It’s probably worth just having a permanent link to Justin Webb’s blog on this site, but even so I found his latest effort surprising:
Credit to the House Republicans: they fight for what they believe in. But John McCain – what does he stand for? Does he back the party rebels or the president – he won’t say. As things stand, he stands for not debating.
I stand to be corrected (as usual) but I cannot believe the American people are sitting back and saying, “Good show, John.”
Apparently what’s upset Webb is the “mind boggling contempt” that’s been shown to George Bush. Really.
A quick reminder of those editorial guidelines: Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on [controversial] matters.
Perhaps Webb would prefer that George Bush use the military to seize control of the nation, become a dictator of life and force decisions on this matter without any approval of Congress or his own party.
Isn’t it about time Webb was sacked? He most certainly is raising a finger to BBC guidelines (and hence to license payers) via the platform of his atrocious blog. He’s perhaps one of the worst “journalists” I have ever known.
The rise of childish, mindless left wing stupidity around us is frightening me. Just look at this article in the Mail and the comments beneath it. People everywhere are dropping the tools of reason and reverting back to the ignorant peasant mentality of yore.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1060850/400bn-Wall-St-bail-deal-ditched-McCain-backs-alternative-plan.html#comments
A sickening piece on BBC Breakfast with its piece on Sir Paul M.’s concert in Israel last night: They couldn’t let an innocent concert go without the usual Beeb pro-Palestinian spin but OMMITTING the fact that Muslims made death threats against McCartney.
What sickens me is the fact thatfor the BBC any positive story about Israel must somehow always be accompanied with a segment about the Palestinians.
Sir Paul did visit Bethlehem and has tried to be even handed to both sides even though Islamists made death threats against him. What more does al-Beeb want?
Battersea: The BBC want Israel to just go away.
NotaSheep: That probably explains why the BBC loves ‘I’m a dinner jacket’ so much.
If he has his way, Israel will go away, in a ball of fire.
A blog by definition is the personal views of the blogger. I don’t think the piece offends BBC guidelines no matter how much we are offended by Justin Webb.
deegee: “Those involved in editorial or production areas must take particular care to ensure that they do not undermine the integrity or impartiality of the BBC or its output on their blogs.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/personalweb/blogging_managers.shtml
And that, as far as I can make out is talking about their personal (not BBC branded) blogs, so if anything stricter rules apply, surely?
The guidance also makes clear that “If a blog makes it clear that the author works for the BBC, it should include a simple and visible disclaimer such as “these are my personal views and not those of the BBC”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/personalweb/blogging.shtml
See also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/personalweb/blogging_news.shtml
News and Current Affairs staff and blogging
Impartiality is a particular concern for those working in News and Current Affairs. Nothing should appear on their personal blogs which undermines the integrity or impartiality of the BBC. For example, News and Current Affairs staff should not:
* advocate support for a particular political party
* express views for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
* advocate any particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate
deegee: Bollocks. If the blog is maintained by the BBC and the person updating it does so in BBC time as far as I’m concerned that is no differnt to any other output from the BBC.
Justin Wankstain is a disgrace even by the BBC’s low standards.
Hugh
Radio 4 as been running a series with Sue McCregor chairing discussions between people connected with specific events – today it was the Channel Tunnel, touching on some of the old controversies. Radio at its best – interesting, informative, cool in tone, pleasant.
These progs have reminded me that in all her years as an excellent interviewer on the Today prog, Sue McGregor never displayed whatever political views she holds. She always seemed even-handed, but usually conducted penetrating interviews. I amagine from her background that she was fromthe centre-left, but that never came across.
THAT is the contrast with the wretched Just Spouting Webb, braying at us on air and through his blog. Sneering at Palin, sneering at McCain – and Bush – and blatantly in the tank for Obama. All the time following the Dem campaign talking points and lifting themes from the New York Times and Huffington Post. AND all the time – failing to be properly INFORMATIVE.
I have participated in his blog for a few days – stung initially by all the scurrilous rubbish about Palin’s family. The blog seems to be infested with people who are Webb groupies, calling racist every time Obama is criticised on his record, plus a constant undercurrent of anti-Israel views as well. Mostly Americans or expats over there.
Why are we forced to pay for such blogs ? I doubt if Webb reads the comments – but there must be a significant cost on the moderators working round the clock. (And the moderators too appear to be very biased, judging by what they let through and what they block)
Justin Webb strikes me as someone that is losing his marbles. I wonder if he believes in what he says, or perhaps the pressures of conforming to the BBC mindset have finally taken their toll. He seems to be existing in some kind of fantasy land.
JohnA: Yes, I’m surprised how little effort Webb makes. To be honest, though, I think the blogs as a whole are just a really bad idea for the BBC. As Deegee suggested, they don’t lend themselves to objective analysis but rather off-the-cuff opinion. If your unique selling point is meant to be that your commentators’ prejudices and preferences are not apparent to the audience, then embracing a medium that almost guarantees they are continually aired looks like an error of judgement.
The problem, as ever, is that the BBC can’t stomach the thought of an area of the media existing in which it is not an active, and indeed dominant, participant.
US Conservatives oppose the Socialist Bailout:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/paulsons-700-billion-bailout-wall/story.aspx?guid={B01C634E-C8F5-4843-884C-E4F595D7D5E8}&dist=hppr
Henry Paulson is either a Fascist or an idiot. He is clearly an arrogant, Either way, Bush should sack him, and that unelected retard Bernanke as well. This is clearly a scam to con the US taxpayer, as evidenced by the lack of detail and conditions. Paulson and Bernanke’s contempt for the US constitution is sickening.
This is the wealthy elites trying to use the taxpayers money to save their own asses.
Thank goodness for the likes of Ron Paul and Jim Bunning, true Conservatives, and Democrat Rep Marcy Kaptur, for standing by their principles and opposing this massive criminal swindle of the American people.
Apparently McCain said little during the bitter meeting last night.
The majority of Republicans oppose the bailout, if McCain is smart he will side with Ron Paul and co.
It still looks possible that the first debate between McCain and Obama will take place tonight.
My overall sense of the polling is that after trailing Obama all though the summer, McCain bounced ahead a bit after the Repub convention and the Palin selection. This was mainly because many Repubs who had been standing on the sidelines started to declare they would now vote for their party ticket. There was no appreciable change in Obama’s level of support – usually in the mid-40%s.
Then Obama pulled back – mainly through the impact of worrying financial news, which resulted in McCain’ssupport falling back. Currently the RCP averages show an Obama lead of 3% within the margin of polling error. But McCain has been pulling back a bit, and a couple of polls have shown himin the lead again.
Neither candidate has cracked the 50% barrier except in the odd stray poll.
There are many who think Obama needs a “polling lead” of 4 or 5% or more just to break even on the day, partly because many of the polls over-represent Dem voters, but also through the Bradley effect – many whites will not actually vote on the day for Obama, whatever they say to the pollsters.
Tonight’s debate, if it goes ahead, could have a significant effect – the perceived winner usually gets a jump of 3 or 4%. Obama is not very good at the sort of straight answers that voters are looking for, McCain is no slouch at debating and will be stressing his clear seniority.
What happens in Congress could also have an effect – if a fix is achieved (however grubby and expensive to the taxpayers) I would expect McCain to benefit rather more than Obama – either because people will feel relieved, or because McCain may play a clear role in the fix, with Obama just looking like a fifth wheel.
I would not be surprised if Hillary Clinton may ease McCain’s path on this. Bill Clinton is still not making speeches on behalf of Obama – and his recent TV appearances have praised both McCain and Palin as well as the required nods in Obama’s direction. That unhappy wing of Clinto supporters are still feeling sore, as are the Cintons, it seems.
We MIGHT see McCain getting a double-sized bounce, if he defeats Obama in the foreign-affairs debate this evening, and if Congress does a deal.
How on earth would Justin Webb explain that away ?
The BBC have peddled the lie that McCain wanted to avoid the debate. What bollocks. Osama is crap when he hasn’t got a tele promter to read from.
McCain is much stronger when off the cuff.
Osama backed away from McCain’s idea of Town Hall meetings.
However, no matter how well McCain does tonight, Webb and Frei will still try to tell the world that Osama won the debate.
Well let’s see shall we. My bet is their view will chime with the mainstream. We are BTW merely observers in the UK you know? Interested observers for sure, but what we and our media does and says has no purchase on the result. So not quite sure why about half the discussion on this (very parochially British site) is about the US. Very odd.
The 1928 Depression was severely exacerbated by choking of the supply of liquidity at the wrong moment. The bail-out plan is an attempt to avoid that happening again. We must assume that the scale of the crisis is so bad it really needs intervention on this scale.
As a Tory I don’t believe in stubborn idealism. I believe in pragmatism. If we don’t bail out the financial sector and leave it go hang then the entire global financial system will very possibly collapse leaving money worthless. A country like the UK can’t afford that – we’d starve. So if yoyu don’t believe in the bail-out then go ahead and start stocking up on dried rice and baked beans. The people that are responsible for this mess should be taken out and shot, starting with one G. Brown, but the mess will be best cleaned up with an “all hands to the pumps” approach.
whitewineliberal: I don’t really understand what point you’re making or who it’s addressed to. Who’s view will chime with the mainstream (where), and why wouldn’t this site deal with the BBC’s coverage of the US? Or are you talking about the general debates on US politics in the comments?
The problem, as ever, is that the BBC can’t stomach the thought of an area of the media existing in which it is not an active, and indeed dominant, participant.
Hugh | 26.09.08 – 11:44 am | #
you’re not wrong. Although Peston’s and Robinson’s are quite good because they add an extra layer to their coverage that you may not want to wait til 10pm for, or have time for in a 90s package.
Have you picked this up yet:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/26/do2603.xml
Beware the “jumped up Millbank oik” he wants a bigger license fee on everything administered by him…
(These views are my own, not those of my (P/T) employer)
whitewineliberal: What utter bollocks you spout.
Frei and Webb have no idea of the view of middle Americans. They both hang out on left wing hate sites like the Kos, Huffington Post, moveon etc.
Webb has even been caught red handed here on this blog using hate stuff straight off these sites on both his own blog and on his TV pieces.
Webb is a cunt. The man is a prick. He has no ability as a journalist.
Ah I see TPO has found it. And forgotten where he lives.
I think he’s great. But I’m annoyed he’s going easy on Palin. The Couric stuff is just unbelievable. We wouldn’t elect her to run a Students’ Union here. But we have to rely on YouTube to see the full boneheaded folly of the woman. Let’s hope McCain does well tonight so he can can make a fight of the election. As a dispassionate Brit, i really do want a close race.
whitewineliberal – I like Webb’s blog too – but I’m note sure the BBC is the rigth place for it, ergo, Rod Liddle, Jeff Randall, etc
I have sacked my Sub-Editor
A blog by definition is the personal views of the blogger. I don’t think the piece offends BBC guidelines no matter how much we are offended by Justin Webb.
deegee | 26.09.08 – 9:10 am | #
It is, then, probably right to say that the existence of these blogs breaks BBC guidelines in the first place. I see no reason why license payers money should be used to allow “journalists” like Webb an unobstructed platform to promote their own personal political views. I thought the purpose of BBC news was to inform (*sound of raucous laughter*)
God bless the BBC blogs. I’d prefer to know what Webb and Frei really think. Let’s see them for what they are, not hiding behind the BBC invisibility cloak.
And about Sue McGregor? Behind the veil of Home Service misty nostalgia – wanna guess what she votes?
whitewineliberal | 26.09.08 – 2:01 pm |
We are BTW merely observers in the UK you know? Interested observers for sure, but what we and our media does and says has no purchase on the result. So not quite sure why about half the discussion on this (very parochially British site) is about the US. Very odd.
I guess the new school year has started, because it looks like it’s time to give my standard orientation speech to the new boys. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to answer this exact question.
NB: Anyone who has heard all this before should probably just scroll past the whole thing, as I won’t be saying anything new here. I’m sorry to keep repeating myself, but people do keep asking.
Before the lecture begins, though, think about the extraordinary amount of US election coverage the BBC is doing, which they have said is the most important election in human history. The BBC also falsely portrays this election as a final chance to defeat George Bush, thereby adding an emotional dimension which gets people even more excited. So the amount of US discussion here shouldn’t be all that surprising. However, I suspect that’s not all you’re really talking about.
There are two reasons why I comment here about BBC bias, one of which is the same reason why the UK residents here participate. I can’t say which is more important that the other, and it probably depends on my mood or particularly atrocious BBC report anyway.
I have found that the BBC misleads or actually misinforms (either deliberately or through laziness) the British Public about many issues involving not only the US, but Republicans, conservatives, conservative views (both social and political), and openly Christian people.
Friends and business acquaintances of mine have gotten mistaken impressions about many things, which I’ve had to correct, because of things the BBC reports (or doesn’t). Further, the BBC’s narrative that the US is too racist to elect a black man is one of the worst offenses right now, as this is an attempt to sway the public’s opinion against the US in the event of a McCain Presidency. Ol’ Justin started that during the primaries. When The Obamessiah won the nomination, he and his colleagues simply changed to a higher gear and about once a week suggest that the whole country is still probably too racist. There is never any mention that some of us might object to his policies (What policies? He’s not a Republican, so that’s all you need to know). Any comment along those lines posted on either Webb’s blog or a HYS is usually deleted by the mods. When was the last time any BBC report discussed US voters’ concerns about his redistributionist policies, or close ties to Marxists and domestic terrorists? They haven’t. Not a word. The only issue the BBC seems to acknowledge is The Obamessiah’s lack of experience. We’ve seen how they try to use Gov. Palin as a distraction from this.
Before you tell me that the BBC never tries to sway public opinion, or that they can’t possibly have any such effect like I’m suggesting, remember all those “social cohesion” programmes (“Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic” is a favorite punching bag here, and for good reason) and all the Climate Change hype, programmes about giving up flying, etc. The BBC most certainly devotes a significant amount of time to promote social change on specific issues (believing it to be part of their remit and divine right), so the idea that they can’t have any effect on public opinion about things like Iraq, the election, and the US in general, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
With this in mind, I can tell you from plenty of personal experience that the BBC has misinformed people I know to the point of turning them against reason on certain issues. Why do I care about this? Because in this way the BBC is misleading the citizens of my country’s greatest ally, and I believe intentionally trying to create a rift where there would otherwise be none. The idea that electing a black man just ‘cos he is black and the US has the worst racial history of any industrial nation is the only correct answer in this election, and the focus on race is a lovely smokescreen to hide the Obamessiah’s political flaws. The other smokescreen is, as I’ve already pointed out, the totally false idea that McCain is closely tied to Bush, and a McCain Presidency would merely be another four years of the hated Bush Doctrine.
I will go out on a limb here and say that quite a few inhabitants of this blog can point to instances when they were unaware of certain things, or had been misinformed by the BBC, until one of the US residents brought the facts here. And I’m not talking about non-issues. I’m talking about pretty major ones, or minor ones about which the BBC has deliberately lied or misrepresented. That’s a problem.
I don’t like it when friends and acquaintances are turned against my country when their reasons are based on false information from the BBC. This is a dangerous game. I don’t like it when factions at the BBC deliberately attempt to sway my friends and acquaintances, especially when it’s done by stealth or even by lying.
The other reason I visit this blog is because the BBC has a news broadcast produced in and targeted at the US audience. In addition to the BBC World News, which is syndicated around the country via PBS, BBC America has its own nightly, hour-long newscast. The first half hour may be World Service or News 24 segments (some of which are biased on their own), but the second half is the BBC take on US issues.
The BBC has stated quite clearly – both on air and in print – that this show was created because we foolish United Statesians are too parochial and unaware of the world around us, and thus need an international perspective on our own issues (read: what the BBC thinks we should think). Make no mistake: this is not my opinion – this is what they say.
You’ve already heard my points about what Matt Frei, Justin Webb, and Katty Kay have said on air, so you know what I’m talking about. This is a deliberate attempt to change minds, to meddle in my country’s election. I won’t stand for it. It doesn’t matter how large or how small their audience is, because this is a matter of principle. This is the Official State Broadcaster of my country’s greatest ally, and what they’re doing is not cool.
That about sums it up. I put (USA) in my signature because several people in the past (on your side of the fence exclusively) have stated that non-UK residents have no business complaining about the BBC, or that we should at least identify ourselves as foreigners, especially United Statesians, so they know where we’re coming from (literally).
Rant ends. Accompanying materials available in the foyer.
David Preiser (USA)
Dead on!
I have to constantly INFORM my friends and relations in the UK who do not get a full range of opinions. Trouble is they actually don’t believe me – poor things, can’t understand how the BBC is not balanced. But as the years have passed, the weight of evidence (thanks B-BBC) is convincing them that something is not right…
According to wanker Webb on BBC 1 just now McCain has backed down because he’s doing the debate but said he wouldn’t unless there was significant progress.
But wanker Webb didn’t mention this comment.
“…Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said if negotiators can agree to principles of agreement for a bailout, a deal could be done by midnight…”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428421,00.html
Yet again wanker Webb gives us one side of the story. The side that suits his left wing bias.
David – Powerful stuff, as jim naughtie might say.
But it’s the “accompanying material” i’d be interested in. You make a lot of assertions, but offer little evidence.
So for instance “The BBC….falsely portrays this election as a final chance to defeat George Bush.” Does it? Where? It portrays Bush as a lame duck (Frei, Webb today), but that’s political reality isn’t it? The Reps in the House seem to think so.
“the BBC’s narrative that the US is too racist to elect a black man”
No such narrative; and how anyway would such a view tally with the narrative on this site that they’re shilling for Obama. Waste of time if that’s there view. The BBC flag the race issue, but then so does everyone because it’s a reality (someone on here reckoned earlier in the day it was worth 5% over and above what the polls are saying).
“close ties to Marxists and domestic terrorists
Conspiracy nonsense.
“turned against my country when their reasons are based on false information from the BBC”
Entirely the BBC’s fault? They must be feeble minded in the extreme. And all of this is of course a “deliberate attempt to change minds”. So a conspiracy? Or is it “laziness”? Wobbly thinking David.
“The BBC has stated quite clearly – both on air and in print – that this show was created because we foolish United Statesians are too parochial and unaware of the world around us”. Reference for this? You’re parodying.
So, David, for all your cod intellectualising, this is all just bluster and blowhardery, drawn from right wing US perceptions of the UK. It’s a terribly partisan and blinkered view, based on very little. The World’s grey, not black and white and the bbc’s coverage reflects this. it is far less partisan in its coverage of the states than pretty much all other media outlets, save perhaps Sky (which is dumbed down news).
If you listen to as much bbc coverage as i do, then you will certainly not consider it perfect. The Today programme for instance focuses disproportionately on religion, constantly telling us what the CoE view is on current affairs; when no-one here gives a stuff. And a lot of the time the coverage is either dumbed down (the 10pm news) or smug in the extreme (Today again). But for all its faults, it is in my view a vital and good element of a rich media tradition in this country, which stacks up well against that in the US. I’d put The Economist in the same league as the BBC in the print media, but little else.
So thank you for the 101. But I’m afraid we’ll continue to disagree if that’s the best you can offer.
whitewineliberal: Sky is dumbed down news?
God what does that make the shite pumped out by the BBC?
David Preiser (USA) 26.09.08 – 4:12 pm
Well said, David.
Re: your comment about the “new school year”, this is the time of year when we have to watch out for all the newly graduated media students commenting on sites like this in order to establish their credentials with any prospective employer.
whitewineliberal | 26.09.08 – 6:35 pm |
But it’s the “accompanying material” i’d be interested in. You make a lot of assertions, but offer little evidence.
Dude. This blog is the evidence. There are literally hundreds of examples here – direct quotes, exactly as I have described them. It’s unreasonable for you to waltz in here without looking around and declare my statements to be blinkered hearsay. Otherwise, you come across as popping your head in and saying, “Hi guys, I’m new here. I have no knowledge or interest in what you’ve been saying for the last few years, but here’s my opinion on it all anyway.” Better to stick with debating the issues as the come up, I think.
The bit about “accompanying materials” was a joke, but obviously went over your head. Should you care to spend a little time looking around the archives as I and others have already suggested, you might find the evidence. You’ve apparently already refused to do so. Without any knowledge of the contents of this blog – all the evidence which backs up my statements – your opinion has no value. We don’t have time to catch everyone up.
Yet, you try to dismiss my opinion by saying that I haven’t spent as much time watching the BBC’s output as you do. Bad form.
Entirely the BBC’s fault? They must be feeble minded in the extreme. And all of this is of course a “deliberate attempt to change minds”. So a conspiracy? Or is it “laziness”? Wobbly thinking David.
Please, I’m talking about specific issues, specific items about which people have been misinformed. Sorry, but when people tell me they heard it on Newsnight or on MoneyBox, that tells me where they heard it.
If you’re stating, however, that anyone who believes what the BBC says must be feeble minded in the extreme, well, I think we can all get behind that one.
“The BBC has stated quite clearly – both on air and in print – that this show was created because we foolish United Statesians are too parochial and unaware of the world around us”. Reference for this? You’re parodying.
Sir, you treat me unjustly. I’ll give you one link, and if you can’t be bothered to study further that’s your own affair.
BBC World News America
Matt Frei was quoted as saying: “At a time when America is struggling to understand the world, and the world America, the BBC offers a uniquely global perspective to a US audience looking for answers.”
Like I said, this is well documented all over this blog. Do your homework before passing judgment. It’s really not acceptable to come here uninformed and accuse me of parody and misrepresentation.
So, David, for all your cod intellectualising, this is all just bluster and blowhardery, drawn from right wing US perceptions of the UK. It’s a terribly partisan and blinkered view, based on very little. The World’s grey, not black and white and the bbc’s coverage reflects this. it is far less partisan in its coverage of the states than pretty much all other media outlets, save perhaps Sky (which is dumbed down news).
Sky is not your Official State Broadcaster and does not come with a decades-long legacy of being a trusted source of information. Nor is it paid for by your taxes (yet).
Please make the effort to look at the archives here before insulting my intelligence further.
whitewineliberal | 26.09.08 – 6:35 pm
“So, David, for all your cod intellectualising, this is all just bluster and blowhardery, drawn from right wing US perceptions of the UK.”
If criticism of the beeb is “right wing”, is that not a tacit acknowledgement that the BBC is inherently left-wing?
I’ve been voting Lib/Lib-Dem since 1974, yet I hate the BBC with a passion.
“So thank you for the 101. But I’m afraid we’ll continue to disagree if that’s the best you can offer.”
With sneering condescension like that, you are more than amply qualified for a career at the BBC.
“this show was created because we foolish United Statesians are too parochial and unaware of the world around us”. is drawn from “At a time when America is struggling to understand the world, and the world America, the BBC offers a uniquely global perspective to a US audience looking for answers.”
the one piece of evidence you offer makes my case better than I could have hoped.
and mick, there’s a whole new world of leftist criticism of the bbc out there. medialens, indymedia.
whitewineliberal | 26.09.08 – 7:21 pm |
the one piece of evidence you offer makes my case better than I could have hoped.
I suppose it would be redundant to say that your response makes mine.
whitewineliberal – welcome to B-BBC where we are doomed to go round in the same circle again and again until the current Charter ends.
Then we may all be put out of our misery.
Or maybe not, maybe Dave will get in, things will appear to swing ‘to the right’, the people here who want a balanced BBC (rather than opposing the tax on principle) will be happier and we will have to go to MediaLens for fun.
Back OT and more broadly, I think there is a place for BBC blogs – but they must comply with the Charter, this then makes for rather dull blogs.
A good blog has a strong POV and generates informed but passionate debate among its commentors – like this one (I dont say it often but this is a really good blog, loads of beeboids think so too, even if you dont like us much).
In that manner, Justin Webb’s is a good blog, particularly judging by the volume of comments – most posts are now attracting more comments than all the conspiracy theory flash mobs put together.
But is it the kind of blog that should be on the BBC? (Scratches chin)
Hugh hit the nail on the head in a comment above, the BBC (imo) has a ‘strategy’ that is about being all things to all people – because it has to justify the license fee. (Believe it or not but I used to do Strategy 101 in a commerical environment and that kind of strategy is just rubbish, as you cannot deliver on it.)
It might have worked for the beeb in the old days, but the media environment is too fragmented these days and people want focus.
The organisation is in real danger of satisfying noone by trying to satisfy everyone.
(And it’s too big to be efficient, but that’s another thread/post.)(Oh and there are a few thickos in senior posts who think they are much cleverer than they are)
Where the organisation seems to run into the biggest problems is where it goes chasing an audience, that want something that is contrary to the Charter.
Here is where Ofcom and/or the Trust should earn their beans, but when presented with plans to not do stuff (which I believe they were recently, but it is just rumour) they bottle it.
(the views expressed in this post are my own, not those of my p/t employer)
btw Hugh – those guidelines you were quoting were for personal non-work blogger type blogs rather than for official BBC ones, but in reality there shouldn’t be too much difference.
Earlier this week (can’t remember exactly when), John Humphries on the Toady programme said something like, “… the American Left, if indeed there is an American Left …”.
That kinda proves the point, doesn’t it? The ‘centre ground’ in UK politics, as defined by the BBC, is so far skewed to the left that both parties in the US are right-wing by comparison.
fewqwer – I dont think Humphries is biased, he has a similar dislike of everything. That seems like a common idiom of his eg I can imagine him saying ‘The British right, if indeed there is a British right
His most-read paper is the Daily Mail, strange choice for a lefty.
My favourite radio moment of the year will be the 8.10 where he came within 1″ of making Gordon Brown cry.
Sarah Jane | 26.09.08 – 8:58 pm |
(I dont say it often but this is a really good blog, loads of beeboids think so too, even if you dont like us much).
I certainly don’t say this often enough, but your contributions here are much appreciated. But I wonder how loads of Beeboids could think this blog is any good at all? Other than yourself, the last one who stuck his head above the parapet said they generally dismiss this blog as a right-wing echo chamber which should be ignored because of the homophobic remarks. Everyone else seems to just think we’re all hopelessly prejudiced and deluded. So I admit I’m a little surprised to hear it.
As for the BBC blogs, I think our main problem is that in certain cases the Beeboid’s opinion is out there for all to see, and it’s hard to turn that off when the camera is turned on, if you take my meaning. It’s one thing to say that Justin Webb, for example (sorry, he’s the poster child only because his scene is the flavor of the month these days), is just trying to start a debate, but how can that be the purpose of those blogs? That’s what the HYS is for, no? It seems like those BBC blogs are supposed to be opinion outlets, and let the comments fall where they may.
It may be that someone like Robert Peston views his blog as a text version of the standard on-air analysis piece. Those are everywhere in the news media. After all, that’s Fox’s bread and butter. But then he uses it for news scoops, blurring the distinction completely. It’s not necessarily fair to say that just because he does that then everyone else’s blog is compromised, but it does seem like many of them work that way.
With this in mind, once we know how a Beeboid feels about a specific issue, it’s very hard not to read that into the reporting, especially when said Beeboid is on air giving what is supposed to be informed analysis. I know we’re all supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt as professionals, etc., but not when we see serial fibbing, or when the analysis segment consistently matches the personal opinions given on the blog (or certain Leftoid blogs 48 hours previously).
I think I understand what the BBC was trying to do in creating these blogs in the first place: to engender a more personal connection to the talking heads and the editors, demystify the proceedings a bit. Certainly better than the Guardian having La Toynbee as a figurehead and pretending she’s some sort of respectable opinion while she’s on TV every day as a Labour oracle. This blog thing isn’t a bad idea in and of itself, and there are plenty of media outlets which I think have been rather successful at it. But the BBC ones do seem to cross over into the reporting. Worse, every once in a while there’s some very uncomfortable squirming in response to some incident, and it just doesn’t do anyone any favors, you know? Oh, and blah, blah, blah…The Charter…editorial policy….Official National etc. There’s no easy answer to that, I realize, other than ending the blogs altogether. But as I say, it’s not as if I object to the concept altogether.
I don’t want to hear tax-funded British ignoramuses like one J.Webb giving his shallow opinions from the USA. How much is it costing to maintain him and a host of other morons in the English-speaking US?