Anyone know why the Beeb's website has outsourced part of its US election coverage to Newsweek? The latest piece (following others suchas these) is - well, just what you'd expect from a left-leaning news weekly - a predictable pre-emptive strike on any floating voters who dare choose McCain. Here's the writer's conclusion, imagining the horror of a McCain victory: Democrats are despairing over the results, fearing they might never view their country in the same light again. Even many Republicans are subdued at the news of McCain's victory. Having expected him to lose, they know the GOP has now completed a sorry transition from the party of Lincoln to the party of cynicism. McCain, they're reasoning, might prove a fine president, but it shouldn't have happened like this... ... It probably won't. Millions of people in the rest of the world assume that Barack Obama cannot be elected because he is black. They assume that the original sin of American history - enshrined in our Constitution - cannot be transcended. Hugh # Steve Hewlett's piece in The Guardian offers an interesting insight into accountability at the BBC. The discussion is about the proposals for top-slicing the license fee, but the point is more widely applicable: Senior Ofcom executives have privately expressed surprise at the lack of obvious separation between the BBC Trust and the BBC management on these questions... The Trust, meanwhile, continues to maintain that it represents licence fee payers. Hewlett's conclusion (and he has worked for the Beeb) is interesting: Yes, the Trust is required to demonstrate independence, and to represent the interests of licence fee payers by holding BBC management to account. But the Trust is, constitutionally, the BBC – so once you engage in bigger questions about the role, funding or even the very existence of the corporation, the Trust, quite properly, speaks as the BBC and not as a separate or independent regulator of it. If you're wondering who actually represents your interests regarding the BBC, then, the answer would seem to be, no one. Hugh # Guido has an amusing piece up on a surprising episode of Spooks. Shockingly, it goes some way towards reflecting reality – not a fundamentalist Christian terrorist or Mossad conspiracy in sight. As he says, it's all a terrible disappointment: This is the BBC, we expect to be force fed left-wing platitudes and propaganda, not given a patriotic tear jerker. Don't get too excited, though. At the Three Line Whip, Iain Martin points us to this piece by Michael Gove, chastising the Beeb for sucking up to the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm. Monday, October 27, 2008 Don't know if any of you managed to endure the first of the BBC's farcical series examining "class" fronted by tub of lard John Prescott? I caught the last ten minutes - frankly it was just a freak show with Prescott coming across as the bearded lady. In a way it is good to see it since it shows just how hate-driven those like Prescott really are but on the other hand I object to our money being handed over to this delusional class warrior so he can sneer at those who come from different social backgrounds to him. Labels: Class war. Comments: 9 (unread) - Biased BBC Home Hugh # Comments: 95 (unread) - Biased BBC Home David Vance # Did you see that the BBC is leading it's US election coverage with the shock horror news that "Alaska newspaper endorses Obama"? Alaska's largest-circulation paper, the Anchorage Daily News, said state governor Mrs Palin was "too risky" to be one step away from the presidency. Mmm. Funny how the BBC didn't tell us that this same newspaper endorsed Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. The BBC - half the picture, all the time. Labels: Palin Derangement Syndrome Comments: 45 (unread) - Biased BBC Home Hugh # The BBC Editor's blog is flagging up a Radio 4 Feedback piece on its blogs that helps clarify their status. It's only five minutes long, but the key segment has this from presenter Louise Adamson: Some would say the whole point of a blog is that it should be controversial, outspoken, off the cuff and frequently partisan. So how does that fit with the principles of BBC journalism? "Badly" is the correct answer, as is daily apparent, but she has the features editor of the BBC's news website Giles Wilson on instead: It is quite a challenge so the thing we explain to our bloggers, and thankfully they've all got it, is that they shouldn't misunderstand the apparent informal atmosphere of a blog to let their commitment to impartiality drop. They've got to be conversational but they've still got to speak in a BBC voice and follow the BBC guidelines on impartiality. Later on he remarks: We don't think of blog content as being any different to any other news content. I hope that clears things up.Biased BBC Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Hugh #And another thing...
David Vance #
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Posts
