I said earlier the BBC’s coverage of Reagan’s death was OK. The same cannot be said for Greg Palast, who describes himself as a “BBC investigative reporter”. As USS Neverdock reports Mr Palast exults in Reagan’s death.
I think this guy is a freelance rather than a regular employee. He obviously writes to shock, and is probably rather looked down upon by the urbane types at Broadcasting House. But ask yourself whether his equivalents on the right would ever in a million years be employed by the BBC even as freelances. Kilroy-Silk was sacked by the BBC for much less. (Though don’t forget that KS was actually once a Labour MP.)
Senator Kerry has ceased campaigning this week as a mark of respect for President Reagan. Not so the BBC.
Last night’s Newsnight had Ms Wark interviewing a representative of the Bush administration about G8 & debt relief. Cynicism in every question, interviewee looking ever more surprised. Bottom line for Wark – its all because of Bush’s re-election campaign.
(Earlier the UK ambassador to the UN took umbrage at Wark dismissing the SC resolution as a fudge. Poor guy had worked long & hard to be so put down.)
Every question Wark put to the UK diplomat waqs loaded, on the lines of “So you agree it is time to stop beating your wife ?”
The diplomat took it all well, with one or two deft put-downs. But the whole interview stank of anti-Coalition bias.
Palast is a freelance, did a couple of things for the BBC and seems to have traded on that ever since according to his website. As for BBC employment policy – it doesn’t take politics of the individual into account. I was never asked.
As for the UN – earlier posts here criticise the BBC for allegedly pandering to the UN, now you’re up in arms after the naughty BBC has the temerity to asks it hard questions about the new resolution.
Hypocrasy reigns here. Journalism remains consistent.
Why is it that one of the markers of leftist confusion is the inability to spell ‘hypocrisy’ while simultaneously displaying it? To the assertion that ‘BBC employment policy – it doesn’t take politics of the individual into account,’ there are two answers: ‘Kilroy-Silk,’ and ‘Ha ha ha ha ha ha.’
Hippocrassie indeed Chris, English is an evolving language, try to use it sensibly once in a while please.
I believe we (me and the original poster that is) were talking about politics being considered during recruitment, not losing the plot after years of employment like Kilroy.
Do try to keep up, there’s a good chap.
I detect that we are once again in the presence of the estimable “Insider” under another user name.
His brand of extreme arrogance doesn’t come cheap.
I think we can presume that, under certain circumstances, the BBC doesn’t take the political views of its recruits into account (other than that they mainly advertise in the Guardian!).
If it did, and did so properly, I doubt that our good friend Hannah B. (blogs passim) would be employed, at least not as an impartial reporter, given her RCP tendencies and faith in socialism Cuba style as a commendable political system (as a going concern, rather than as one of the last examples of 20th century red-fascist dinosaur dictatorships that hasn’t realised that the game’s up yet).
Nothing personal Hannah – it’s just that your brand of politics is so far off mainstream Britain (at least outside the BBC Newsroom) that you can hardly be considered beyond reproach when it comes to the unbiased objectivity that the BBC claims for itself.
I have never posted here before, but after reading a few posts from “Reith,” I feel compelled to do so.
Perhaps Kirsty Wark, the “reporter” who asks “hard questions,” should ask these ones.
Scottish Parliament – why no “investigative” documentary, as it has taken so long? I mean the scandal of the time and money, not the tartan shortbread tin “celebration” video, that is, no doubt, planned. Could it be because she was involved in the planning stages?
OIL FOR FOOD !!!!!!!!! – where is the report? Any report? $10 Billion scandal – no news item. Hard questions? Ha. Ha. Ha.
To end, a timeless quote by Reith……….”Journalism remains consistent”
Yours,
Sickened.
Susan – wrong again, duh! And yes, as a consultant I charge a hell of a lot for my attitude. As for arrogant, see American, even starts with the same letter to help you.
Anonymous – Oil for food – old story, everyone says the same – journalism remains consistent.
Andrew – thank you, your post makes eminent sense here.
Reith
You sound totally and deliberately obnoxious. Just trying to stir up trouble ?
No John, merely following Patrick Crozier’s advice in posts passim:
“If only one side turns up, they win by default.”
I can only “stir up trouble” if you believe I shouldn’t be here and that I don’t have a right to voice my opinion.
I sincerely hope that’s not the case. That would be truly obnoxious.
I don’t think that I’ve ever expressed anything remotely passing for “arrogant” on these pages, Reith old bean.
OTOH, you seem quite happy to sneer at your “intellectual inferiors” with the best of ’em. Obviously a BBC employee, and very well-qualified for the work too!
Tell me, do they offering company training seminars in sneering, arrogance and elitism at the good old Beeb? Must be some explanation for it.
Deciding I am someone called “The Insider” because you seem to think you know everyone who posts here is a textbook example of arrogance Susan.
BTW You were wrong, wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong with a sideorder of wrongness and small amounts of fluffy wrongy bits sprinkled on top. Followed by plum-wrong duff and custard. Hmmmmm-mmmmmm
No, there are no lessons in sneering at the BBC, (although that won’t stop you thinking there is) and anyone who is in danger of sneering is told they’ll be given a free transfer to Fox News.
Reith
Your frivolity and superficiality is typical latter-day BBC.
Shame they can’t do much serious journalism any more.
John – oh you old curmudgeon you.
Frivolity and Superficiality sums up latter-day society, especially in politics. That in turn could be a sign that our society is becoming more at ease with itself.
Ergo, it could be argued that if it is frivolous and superficial, the BBC is therefore merely continuing to do its job as a state broadcaster by reflecting the wants and needs of the people who pay for it.
Funny thing, eh, logic?
Reith says: “No, there are no lessons in sneering at the BBC, (although that won’t stop you thinking there is) and anyone who is in danger of sneering is told they’ll be given a free transfer to Fox News.
‘Reith’ sounds remarkably well informed about the internal attitudes of the BBC and what goes on inside the newsroom. Come on ‘Reith’, admit it, you may not be the infamous “The Insider”, but you’re almost certainly an insider, aren’t you?
“BTW You were wrong, wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong with a sideorder of wrongness and small amounts of fluffy wrongy bits sprinkled on top. Followed by plum-wrong duff and custard. Hmmmmm-mmmmmm”
Oooh! Snappy repartee! I hang my head in shame at the brilliant-ness of your comeback!
Susan – thank you, so you should.
Andrew – you really are obsessed about whether I work for the BBC or not? It’s unhealthy – you should get out more.
Reith
Why do you find yourself so amusing ? It is a really childish trait – haven’t people told you ?
Do I find myself amusing? I’ll have to think about that one.
How do you, John, know I find myself amusing, when even I don’t know?
Is it childish? I don’t care.
Are you talking rubbish? Yup.
Is this thread over? I sincerely hope so.
Reith
Glad you agree that you appear very childish. You faux condescension is a pile of horsecrap, and your ignorance shines through.
You see John, that’s your problem.
You said “Glad you agree that you appear very childish”. I have re-read the post you refer to several times no, and in no way do I “agree” that I “appear childish”.
That makes you a liar, which, along with your resort to profanities makes your views on my “faux condescension”, my “ignorance” and pretty well everything else completely worthless.
The worst BBC Reagan quote has to be what I just saw on PBS’s BBC News just now (in NYC) when reporting on his funeral:
“He supported States’ rights, which in many places in America was a codeword for racism”…
What the f***?
I am so embarassed that these folks allegedly represent my country 🙁
Reith
Yes, all you said was that you did not care about being childish. Which is clearly your bag.