does the BBC respond to criticism? With censorship, of course. True, in this case it’s self censorship, but they can scarcely ask for more from the public than acceptance of a compulsory license fee (kind of an act of censorship by itself)- so they just have to put up with criticism and find ways of deflecting it.
Their new policy, apparently, is not to let anyone “whose main profile or income comes from the BBC” write newspaper columns about politics. This is verboten, as I say, unless you can prove your ‘main profile or income’ doesn’t come from the BBC. In other words, it’s a gag on non-senior journalists- who will be much more firmly under the thumb with this selectivity on the part of the Beeb- plus some high-profile, senior ones who will magically, imperceptibly almost, come to have greater ‘responsibilities’ and need better remuneration than their current settlement allows. Slander, me? Nooo. ‘Creativity’ in job description could well become the key, that’s all.
Of course, the great ‘El Dorado’ of BBC journalism will be to prove that your image and income transcends the BBC’s patronage- something, say, Kirsty Wark might be able to claim in Scotland, or Peter Snow on the subject of elections, or Michael Fish, on the political effects of the weather (heh). So, in conclusion, one might say that the answer to criticism is not to come clean but to complexify to bamboozle the oiks who criticise you. Sounds like a BBC policy to me.
The DT is equally sceptical.
Orla’s Life was better under Saddam No 73
BBC1 News 6pm Orla tells us about an Iraqi policeman killed on duty
1. he didn’t even have a gun
2. the family do not know if they will receive compensation, as was paid under Saddam’s regime
Twat. Double-sided comments all over this laughable excuse. The BBC does one thing and it gets criticsed, and does another thing to prevent the first thing and people still moan.
It’s not censorship, dumb-ass. They are preventing, as they are entitled to as primary employers of journalists. It’s all to prevent a repeat of the Andrew Gilligan Mail on Sunday article, which no doubt you had a pop at. Make your fucking mind up.
No, Mr Troll, I’m convinced:
Gilligan was wrong, and not just in the Daily Mail either. This is wrong too. Wrong diagnosis- wrong treatment.
I’m convinced this is a recipe for a more BBC-like organisation, which means a more Pravda/Baathist organisation, than we have at present. It’s even worse than the original proposals, when they admitted that what they were doing would cost license-payer’s money.
As for ‘double-sided’- I prefer nuanced. ‘Nuanced’ is something you could learn from.
Ed Thomas
Off topice
In my item at
http://wolves.typepad.com/menshour/2003/10/fathers_rights_.html
Following a fathres protest the video of the Newsnight programme, normally available the following day on the BBC website was not there. I asked and was told that some pictures were not authorized for internet use and so the programme wasn’t being streamed. Unless there were pictures in some other part of newsnight, the only pictures in the father’s rights part were the pictures of children that some fathers are holding. Is this their excuse for broadcasting it, but not streaming it? How convenient for the politically correct BBC.