Anyone else catch the “debate” on The Media Show on BBC Radio 4 later afternoon on the “phone hacking scandal”? Superb balance as always with Nick Davies, Guardian journalist; Peter Preston, former editor of the Guardian;Harriet Harman, Labour’s Deputy Leader, Neil Wallis, former Deputy Editor of the News of the World; Lord Norman Fowler, former chairman of the House of Lords select committee on communications; journalist and Executive Director of Hacked Off, the strident Joan Smith; Alleged Conservative Fowler was happy enough to blame Thatcher for the cosying up to the Murdoch empire, so earning his pay for the day. The conclusion was that we “need” Leveson unexpurgated and nothing short of Leveson will do.
One of them mentioned that the “hacking” had taken place while Labour were in power, and Steve Hewlett immediately moved the discussion to something else. At that point I switched off.
‘Steve Hewlett immediately moved the discussion to something else.’
Somewhat of a talent of his, as his ‘Future of the BBC’ outing showed.
Almost a role he is destined to play, hired to fulfil, and delivers on cue; conflict of interest accepted.
The minute 28Gate was raised he was in like flint, first claiming he knew little about it all, but then consuming the entire discussion explaining why it was entirely justified.
I don’t recall this level of lynch mentality when the BBC wrongly imputed Lord McAlpine in that incompetent and disgraceful Newsnight episode. The BBC are in no position to morally judge anyone.
How does paedophile-endorser Harman dare show her miserable face in any debate about moral behaviour ?
And how does the BBC give her licence to do so – that’s twice today she has been polluting the airwaves
That’s easy. Being a paid up member of the ‘liberal’ left, she’s a brazen, shameless, hypocrite.
Any monopoly in the press or media is bad for democracy. Mr Murdoch’s empire was small by comparison with the BBC and of course if you didn’t like the output of his companies you didn’t have to pay.
How can the BBC host discussions that centred around Mr Murdoch’s supposed abuse of power and get away without being challenged about the negative impact of their own much more powerful monopoly. Just because they are state funded doesn’t mean that they are exempt from monopoly concerns.
“How can the BBC host discussions that centred around Mr Murdoch’s supposed abuse of power and get away without being challenged about the negative impact of their own much more powerful monopoly”
A major mystery.
Got to appreciate just how low the BBC will go when they are denied. This is a masterpiece of the sub’s craft, for no reason I can fathom rushed to my in-box as breaking news.
Subject: Brooks says she is “innocent”
Ex-News International chief Rebekah Brooks says “I am innocent of all charges” and “vindicated” after hacking trial
I had thought since the verdict there was little doubt that she was innocent since the reported jury verdict a while ago.
So why that word and that alone, in “quotes”, by breaking news email, who could possibly imagine? I’m having my doubts.
I wonder if such treatment is meted out to those they do like, or will be as any further BBC staff get ushered through the legal system?
Have you ever thought about including a little bit
more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is valuable and everything.
But think of if you added some great photos or video clips to give your posts
more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics and video clips, this blog could undeniably be one of the very best in its field.
Awesome blog!