of Milly Dowler and the widows of British Servicemen merits all the attention it is getting, albeit the agenda on the part of various people at the BBC is evident.
I have to say the lack of moral revulsion on the part of a number of B-BBC commenters and Contributors at what has bee revealed in the last few days about NOTW is unfortunate, to say the very least. It’s embarrasing in fact. Too many people here take their dislike of BBC bias far too personally and lose all perspective.
This said, as much as the repugnant conduct of certain people at NOTW merits all the attention its getting, the blatant collusion between the BBC – principally the TODAY Programme – and New Labour in promoting New Labour’s propangda agenda in the years leading to the 1997 General Election very much bears examination and doesn’t get it. It’s in a different category to what has happened at the NOTW, but it is still morally repugnant.
It is said that papers like NOTW have gotten away with so much for so long because politicians fear them. They fear the BBC as well.
I can only echo Roland Deschain’s post above, the one meant to be a reply to yours, hippiepooter. You are way off the mark here. I have read all the threads and comments on this issue and I don’t konw where you get the idea of indifference, except perhaps from one or two contributors. Certainly indifference to that reprehensible NOTW hacking is not the general attitude expressed here.
Note that David Vance expressed reservations about “the gutter press.”
I did state a number of commenters/Contributers. On this thread its not reflective of the whole, from what I gleaned from at least one other, it wasn’t the impression I got.
Hippiep,
Tilting at windmills is embarrassing.
“I have to say the lack of moral revulsion on the part of a number of B-BBC commenters and Contributors at what has been revealed in the last few days about NOTW is unfortunate”
What an idiotic comment.
I can’t speak for all, but I certainly said in an earlier comment that the book should be thrown at NOTW and others have made similar comments.
But this is a site about BBC bias, which is what we’re primarily discussing. Have we reached the equivalent where we have to preface every comment here with “I’m not a racist, but…”?
That was meant to be a reply to Hippiepooter’s post below – I have no idea how it became a reply to TooTrue 🙁
‘ I have no idea how it became a reply to TooTrue’
One of the quirks of the ‘reply’ system. Which is why I try to remember to quote a ‘tag’ to indicate the post referred to.
Given all this was inspired by a question – ‘One more question. Why doesn’t B-BBC think this IS a story?’ – and many answers provides, it seems… ironic, if not suprising that in some parts it seems ‘comments are now closed’.
h-p
Who says we aren’t shocked by the smutty behaviour at the NOTW ?
But the BBC coverage of this story is excessive, wall-to-wall sniping at Murdoch.
The World Service was full of it again last night – another night. It is NOT the top story in the world, surely ?
And although it was on all the UK front pages yesterday it was NOT the lead item in half of the UK papers.
The BBC is running a full-time rant not just against NOTW but against News International and Murdoch – and the target is clearly to scupper the BSkyB deal. Plain as a pikestaff.
…………………….
I think this will blow back on the BBC. Whatever now happens, Murdoch will see the BBC as a major threat to his commercial interests, and will see the BBC as led by people who will stop at nothing to try to damage Sky. The kid gloves are now off.
This is really a fight for who will be best placed to brainwash the british public.
‘This is really a fight for who will be best placed to brainwash the british public.’
Though the funding models (if the source being the same) are a tad different. Injury is one thing, insult on top seems gratuitous.
Many a true word is said in jest.
Fred,
You are right. The BBC want a monopoly of political propaganda and will stop at nothing to try and destroy any competition. They are the biggest cheats and liars of the lot.
A tide, of sorts, is turning.
Had my morning BBC Blog surf and, where allowed, not modded or closed out, some are questioning how all this is getting staged.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14029033
Liked this (non-tribal) one:
145. Benzonah
Am I the only one who feels this outpouring of outrage from government and . other agencies is amusing? Both the British and US governments have listening centres that monitor all telecommunications, and have hacked into our calls without permission from us for years!
Blimmin’ hidden coding..
Amazed it has any positives, as there seem to be squads marking down any impure thoughts in case they catch on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14045521
What’s a worry is that some feel so empowered by their cosy twitter bubble mob, they are rather forgetting themselves on matters of historical precedent.
‘24. freddiefreeloader
6TH JULY 2011 – 22:31
Thanks for a well expressed and thoughtful article Mr Easton
I ask Sparklet (18 )to declare any connection he/she has with News Corporation.’
One might argue that this view is expressed by some individuals here of others, but seldom with such inherent menace, borne of a misplaced sense of entitlement.
The minute that blog veers from the mandated hive direction, I predict an early closing.
The twitting-down of any sensible discourse on any subject by the BBC is almost complete
Reap what you sow.
Question Time
Seems its no accident that Hugh Grant is on QT tonight. According to wikipedia, he recorded Paul McMullen, previously of the NOTW, admitting that phone hacking went on and it was fully sanctioned by various editors and politicians.
small piece, from today, about “bradfordians in bradford”
yes its 10yrs since NF wanted to march there,
yes..yawn the beeb demands to know
what we colonial islamophobic guilt ridden bigots yawn
have done, have we done enough in<!– S ILIN –>
efforts to improve community cohesion <!– E ILIN –>
See that the BBC are trying now to get their chums in the creative industries to mount a boycott of News International.
I did wonder why Peston had been introduced so early into their “pieces”.
I detect a Sun City moment here-where Morrisons have to ring Humphrys to deny that they won`t stop an advert going into Ruperts redtop this weekend. Surely that is libel!
Cheerleaders for student riots and the unions disruption…and now banging their drums with full bells and whistles to hound the only alternative to the BBC that we have in this country!
That the broadsheets lose a rival is another bonus to the cabal of creeps and cronies who run the liberal elites project to do away with the vote, jury trials and any freedom at all.
No mention then of Miliband abolishing elections to his cabinet then-no question of what gives Lagarde the right to run the IMF…or Patten the BBC Trust…Jo Moore still alive and well in the BBC newsrooms then!
In truth, the more they hate Murdoch-the more papers I`ll buy of his this weekend!
Once they`ve trawled all over Millie Dowlers case-they`ll be back to wanting Levi Bellfield out…once they`ve shared a tissue with Rosa Gentle…they`ll be back to backing the Taliban and the Luton Jihadis!
What a Babble On we`re witnessing-but the good guys win(I`ve read the ending!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8621020/Nick-Robinson-highlights-Robert-Pestons-Vanity.html
Maybe they are the one’s closing each other’s blogs down almost as soon as they open?
Pure coincidence one is sure, but Mr. Peston’s latest blog seems to be more of a rallying cry for an activist petition…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14064430
Can’t wait to see what Mr. Robinson can manage to trump that in the fight to be the most ‘right-on’ objective ‘reporter’ in da ‘hood.
Don’t the BBC hack into peoples houses with their TV detector vans?
I will be curious to see how the BBC cover the matter when we discover (as we inevitably shall) that NotW are not the only media outlet to have “hacked” into voicemails. Especially of course if we find that their friends at the Guardian, or at the Mirror (now or in Campbell’s day), have also been doing it, or even that the BBC (fakers of documentaries, users of misleading editing, supporters of criminal “pranks” and everything else listed above) are also guilty.
If any senior manager of a media outlet is sleeping soundly at the moment it is because they believe their tracks to have been perfectly covered. Let’s hope they’re wrong.
The Guardian led on Sarah Palin’s emails but also on wikileaks – containing information judged vital to national security. That Manning fella is languishing in jail for his troubles.
BBC lapped it up, natch. Illegal, immoral, and moreover endangering lives.
But don’t tell me – “that”s different”.
But don’t tell me – “that”s different”.
I believe the term is ‘unique’
So what have we learnt from the BBC coverage of the phone hacking scandal?
That tabloid jounalists will stop at nothing to get a story – who knew? Thanks BBC for putting me right on that one. That they might even tip a copper a few quid now and again? That an editor will turn a blind eye for a story? If all this is news to anyone they really should get out more!
Ok so now they’ve been caught out. What are the BBC trying to do with all this righteous outrage?
I have listened to BBC reports refering to 7/7 victims relatives mobile numbers having appeared in Glen Mulcaire’s notebook in which the language of disapproval was stronger than that which I can recall the BBC putting out for the actual perpetrators of that act of terrorism.
The BBC have gone over the top for corporate and idealogical reasons. Plus I’m convinced that their top name reporters/commentators (call them what you will) would happily vote in their own self-interest for strict individual privacy legislation to muzzle the press.
The real problem here is all this based on rumour here say and tattle and until one or many get arrested and charged I will refrain from a false emotional reaction about what’s right and wrong!, when it’s been proved in law evidence and fact!
There seems little doubt that SOMEONE hacked Milly Dowler’s phone and deleted messages – an utterly reprehensible thing to do when parents are looking for any sign that their daughter is still alive. I have a daughter not much younger so I find an emotional reaction inevitable. Beyond that, though, all is as you say supposition.
It’s the BBC’s use of this emotional reaction to get at Murdoch which is turning my disgust at the journalists’ actions into anger at the BBC. I don’t want a Murdoch media domination but I don’t want a BBC one either and if it becomes a fight between the two I’ll take Murdoch’s side. At least if he oversteps the mark, custom can be withdrawn.
Somebody at BBC News is very sensitive about these accusations, because so far on the News Channel they’ve talked to James Forsyth (who still looks like a high school student) and Tim Montgomerie to get bi-partisan condemnation of the NoTW’s behavior and allowed at least Montgomerie to make a case on Cameron’s side of the story. They weren’t challenged at all, no attempt to push a Narrative on them, and were allowed to give their opinions as if it was worth something. Must be some kind of record.
Even better, a PCC guy was asked why they didn’t know about all this in 2007, and doesn’t this mean they’re redundant. He was allowed to evade the answer by saying, essentially, “We didn’t know because we didn’t know,” but at least the point was raised about why this hadn’t come out before.
Although, missing words: Labour Government
The BBC is the only organisation in the UK that I know of that has an official policy to break the law.
Editorial Guideline 18.3.1 states:
“Any proposal to break the law must be referred to a senior editorial figure, or for independents to the commissioning editor, who may consult Programme Legal Advice and, if necessary, Director Editorial Policy and Standards.”
Here is the link: http://tiny.cc/4iiv3
well spotted
Kendall,
In the twisted little minds of Beeboids, they are the law !
INBBC erases 7 July 2005 Islamic jihad massacre from history.
But INBBC remembers a certain pro-Islamic version of Bradford, 2001.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14063086
The BBC seems to have just decided it does like the military after all.
Funny, because for the last 10 years (at least) and through two fairly grim wars it has very much gone out of its way to undermine and denigrate them at every turn.
Why doesn’t B-BBC think this IS a story?
‘It seems like a good moment to update David’s excellent post below about the ongoing voicemail hacking change my password? Meh, why bother? nonsense in the news at the moment.’
So a man that we can look to for moral guidance. Grant didn’t even know Milly Dowler’s name…he called her Molly.”
‘Yesterday Millie Driver provided the emotional attack line’.