Whilst Britain’s spy chiefs have opened up the files and become more open and transparent our purveyor of light entertainment and world news has battened down the hatches in a move worthy of Stalin’s KGB.
But that is not the first example of extremely disturbing Institutional self interest on the part of the BBC.
The BBC is never happier than when chasing down those who don’t uphold the values of an open and accountable deomocratic society…..
‘A report by the CIA’s own inspector general compiled in 2004, which had previously been published only in a heavily redacted form (so much of the text was blanked out that it was rendered incomprehensible), has now been placed in the public domain on the orders of a federal judge.’
….But whilst the BBC demands that the Intelligence Services reveal whether they have been involved in torture the BBC itself has refused to disclose whether its journalists have been engaged in conduct which led to the death of Jews or contributed to the atmosphere that leads Jews around the world to live in constant fear of being attacked….and that includes Jews in progressive Britain.
The BBC was forced to conduct a review of its Middle East coverage by pressure from the Israeli government. The Balen Report was the result. We have never been allowed to see that Report.
So secret, so presumably disturbing and of such calamitous findings, that it has been buried. The BBC spent £300,000 to stop publictaion of this review of its journalism.
We have seen the damage that suppression of information does when institutions seek to hide their failings. Thousands can die. How many die because of the BBC?
Stafford Hospital: Hiding mistakes ‘should be criminal offence’
NHS staff should face prosecution if they are not open and honest about mistakes, according to a public inquiry into failings at Stafford Hospital. Years of abuse and neglect at the hospital led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of patients. But inquiry chairman, Robert Francis QC, said the failings went right to the top of the health service.
Hiding journalistic ‘mistakes’ should also be classified as crimes…if the mistakes are a result of deliberate bias.
If the Rotten Patten doesn’t release this report he should be removed.
If Tony Hall doesn’t publish this report he should be sent packing…..and not with a year’s pay.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9889137/The-BBC-rot-starts-at-the-top-with-the-elusive-Lord-Patten.html
Peter Oborne nails it down
sry, missed the link in the intro!
Don’t always agree with Oborne but his article is an absolute treat.
Booker also bang on the money this wknd.
“….But whilst the BBC demands.. the BBC itself has refused to disclose..”
—-
It’s Beware of the Leopard combined with a ‘unique power that doesn’t get held to account’ exclusion.
The ‘poor timing’ of the Bowen Q&A is matched by HYS blogs that open at 10am & close mid-afternoon, thereby excluding any UK licence fee payer without online access during the working day.
Or releasing the Pollard Report as illuminated script on parchment hung from a tree in the town square.
Too many, too often to be excused as unique any more.
“My top staff are blame-dodgers and it’s time to shake up the management, says new BBC boss”
My top staff are blame-dodgers and it’s time to shake up the management, says new BBC boss
Link to above:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283614/My-staff-blame-dodgers-time-shake-management-says-new-BBC-boss.html
“The BBC must hack away the slack”
By Janet Street-Porter.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-bbc-must-hack-away-the-slack-8508224.html
“The acting director-general Tim Davie despite previously assuring MPs that he would be available for interview, only appeared in a pre-recorded chat with someone from the BBC. What planet are these people on?”
—-
Careful Janet, they don’t like being the ones getting asked questions.
“BBC wastes money as webcams show host Victoria Derbyshire is not in Salford.
“RADIO 5 Live host Victoria Derbyshire might sound as though she’s broadcasting from the BBC’s £1billion MediaCity in Salford but the webcams tell a different tale.”
By Barry Keevins.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/379836/BBC-wastes-money-as-webcams-show-host-Victoria-Derbyshire-is-not-in-Salford
‘However, the BBC turned down a Freedom of Information request for details of which presenters hosted their shows from Salford.’
—
The reason being what… Commercial confidentiality?
“Conservatives go to war on ‘bias’ at the BBC.
“A bitter battle is breaking out between senior Cabinet ministers and the BBC, with claims that the corporation is ‘biased’ and ‘too close to Labour’.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9890162/Conservatives-go-to-war-on-bias-at-the-BBC.html
This BBC report on Lib Dems sounds like a BBC report on BBC.
“Lib Dems deny Nick Clegg knew of Lord Rennard claims”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21563589
‘ BBC deny x knew of y claims’
Chilly out.
So I had a a quick surf over the afternoon cuppa.
And was rewarded with a lovely #ironyalert example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/Transparency-and-the-Internet-blog
Transparency and the Internet blog
Closed within 24hrs after a few detailed questions (No 4), that garnered this answer… to another person (No 5)…
‘AmandaCh – thank you for your very kind comment.’
It’s almost like he didn’t want to deal with any more.
Redact… redact… redact!!!!
Like a BBC/Borg/Dalek version of Tora, Tora, Tora, only without the laughs.
And like a Dalek encountering its first flight of stairs…
‘The BBC was forced to conduct a review of its Middle East coverage by pressure from the Israeli government. ‘
I’d be interested in seeing any evidence to support that? The BBC, and latterly the BBC Trust regularly carry out reviews of its coverage.
‘So secret, so presumably disturbing and of such calamitous findings, that it has been buried. ‘
Herein lies the rub. You haven’t seen it, and because its secret, you are free to speculate on its content. This is a natural human tendency with anything that’s secret.
The report isnt available for good reason, and is to protect an important FOI principle. The BBC’s position has been supported throughout the legal process, including the UK Supreme Court.
Malcolm Balen worked for the BBC at the time, and this was an internal report. Normally, under those circumstances you wouldnt give any weight to such a report.
The BBC has conducted and published a number of internal reviews of its Middle East coverage since. None of these have included the smoking gun that ‘the BBC hates Jews’.
I have read, possibly on this board that one of the recommendations out of the report was to have a Middle East editor. Hardly explosive stuff is it.
And of course, I suspect the consensus here would be that he’s biased against Israel anyway. Any recommendations or critcisms would now seem to be out of date, given it was conducted in 2004.
If the report was released, and it was bland and uncritical, don’t you think there’d be those who’d somehow find a ‘smoking gun’ anyway, because that’s what they’re looking for?
Having said that, I think now that the legal principle has been firmly established, the BBC should take the decision itself to release the report given the public interest there is in it.
‘The BBC has conducted and published a number of internal reviews of its Middle East coverage since. None of these have included the smoking gun that ‘the BBC hates Jews’.
‘BBC Reviews Its Own Evidence and Finds Itself Innocent Shocker’.
Dear oh dear.
Any criticism from the Israeli Government is viewed as a badge of honor and sign they got it just right at the BBC. Just ask Jon Donnison.
“If the report was released, and it was bland and uncritical…..”
If it was bland and uncritical it would have been released – full stop ! Now ask yourself why it HASN’T been released. The answer is really quite simple.
O/T.
I *used* to enjoy listening to the Now Show.
Occasionally – if there’s nothing on any other station (frequently where I live) I’ll still catch a small segment, before switching off.
Yesterday (Saturday’s re-run) once again extracted the urine from the Daily Mail and it’s readers.
It struck me that IF the Daily Mail, and the News International group combined forces (a truce maybe) and declared war on the BBC and it’s sanctimonious attitude to their combined readership, there would potentially be around 5 million subjects of this country that could withhold license fees on the basis that the state broadcaster is ridiculing, or verbally abusing them via it’s output, and this MUST go against it’s charter.
5 million lost license fees – that’d make a big dent in their “unique” funding.
Are Beeboids trying to keep this a secret?:-
‘Daily Mail’ –
“Family of schoolboy, 9, who was found hanged at home claim he was hounded to his death by Asian bullies for being white”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283777/Family-schoolboy-9-hanged-home-claim-hounded-death-Asian-bullies-white.html
Radio 4 ‘World at One’ today had yet another Lawrence-based propaganda item about race; but it wasn’t about racial hounding of white children.
‘‘BBC Reviews Its Own Evidence and Finds Itself Innocent Shocker’.’
Some of the reviews have been carried out by a nonBBC panel, but I suspect you don’t say the same about Balen, and it was a BBC review.
‘Any criticism from the Israeli Government is viewed as a badge of honor and sign they got it just right at the BBC. Just ask Jon Donnison. ‘
Nope, its not. There are plenty on the opposing side that argue the BBC is in thrall/terrified of the call from the Israeli embassy or make insinuations about a Mark Thompson visit to Israel. When the BBC declined to show the DEC Gaza appeal, David Vance argued it was a BBC ‘triangulation’ to distract attention from its anti-Israeli coverage – absurd.
‘If it was bland and uncritical it would have been released – full stop ! Now ask yourself why it HASN’T been released. ‘
As I said, you dont know whats in it, nor do I. Because its secret, people on internet forums will speculate. It could be as easily argued that its not released because its damning of the BBC’s coverage being pro-Palestinian. There’s absolutley no reason why this argument isnt as strong as yours.
There is a good reason it hasnt been released. If you dont agree with that reason, fine, make your case, but don’t continue to ask the question when there’s an answer.
Let’s hear why you disagree with the decision of every court that’s considered it, until the legal avenues were exhausted, including the Supreme Court.
‘Let’s hear why you disagree with the decision of every court that’s considered it, until the legal avenues were exhausted, including the Supreme Court.’
The role of the entire politico-legislative-media establishment in investigating each other, and coming to decisions, often behind closed doors, is an interesting one.
Do you, in turn, have any thoughts on what might have motivated the judge in this case?:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/
‘The judge sternly reminded Newbery that any line of enquiry that allowed the identity of the attendees to be inferred should not be allowed. Marks also stepped in where he thought Boaden may not have been able to answer. Marks even intervened to prevent one line of enquiry very germane to Newbery’s case: the blogger wanted to know if the attendees were there in a private or public capacity.
”It could be both,” mused the judge. “I’m reluctant to allow Ms Boaden say anything about this. I doubt if she can add anything to what is a submission by you. You’re under a severe warning from me not to go anywhere near the question.”
On all sorts of occasions, it appears ‘questions may be asked’ not just about the case, but those overseeing it.
From Kelly to Leveson to Pollard to Rennard, the notion of no one judging the judges seems one that a few may find appealing to defend, but not all.
Today, while I was at work, my sister stole my iPad and tested to see if it can survive a twenty five foot drop, just so she can be
a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now broken
and she has 83 views. I know this is totally off
topic but I had to share it with someone!
All you need to do is enter the loan amount, duration of the loan and all the other calculations are taken care of by the automated software.
At this site you will get quality for money at low interest.
The rates are high in unsecured personal loans.