Over on Iain Dale’s site he mentions a BBC report about the forthcoming Internet TV station, 18 Doughty Street.
According to the BBC the new station will be:
“… a sort of British version of Fox News, which is Rupert Murdoch’s news channel in the United States. Fox is attacked for being politically partisan and that of course is not allowed here.”
“Not allowed here”!
I had to pour myself a wee dram.
Yes – I heard that this morning – I couldn’t believe it. He also said that they had to broadcast on the internet as they could not get away with it on Television. The Beeb really do think that they are unbiased.
deleted for obscenity
Edited By Siteowner
The mind boggles!
They must be taking the line that if you keep repeating the same lies over and over again, people will eventually accept them as the truth.
Very worrying.
over at comment is free, the MCB’s Bunglawala takes on Richard Dawkins
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2006/10/dawkins_vs_god_1.html
folks might be getting the wrong end of the stick with that phrase.
“not allowed here” refers to UK law.
Ofcom wont allow partisan news on the airwaves- which is why doughty street is internet only.
of course, the fact that Ofcom isnt doing its job with regards to the BBC is by the by – but the letter of the law is that you simply cannot open up a Fox News UK. thats why Sky News is as bad as the BBC sometimes.
(bloody awful Law by the way – whats wrong with a free market?)
Ofcom wont allow partisan news on the airwaves…
I’ll point out that Fox News Channel is not “on the airwaves” here, either. It’s on cable. This makes a big difference.
I suppose this is slightly OT, but you should have seen Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy – who really and truly does make Al-Beeb’s servants look impartial and truthful – covering the same news item and even having the cheek to interview the director of the new channel. It was hilarious. The man did not even need to challenge him directly, to put him in his place, and Guru-Murthy ended the interview very fast and with evident relief.
Archduke said:”Ofcom wont allow partisan news on the airwaves- which is why doughty street is internet only… (bloody awful Law by the way – whats wrong with a free market?)”
I agree it’s a bad law, but not because of free market.
Given that partisan views are necessarily believed by their partisans to be true, this law does not prevent partisan news but merely allows the partisan media to pass them on as objective, without identifying the party concerned. This is precisely what’s happening at the BBC.
Continued from my previous post:
Now imagine if rather than banning partisan views, the law dictated the precise opposite: all reporters would be obliged by law to disclose their political inclinations.
I reckon BBC News division would then last in its present form for about a week at the most.
Just a reminder: the BBC isn’t even subtle about exploiting these regs to nobble the opposition.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1239094,00.html
Re. the guardian article: I still can’t see where Fox News went wrong when describing Al Beeb.
“…an on-air tirade that accused the BBC of “frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism”.”
“…which also accused BBC executives of giving reporters a “right to lie”.
Sounds like Al Beeb we know, doesn’t it? Ofcom: Your factual ministry of truth!
From dumbjon’s link to The Guardian:
The Fox presenter, John Gibson, said in a segment entitled My Word that the BBC had “a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest”; that the BBC “felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives”; that the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the US invasion, had “insisted on air that the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military”; and that “the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie – exaggerate – because, well, the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right”.
That is absolutely spot-on and is a concise critique of the BBC’s stance on any issue, not just Iraq, where it believes it (BBC) knows better.
Allan@Boston
Also, it seems clear that this wasn’t a news report, but a more personal piece to camera by a named individual, i.e. exactly the kind of thing the BBC has indulged in for years by the like of John Simpson and excused as a personal view.
And who the hell are Ofcom to tell a foreign-owned and operated private company what they can do?!
“And who the hell are Ofcom to tell a foreign-owned and operated private company what they can do?!”
Er.. because it was broadcast in the UK.
DifferentAnon
Where was it broadcast from?
P_L Not relevant: Because it is broadcast legally in this country, it goes under Ofcom’s rules.
What a shame that they cannot control the Internet!
The BBC kicks up a fuss over Jack Straw’s comments on the hijab… meanwhile…
http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=504
So Ofcom’s writ runs to the US?
Expect OFCOM to get involved when the first extra-terrestrial signals are being received by SETI (because it is broadcast in this galaxy it goes under OFCOM’s rules!).
I wonder what E.T. makes of PC…
“So Ofcom’s writ runs to the US?”
I don’t know the specific technicalities of it: it is broadcast through a UK platform so presumably Ofcom can either require Fox to fall under its regs or revoke its licence.
There is, apparently, some talk of Ofcom easing up on its regulations for programmes that are explicitly made for a non-UK audience primarily.
Too bad DifferentAnon. We’ve seen it (Fox presenter’s views), read it and agreed with it. You would have preferred that we had not. Seems like censorship to me.
Yeah, let’s revoke Fox’s license and have Al Jazeera on instead. Oh, I forgot … Al Jazeera is already available on Sky Digital and then we still have Al Beeb – the beacon of free and unbiased reporting.
OFCOM = Ministry of truth
If you want to see a good example of “Lefties and free speech” check out the video of the “Minutemen” representatives being shouted down and attacked at Columbia University.
Thanks for the Ofcom report on Fox, I didnt know they could do that, I like the fact that, not withstanding all the other bull for the reasons for censure, a biggie apparently, is not giving the BBC a chance to respond to the item. Oh! bless. Pity poor BBC, being crticised by another news vendor.
The freedom loving Guardian writer then includes the (I assume editorial) gem:
“It is unlikely, however, that the Fox rant would get past even a more relaxed regime in Britain, because of its lack of basis in fact.”
Thanks truth providers! We await your further judgment on what we can know in our country.