Patten has fled the scene of the crime and space is being booked in the Guardian’s jobs vacant section.
But who might be the best candidate for the job as Chairman of the BBC Trust?
The Telegraph has a stab at defining the necessary characteristics:
The debate about the BBC is one of the most important we will have in this country in the next few years. Unless you believe the best thing that could happen to the corporation is for it to be smashed up and sold off, then it makes sense to put its oversight in the hands of a convincing, heavyweight figure who can take on the politicians, the media and all the others who claim a right to decide its future. BBC chairman is one of the biggest small-p political jobs in Britain. To put it in the hands of someone who can’t play that game would be to cause it irreparable harm.
What’s noticeable about the article is that it illustrates just how much it is the responsibility of the BBC Trust to defend the BBC…..and yet it is also the final arbiter for complainants.
The two opposing responsibilities mean that there is a significant conflict of interest making the BBC Trust’s job ultimately impossible to carry out without compromises that undermine its credibility.
Separation of the two roles must surely be a priority to safeguard the BBC and the audience’s trust and respect for it.
I would prefer it to be Gordon Brown….
He’d destroy the Beeb like everything else that he’d ever been near..
Make it Bliar. Then when we shut it down he can leave to retire in Saudi.
I agree. A world class lying broadcaster needs a world class liar to head it up.
Or, Rupert “you know who”, would cause the BBC elite to commit Hara-Kiri.
Tough choice.
The Media Show today also seemed to push the idea that the purpose of the Trust is to defend the BBC, in particular during the upcoming charter review.
This idea would seem to be at variance with the Trust’s protocol A1-4.6:
“The Trust will assess the BBC’s performance of the delivery of the purpose remit priorities annually. This will be done through quantitative, attitudinal surveys designed to assess licence fee payers’ perceptions of how well the BBC is delivering the priorities set out in the purpose remits. The Trust will also use other evidence, including research findings from the Executive Board to assess performance. “
Surely the Trust is intended to be the agent of the licence payers i.e. ‘acting in TRUST‘ for them?
The BBC and the Trust are giving the impression that their motto is “Dieu et Mon Droit”, i.e. their dominance is Allah-given and no man or government can challenge it!
But it`s Steve Howlett isn`t it?
Howlett Media Productions…basically a BBC nested egg of fatuous privilege with a pretence of independence…thank you Birty boy!
House trained rebel…file under Roger Bolton for licensed geldings trotting around the BBC paddock and pretending it`s not dressage by show ponies like themselves.
It`s what the BBC called opposing voices-they love dissidents!
Hewlett – The impartial media expert on all things BBC:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/culture-media-and-sport-committee/future-of-the-bbc/oral/5368.html
For one who claimed he didn’t know much about 28Gate, he sure got the lion’s share of opinion on the matter:
—
Steve Hewlett: In the case of climate change, I am not sure that there is. Just a couple of points on this. I have not read in detail the BBC’s reasons for opposing the freedom of information request, which has ultimately exposed the existence of this briefing. I am guessing—and if you know better, please do not let me put my foot in it—they would say, “This is an editorial matter and therefore, quite properly and quite rightly, outside the scope of FOI”. Is it wrong for BBC journalists and editorial executives to acquaint themselves, as fully as they can, with views from all sides of the argument about these things, and possibly do that in private and in circumstances that are not widely reported? My own personal view is I would rather they were better informed than less informed, and so probably, yes.
I am not sure how strong the case is to say that the BBC is overwhelmingly one way or the other on climate change. I think it is a difficult issue because the balance of scientific argument and evidence must be taken account of. Balance can never simply mean on one hand or the other; otherwise we would still be arguing about the world being flat. It has to take some account of where the debate has gone and what the balance of opinion is. I am not sure that I see the fact that this meeting took place and that executives went to it and discussed it, as evidence of a broader conspiracy to report in a particular way.
Angie Bray: I think you just need to look at the list of the people that were there.
Chair: Let us get back to the future of the BBC.
Steve Hewlett: In fairness that will not be the only thing they have done, will it?
David Elstein: Who knows.
Steve Hewlett: Well, I would be surprised.
—
And that was it.
It’s amazing what little coverage has been given to 28gate by the mainstream press, including The Telegraph which today published an article on the BBC’s major transgressions over the past n years without even giving it a passing mention. (But then a paper which in the same issue has a feature on photography of ‘the world’s extreme weather’ and has Geoffrey Lean as a regular columnist tells you all you need to know about its stance on AGW.)
28gate is THE example of the BBC at its arrogant, biased, eco-socialist, lying worst and it’s gobsmacking how it has gotten away with it. It stinks.
In practice, the members of the BBC Trust see themselves as the defenders of the BBC, fighting against the complaints of the licence fee payers, especially those who don’t want to pay the compulsory subscription for the BBC, just so that they can watch other TV stations, legally.
Some are suggesting it should be a woman. If so, then they could give the post to Bimbeldy and Harriet Harman will be in charge.
I have been trying to locate the video clip where Harriet Harman instructs Dimbelby to shut IDS up. The clip seems to have vanished.
BBC Bias?
Harriet Harman clearly instructs David Dimbleby to shut IDS up during Question Time. If this is what it looks like, and I can’t see any other explanation, it seems like senior BBC political commentators are taking instructions from Labour
It must fit with diversity so who better than Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.
“BBC spending on ‘slick PR’ condemned after website reveals 220 press contacts”
By William Turvill.
[Opening paragraph]
“The BBC has been accused of putting ‘slick PR’ ahead of serving licence fee payers after it emerged that it lists more than 200 press officers on its website.”
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-spending-slick-pr-condemned-after-website-reveals-220-press-contacts?
Nothing wrong with slick PR if honestly serving the promotional interests of the corporation and keeping its audience accurately informed.
Where things get interesting is when public money is used to cover public employee backsides or promote corporate interests at the expense of those in theory being served.
What’s interesting here is the increase. Until this I was happy to stick with the last known number 147, which still seemed a fair old collection.
Rather hilariously, the story then goes on to bog down in semantics and number wars between the author and of course un-named BBC ‘sources’.
This and other familiar BBC ‘PR’ tactics has not gone down well subsequently:
‘1.30pm update: In a further statement the BBC appeared to accuse Press Gazette of being delusional:’
Bob’s not impressed either:
“Bizarrely the BBC is also one of the least helpful organisations to deal with as a journalist. In my 13 years as a regional press reporter, I’ve always found them obstructive, unhelpful and often arrogant and rude.’
Mate… try being a licence fee payer trying to raise a concern.
Now, be it 141-200 or just one pocketing all those salaries and multi-tasking like Borg-box Flokkers here, does the BBC feel:
a) It handled that PR issue well
b) Fouled up per usual
c) Doesn’t care as it doesn’t need to, making PR a bit of a redundancy, like most else it uniquely addresses
And in other news, a fair bit that I must consign to the ‘if you say so’ file (most comments see Oborne’s ‘mostly harmless’ attempts to sanitise the BBC scope of incompetence and venality as hard to credit).
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/balance-sheet.html
But I did like this bit:
In many ways, the BBC bears comparison with the Co-op Bank, another public enterprise inspired by much higher considerations than sordid matters of profit and loss.
Amongst other sordid matters, yes.
Who cares anymore? Patten has gone and will be followed by another pod.
I hope that as the counter revolution in England gathers pace the BBC Trust will become as useless as an army general staff after a rout.
Because routed is what the BBC needs to be .Driven from public life and put back in a box marked ‘Fantasy liberalism” or “How to undermine an ancient people and get to become rich”
The whole bunch is past caring about. Complain to them? Don’t bother. Listen to them with respect. Are you insane?
They are the propaganda arm of the liberal elite. Their side not mine.
Well Cameron has been given another opportunity to go some way in curbing the left wing bias of the BBC by appointing someone who will stand up to the lovvies and give him a chance to fight an election without being undermined by what purports to be an even minded BBC. Don’t hold your breath though
On the Media Show this week Mr Hewlett was interviewing some folks , probably ex BBC , about the qualities that Patten’s successor should have. One of the interviewees came up with this gem, ‘the chairperson of the trust must be an advocate for the BBC in the corridors of power and be able to defend the BBC from the likes of John Humpheries’.
What better example can there be of the arrogance and power of the BBC. They are their own judge and jury. The BBC is held to account by the BBC.
Actually this is no more than the truth. The BBC has been allowed to become so dominant that no other part of the media can dictate and set the national news agenda. The BBC decides what is news worthy and what is not. This is why the BBC is so damaging to democracy in the UK and must be abolished. A democracy requires a plurality of news and views. The above quote shows that the BBC is denying this to the British public that it is supposed to serve.