Quote:
Originally posted by dareutwo
Actually MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) has been covering this quite extensively and for the most part without any bias.
The BBC, as I understand it, has to really walk a tight rope in normal day to day operations. Funded mostly by the gov't, but yet exists as a way to criticize the funding source.
I agree that a few heads should have rolled for exposing a source, but it should end right there.
Seems to me that Mr. Blair hasn't had the best week as being GWB's suck up. 
btw- how DO you get objective news other than through the BBC??
|
Got to disagree here. First of all the BBC is funded by public subscription via a licence fee. The government make no financial contribution to the service at all and, therefore, the BBC has no axe to grind with the government either way.
As the BBC is classified as a public broadcast service, it must conform to certain standards and these standards are laid down by an independant committee. Part of those standards state that news reported by the BBC should be accurate, fair and unbiased. By "tampering" with the original document and adding to it, the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan had breached those standards. It was also he that revealed the source.
The BBC then compounded the issue by saying that they "stood by" their reporters findings when what they should have done was check the facts beforehand. This then put the BBC in an untenable position. The government, and Tony Blair in particular, had been accused of an outright lie based on that document which the BBC then had to support or lose face.
The fact that Harman's investigation (an independant investigation brought on by the standards committee) found that the BBC had in fact lied and that both the chairman and govenor of the BBC then resigned AND that Tony Blair and the government were then offered an unreserved apology by the new incoming govenor in which he stated that there was no foundation in the allegations, would surely suggest where the blame should rest?
If you want objective news, I would start watching channel 4 news. The resignation of Greg Dyke as govenor of the BBC is, in my opinion, the best thing that could have happened to the BBC. Since he took over as govenor it seems as if IQ's in the UK dropped sharply. The news at six went from being the Six O Clock news to the news for six year olds. They now seem to concentrate on the human side of stories and, instead of simply presenting the facts allowing you to judge for yourself, they would rather show "special reports" on how the pound in your shopping basket is worth less now than ten years ago or how drug addicts are less likely to offend if you get them off drugs before they leave prison. Like we need a news service to tell us this?
As I see it the BBC, as a news reporting agency, has declined to the point where journalists are no longer given free rein to report the news. They have to comply with every dictate issued to them by someone sat in a newsroom in London. Who is better placed to report the news? The journalist at the scene or the guy sat 500 miles away in an office? Give it another five years and we'll see the BBC turn into a visual edition of the tabloids. All sensational headlines and no content.
What all this goes to show is that the BBC are just as capable of getting it wrong as anyone else. Ten years ago certainly there was no news gathering service in the world that could compare to the BBC - nowadays they're just another "Also ran". I no longer trust the BBC.
And, on a closing note, ask yourself this. There have been many casualties over this affair and who is the only one to come out of it unscathed? Yep, that's right, the reporter who made the original cock up!!