:
A former mayor and his wife have been convicted of fraudulently claiming state benefits.
John Walker, 57, who was mayor of Sefton, and his wife Catie, 43, were found guilty of exaggerating ill health to obtain disability living allowance.
Two Biased BBC readers pointed out a surprising omission from the BBC report, contrasting it with this earlier report from the Liverpool Daily Post, Benefit fraud trial mayor victim of ‘grudge’:
A former mayor and his wife were accused of swindling benefits because of political grudge against him, a court heard today.
John Walker, 57, the former Labour mayor of Sefton, Merseyside, and his wife Catie, 49, face two counts of conspiring to falsify applications for state benefits.
Can you spot the obvious detail that escaped the notice of the fearless and impartial reporters at BBC Views Online (or at least escaped their report)?
Yes, it’s that the ex-Mayor is, surprise, surprise, from the Labour Party.
BBC Views Online’s latest ‘Spot the (Labour) Party‘ competition
We’ve seen this sort of BBC Views Online omission a few times before when dodgy councillors have had their comeuppance. Usually it’s the Labour Party that doesn’t get mentioned, though to be fair to BBC Views Online, I recall one occasion when it was the Conservative Party that was omitted – which raises the question, are such omissions down to bias, or is it just incompetence, another of the “small but significant shortcomings of the News Website“, as ‘John Reith’, our resident anonymous BBC commenter put it?
P.S. JR, you’ve forgotten to reply to a couple of points raised re. your comment above:
i) asking you to enumerate some of the “small but significant shortcomings of the News Website“, so that BBC News Online might benefit from your wisdom and we might understand BBC Views Online better; and,
ii) my suggestion on how those of you at the BBC “involved in the real business of broadcast journalism (making TV and radio)“ might avoid “get[ting] a bit narked“ about being associated with the “small but significant shortcomings of the News Website“;
Knowing how assiduous you are I’m sure this was just an oversight. Perhaps when you have a minute you might address these very interesting points. Thank you.
P.P.S. Apologies for the recent paucity of posts. Sometimes real life gets in the way.
I’ve already reported on a different thread it wasn’t just the BBC website. The “local” news report BBC Northwest in its bulletin that follows the main 10.00 pm news also omitted to give these details.
In some ways this is a more arrogant and damning indication of the endemic bias.
To be accurate it doesn’t “beg the question”.
Very true, Rob, and I have changed Andrew’s post to read “raises the question” instead. I hope he doesn’t mind!
Drat. That was my lure – quietly ‘begging’ JR to take a bite at this thread, which, for some strange reason, he has avoided commenting on, for reasons that escape me…
But for their year in office, aren’t traditional-style mayors technically meant to be above party politics? So Labour councillor yes, but is there such a thing as a “Labour mayor” in this context? (Directly elected mayors a different situation.)
But for their year in office, aren’t traditional-style mayors technically meant to be above party politics?
So, there’s no need for them to mention the Conservative label for any misbehaving Tory mayor in that case? So, why do they do it then?
Andrew
You ask what I consider to be the ‘small but significant’ shortcomings of the BBC news website.
Here goes:
* A tendency to over-scrupulously apply the rule on not mentioning race/ethnicity/religion, so that sometimes a key motive is lost or a story seems bizarre and its protagonists’ actions arbitrary or capricious.
CURE: Editors should point out that any offence against common sense and clarity is ALSO a breach of the rules.
* Too many agency-copy rewrites without significant BBC added-value.
CURE: Do less, but do it better. Fewer pages, fewer stories, more thoroughly done. Involve broadcasting staff more in the writing/prep of stories.
* The house style has been based on a news copy, print, ceefax tradition of news writing. This involves getting the important stuff upfront and then adding lines of contingent stuff. Often – by para 5 or 6 – this turns into a series of discrete facts looking like a list of non-sequiturs and ending (Private Eye style) with ‘Michael Foot is 91’.
CURE: Partially move over to the BBC house style for TV and radio where the story is dealt with more holistically and has a cohesive structure and framework.
* A tendency for mistakes to go live that would never (if made by a staff reporter in the first place) get past a producer, let alone an editor. Perhaps not enough ‘institutional editorial memory’ in the web team yet??
Cure: Integrate web operation more closely with radio and tv news output teams.
* Complaints take ages to result in changes to pages. If readers spot a bloop, there should be a quick way to get it corrected.
CURE: Each page to have an e-mail that goes direct to the duty editor or a senior member of his team. If abused by spammers/nutters- require registration.
Will this do for now?
Well knock me down with a feather!
Peter Horrocks writes in this morning’s Editors’ Blog:
..today is a very big day for BBC News which has now been re-organised in a fully multimedia fashion……..
The multimedia newsroom comprises the BBC News website, the radio summaries and bulletins (except for Radio 1), BBC World Service news, BBC News 24, BBC World, BBC Breakfast and the bulletins on BBC One at 1, 6 and 10, among others.
He’s still a bit iffy on one point:
So for web users such as you I’d like to know if you mainly look to BBC News for an in-depth approach on the day’s most significant stories, or do you value more diversity in the range of subjects we cover?
Any thoughts, Andrew?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/