Culture of corruption?

As people have been pointing out in the comments (thank you very much), The Feral Beast has revealed that emails which led to the exposure of ex-London mayor Red Ken Livingstone’s racial right hand man Lee Jasper had already been handed to the BBC’s Tim Donovan and rejected as “of no news value”. One year after Donovan’s rejection, this “non-news value” was turned into scoop-of-the-year by an old friend of this blog’s, Andrew Gilligan*. Jasper resigned, Red Ken lost the mayoral election- and the BBC were left counselling their public “And what is your concern about Boris?”

I wonder why the BBC didn’t consider Red Ken’s corrupt crony a newsworthy story. Maybe, in the light of recent stories about BBC junketing, they just thought it was business as usual in NuLabour’s Britain? As DB rightly points out in our comments, Donovan certainly considered it a story later on, but I did notice that in Donovan’s account the potential criminality of Lee Jasper and misuse of hundreds of thousands was well in the background of the story.

*This blog-member is happy to acknowledge Gilligan’s success, having rather worried about putting the boot in when Gilligan was floored by Hutton.


(14.50 UK): I notice via David K in the comments that The UK Telegraph includes the Jesus comment story in an editorial today which you can read here.

I think we may safely say…

That Biased-BBC comments are considerably more sanitary than the BBC message boards. I am not really up to speed on BBC message boards. I don’t go there. However, the enthusiastic commenters who do enjoy posting there are making the news. This site is specifically tracking them, and doing a lively job of it.

A few days ago we were dealing here with how it appeared that a BBC member of staff had inserted into Wikipedia the view that George W. Bush was a w***** (this among other wiki-highlights courtesy of the BBC). Now a provocateur’s assertion is that Jesus was a b******. Seems to me the commenter might have found his natural home. Unfortunately for him, the BBC have been forced to evict one of his prize comments. (via LGF).

Yes, there are questions. Who funds these freaky forums, diverting people from worthy and free blogs? Why didn’t those paid to clean round said public cages remove the comment straight away? Would it have been tolerated for more than a minute were it to have been stated that Mohammed was a paedophile? Not a formulation I would use, naturally. Just asking. (and please, regular commenters would be best not to try to disprove my initial point ;-).