Sir, As a record producer, a black parent and a taxpaying citizen, I welcome David Cameron’s criticism of Radio 1’s promotion of music that encourages violence (People, June 13).
The BBC and other media continue to install “white liberals” and irresponsible blacks to brainwash our youngsters. The black community is silent and powerless: as in the days of slavery, we have no say in what music our people listen to. We sit back and allow ourselves to be driven down a precarious track, by drivers who are not on the vehicle.
The Government will not do anything until the senseless violence spills over into white suburbia. Three years ago when two young girls were killed in Birmingham, I and others protested about the promotion of violent music. I in particular named the BBC. The BBC continued, saying that there was no evidence that its music policy encouraged violence. Since then we have lost many young lives.
If the BBC has any responsibility to the black community, it will install a panel of responsible people, who will not only monitor the material, but create our own icons.
NEIL FRASER (aka MAD PROFESSOR)
London SE25
Hat tip: An anonymous commenter
This reminds me of the Barbara Plett tears for Arafat story, found to be in breach of BBC rules but still, to this day, online without so much as a stealth edit, apology or a link from the original article to the report on the complaint being upheld:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3966139.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4471494.stm
Even “John Reith” agreed with me that the Plett piece should have a “health warning” or some kind of statement indicating that the piece had been subject to a complaint that had been upheld by the BBC governors, at the very least a link to the report on the complaint being upheld.
The BBC’s apologies are worth about as much the “Palestinians” words of “regret” following a suicide bombing.
“I have long suggested that BBC News Online ought, on each page of their site, including the index pages, to have a link to a page of revisions, so that tellytaxpaying customers like us can, if we so wish, see each and every change to a story as it happened, the better to see how stories develop and who edited what and when.”
This is the strongest suggestion I have ever seen to keep the BBC in line and accountable.
You say you’ve long suggested it, but have you suggested it to the BBC? Their reply would then be on the record and part of the thread. They can only say, “Yes! Great idea for accountability!” (I’ve wiped my eyes and got up off the floor from laughing) or come up with a stream of excuses, which would also be on the record and could be referred back to every time they commit an offence.
I think this is a really excellent suggestion – and one, as you say, that should be very easy to implement.
Beyond the story in question, we are witnessing the unfolding of another BBC outrage against the truth (the bomb on the beach story)where this sort of forensic trail, if followed by even the most impartial observer, would lead to incredulity at how wide open the Beeb’s collective mouth had been when the hook and worm came waggling along.
John Reith and Alan, since you’re still up and posting, please note that there’s plenty of room remaining on this thread for you to share your BBC insider views on my suggestions with us all. Don’t hold back chaps! 🙂
Yes JR, see we agree on more than just Macs are better than PCs 😉
You should move forward with this thought and not let it go. This is the best suggestion I have ever seen for controlling the BBC.
They cannot say no without raising the question, “Why not?” …
G Cooper – ah, yes, the bomb on the beach … they should be required to post updates as the truth emerged. How could anyone object? It is now a completely different story.
But they buried their updates, leaving people with the idea that the Israelis had murdered a happy little family having a picnic. If they were required to have them all on a thread, their original reports, in so many instances, would be indefensible.
Do not let go of this thought. It has mass. Now that it has been articulated, it is not possible to go back. It is the next step to taking control of the BBC, as is the right of the licence-payers.
Andrew – One more thought. You can’t leave it to the BBC to find its own new committee-speak “guidelines”. I suggest you find a sympathetic legislator and get him or her to bang through some legislation.
I don’t normally approve of new legislation under any circumstances, but this is a step to controlling a behemoth, over-confident. state-funded organisation rolling along the tracks with no opposing force. We need legislation to nail down what you have suggested.
Thank you for your thoughts Verity – I’m feeling quite tired just now, and really need to do some real work before going to bed, and then considering this further in the morning. But, please feel free to start lobbying on our behalf in the meantime – with your usual enthusiastic zeal I expect to wake up and find the job done and the system implemented 🙂
Perhaps it’s a bit crass to keep repeating your own suggestions but may I remind people of the proposal I made for a beeb equivalent of the IPCC for the Police.
If this was implemented then you can be sure that inter alia the beeb would have to have an audit trail on all its stories for use by investigators.
Not just “zeal” but “enthusiastic zeal”? You must be tired indeed.
You and me both Verity, you and me both 🙂
Pax.
The BBC Board being elected by TV-Tax payers that would be another useful addition.
A post inspired by my little complaint – that’s cheered me up after Englands pitiful performance last night 😉
I was going to reply back complaining about the stealth edit but then realised I had something more productive to do…think it was watch paint dry.
As for the edit history idea – perfect!
Chance of BBC implementing it = 0!
I dunno – maybe they will do it. After all, at some level, BBC management must know they have a problem with journalistic standards. You can’t just go on committing journalistic atrocity after journalistic atrocity, and it being pointed out to you by a worldwide online audience without eventually getting nervous.
Ten years ago BBC management probably didn’t even know it had a problem – corporate self-satisfaction would have triumphed over every outside criticism. That kind of blindness would seem extremely foolish today. Whether they know it or not, their stories are checked, and errors are noticed, by increasing numbers of people. Here, for example. The response so far has simply been to rely on the stealth-edit – the direct descendent of Orwell’s “memory hole” into which uncomfortable documents are deposited for burning. And with people like B-BBC now alert for it, that’s a strategy that will simply attract increasing public odium, whilst at the same time implanting into people’s minds the knowledge that BBC jouranlism is always provisional, never definitive. Great strategy, huh. .
And after all, what’s the alternative? Declining journalistic standards may grind slow, but they grind small. The Today programme is already losing listeners, and on TV, their news and current affairs programming no longer carries much clout. And without credible journalism to its name, what’s the BBC but an entertainment business?
Remind me again why we pay a poll tax for our entertainment. . .
“The BBC’s apologies are worth about as much the “Palestinians” words of “regret” following a suicide bombing.”
Good god biodegradable, get a grip! (and some perspective)
John Reith and Alan, since you’re still up and posting
…if Alan is me, I’m afraid I’ve not been here posting for weeks. It’s an interesting idea.
surely every News Online page could easily do likewise (though obviously without the free-for-all editing) – heck, the BBC could even use some of Wikipedia’s code to do it.
Dunno about that… Wikicode was built from the ground up specifically to allow that, whereas the BBC’s content management system doesn’t have that functionality built in. As to whether it could be added, I’d be fascinated to hear.
Alan Connor | Homepage | 16.06.06 – 3:00 pm
If stealth editing was disallowed and all published versions were kept with their time stamp reflected in the filename that would do it.
It would be a bit crude but given that not many stories would need investigation in the terms we want it may not matter much that the changes wouldn’t be highlighted/catalogued.
Just the ability to compare more than 1 published version of a story would be helpful so that we (the tv taxpayer) can check on how stories are “refined” over time.
I would also insist that there should be more links to sources so that we can monitor where you get your info and make sure that you have considered some of the blogs who regularly beat the beeb to the punch.
Alan C: “…if Alan is me, I’m afraid I’ve not been here posting for weeks”
Gosh, it looks like we’ve got two Alan’s posting from inside the Borgish Broadcasting Corporation!
Sorry about the confusion, and welcome back – I was wondering why you seemed less reasonable than usual – that explains it… 🙂
Alan C. I do apologise if there is any confusion. Should I adopt a distinguishing letter? Alan Z or somesuch.
And Andrew, you tease. I hope I’m very reasonable, though I do admit I occasionally enjoy tweaking the nose of your more… firey members 😉
What’s firey?
Oh, fiery.
Crikey there’s some reasoned comment and gentle sparring on the comments section. I’m impressed – clearly not everyone fulminates all the time.
On the substantive suggestion about the prohibition of stealth edits and timestamping updates so that the development of a story can be tracked I think it is a brilliant idea for all news websites. And the argument for it is not about peceived bias it is about standards and having an audit trail.
It also provides the readers with te opportunity to see how a story progresses. Sometimes stories change and what was genuinely reported at one stage may change substantially at a later stage – eg the shooting of Brazillian who was guilty on not being white in a built up area. Initially news organisatnios reasonably reported it as the shooting of a suicide bomber as the top cop Ian Blair said he was a suicide bomber – we all know that this turned out not to be the case.
I really don’t think the BBC have any excuse not to implement this idea – it will make them tighten up their game (which in some ares it does need to); they can claim to be leading teh way for other news orgnaisations (I’m not aware other news orgs do this) and it would enable them to take the high ground and say we listen to our detractors and we’ve taken on board their comments.
I can see no reason why they shoud not do this – surely there is more to be gained than lost by doing so? The BBC should be big enough to recognise that even their dretractors can come up with good ideas.
And the argument for it is not about peceived bias it is about standards and having an audit trail.
I can see no reason why they shoud not do this.
A Lurker, you gotta be kidding. The BBC is a propaganda outfit. Sometimes the propaganda is a little rough around the edges – generally due to an overenthusiastic and/or naive reporter – so an editor polishes it up nicely and plonks it back on the site without leaving a trace – at least on the BBC’s website.
Why would the BBC agree to deprive itself of such a useful propaganda tool?
You talk about standards. What standards?!
A Lurker
Maybe I have a habit of overestimateing so called educated people.
However
The BBC news departments are almost entirely staffed by TOP graduates. Some of the most intelligent people in broadcasting and the media (in fact the country) have worked and do work at the BBC. Therefore I can not believe that there is hardly any “mistakes” made at the BBC that are not made on purpose.
The distances the BBC will go in order to get things “right” when they want to be right, are as long as they need them to be. When they are just acting as socialist propergander agents, dangerous rubbish can eminate in seconds.
I know it must be difficult to admit you have been conned most of your life into believing that being at all left had anything to do with being liberal. But can you please try a little harder.
When the revolution really does come anyone that even THINKS like a liberal, will be the first against the wall. At least I will get a job making something out of your families gold teeth.
Try looking up “socialism” in a book or something. While doing that try looking up “liberal” as well. If you can see anything the same about the two idears you are doing better than anyone other than a socialist politician trying to get elected has ever done.
Bryan
The point I was trying to make was that the suggestion about not having stealth edits was a valid suggestion, even if you don’t believe the BBC is biased crypto communist organisation that has come about becasue of a vast conspiracy of crazy Gramscians. My point was that regardless of the any views regarding bias – the suggestion has merit in that it:
– can be argued to uphold stantdards
– is transparent
– allows people to track the progress of a story – as I’ve said the progress of story and how it develops is interesting and is of value – and the way a story is reported can quite reasoably change as what is known changes – see my eg of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Gary Powell – I am cosntstntly at a loss at your incohernet ramblings on these comments. I refer not to your spelling – we all make typos from time to time and even if your spelling is crap that’s not the point – it is your ideas and arguments that are poor.
Firstly you do not believe “mistakes” are made on purpose. Well I do believe that people in all walks of life make mistakes, from the cleaner, to tyhe surgeon, from the airline pilot to the lawyer, from the internet ranter to the BBC journo.
Secondly you seem to think I believe I have been conned by being on the left and that there is no liberal left. This is nonsense. It is the liberal left in the 60s, 70s and 80s that campaingned for gay rights, not the establishment right. It was the liberal left (trade unions platying a large part)that fought the fascists in the 30s and 40s in Britain. It was the liberal left that lead the campaign against the disgraceful and brutal apartheid regime – I seem to recall in the 80s the right did not support sanctions but wanted to prop up the regime by contiuing to trade with the apartheid regime. Or maybe gay rights, fighting fascists and fighting brutal racist regimes are bad things to be doing.
Gary, there is a liberal left (there is also an authortiarian left too), just as I recognise there is a libertarian right. You have a simplistic and myopic view of politics and really should try to broaden your reach – there’s plenty of websites that can expalin where there a similarities in the libertarian right and liberal left. You could do no worse than start here:
http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/
and take the online test. I’ve posted about this before – try it. You may even learn something – you may even disagree but at least you will have had a go and better able to argue your point.
Your comment that “When the revolution really does come anyone that even THINKS like a liberal, will be the first against the wall. At least I will get a job making something out of your families gold teeth.” is both contradictary to your argument and offensive at the same time – no mean feat. If when the revloution comes liberals will be shot and you will have some opportunity to make money from harvesting my family’s gold teeth you are saying that I (and my family) are the liberals and you are not as you will be harvesting from dead liberal bodies. If you really think such a jibe adds to your argument you are just a deluded bigot.
Nuff said – anyway how come even when I agree with this blog I get haranged. You guys just don’t understand the words “I agree” – I think you have some form of tourettes that causes you to lash out at anyone on the left or a ny Muslim regardless of what they may say.
that last comment was from me
You really should try the political compass test as one of the questions is relevant to this blog – here it is:
No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.
Try it and see.
Gary P: “When the revolution really does come anyone that even THINKS like a liberal, will be the first against the wall. At least I will get a job making something out of your families gold teeth”
Gary, please moderate your language – these sentiments, particularly the bit about gold teeth, are intemperate and unreasonable. Please rephrase your comment. Thank you.
It was the liberal left that lead the campaign against the disgraceful and brutal apartheid regime – I seem to recall in the 80s the right did not support sanctions but wanted to prop up the regime by contiuing to trade with the apartheid regime.
A lurker | 16.06.06 – 10:57 pm
And the right were right.
I worked in SA 1977-79. The job reservation laws stipulated that non-whites were not allowed to join certain trades such as electrical, plumbing, etc.
However, the country ws so prosperous and needed so many houses to be built that it was impossible to adhere to job reservation and most people turned a blind eye to it and employed non-white workers.
In other words, demand broke the back of the job reservation laws. It follows that if sanctions had not been applied and prosperity had been allowed the non-whites would have been better off. After some perhaps longish period they would have worked their way up and might have gradually taken over the government having learnt on the way up how to govern.
As soon as sanctions began to bite, however, the economy stalled and the poor stayed poor. Then came a black government who didn’t know how to govern but did know how to stash money in Switzerland.
Local services were damaged, blacks were put in place in the police and crime rocketed to a murder rate in excess of Iraq in the middle of war.
So the left proved again that their good intentions lead to hell.
A Lurker, I understood what you were saying and that you were agreeing with a proposal put forward here.
I just found it quite revealing that you would assume that BBC powers-that-be would cheerfully agree to a reform designed to end their entrenched practice of stealth editing – thus going against the very nature of the organisation.
You talk about transparency as if the BBC embracing such a concept is a real possiblilty. And you talk about standards as if they had not been steadily dropping for some time now.
You don’t seem to have grasped what is going on at the BBC. No conspiracy? There’s a conspiracy of silence on the part of the BBC on the most vital issues of our times.
And that is quite exraordinary for a media organisation.
Marvellous! I just stumbled across this blog entry on your ever-amusing front page, and was delighted to see the link to your favourite piece of BBC “stealth editing”.
I felt I had to reply as, reader, I am that BBC journalist! I wrote that piece, and made the change, and the time has come to ‘fess up.
I’m sorry but – a bit like Andrew George of Hilda Murrell infamy – my confession may pop a rather nice conspiracy theory bubble. Rather than a subliminal attempt to slur Maggie, it was just me being crap.
In my defence, I had been down the BBC bar at lunchtime – but I simply wrote the wrong name then noticed it, and put the story through without a new timestamp because I didn’t want the editor to see what a fuckwit I had been. I reckoned without the eagle-eyed (and hare-brained) devotees of biased bbc!
This particular tin-foil-hat wearing piece of anti-beeb paranoia is made even more amusing by the fact that I, as any of my colleagues would gladly point out, have political views on most subjects somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan.
I’m afraid that while the beeb can be crap, it can twist itself in knots trying to be impartial and end up just being hamstrung, and it can be wrong – it really isn’t biased.
To quote Margaret Thatcher (and it really is her this time) “Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides. ”
Oh and another: “Of course it’s the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story. “
Well, thanks for that little gem of an admission of wrongdoing, John Brunsdon. It’s exceptional for the BBC. I’m going to leave it up to other Biased BBC-ers far more knowledgeable on this issue than I am to comment.
But what I will say is you appear to regard the matter as something to chuckle over with BBC colleagues and others over a beer or two. Perhaps you’ve filed it under ‘Amusing BBC stories to be trotted out when there’s a lull in the conversation’.
However, this is anything but funny.
Oh, and I meant to add if you think the BBC is not biased you need to trade in those rose-coloured spectacles.
John Brunsdon | 19.06.06 – 4:45 am
The lesson I draw from your oh so patronising confession is that you seem to be saying that beeboids’ attempts to be impartial are bound to fail. That everyone is partial and nobody compensates correctly for their partiality in writing a story.
This is fair enough but the answer for the beeb is not to present itself as infallibly impartial but to recognise its human frailties and make sure that more than one side is represented in your stories.
Make sure you give as much prominence and attention to right-wingers as you do to leftie mingers from the grauniad/independent axis of weasels.
Put both sides and let us decide. Swallow your pride and take an example from Fox News.
The main reason why you must do this is that the game is up. The beeb no longer has a monopoly in news presentation because blogs can find and disseminate the real truth.
gordon-bennett,
Well, they’ll never do it because it’s the right thing to do so I guess the only hope of them doing it is because the game is up!
So …
“I had been down the BBC bar at lunchtime – but I simply wrote the wrong name then noticed it, and put the story through without a new timestamp because I didn’t want the editor to see what a fuckwit I had been.”
I am sure there must be a rule about not appearing on the radio or the TV when under the influence. I wonder why there is no such rule pertaining to web publications. I also wonder why there is no rule banning ‘stealth’ editing. Or does internal BBC culture simply allow both to happen?
JB: nice to hear from you. But you’re completely wrong about the BBC being knocked down from both sides – the reason it’s the favoured target of us far-right fascist nutters (& never the enlightened Guardianistas) is that it’s firmly esconced on the lefthand side of the road.