I bet you feel all warm and content at the news how the BBC spends some of the many millions it takes from you... The lion's share was taken by Samir Shah, a non executive director of the Mr Shah, who owns 70 per cent of Juniper, is paid £35,000 as a member I dare say that the day US Senator Ted Kennedy pops his clogs the BBC will go into full on mourning. They just love that aquatically challenged oaf. However it seems that there is one Kennedy that has invoked the ire of the BBC, and her name is Sarah. So, Islamist homicide bombers detonate themselves in two hotels in Jakarta brutally killing several innocent people. The BBC reports this as the act of "attackers" - wonder if the word Jihadist is banned by those sensitive souls at the Beeb? Perhaps the people just "died"? Gigits has an excellent post here picking up on the BBC's increasingly freakish attempts to try and prop up McDoom. Of course they know that he is a busted flush but then there is the lovely Sarah - she who is a member of the "First wives club" apparently... What at first seemed like a straightforward controversy over war ethics has turned into one about irresponsible journalism. Ah to be at the BBC, where it's summertime and the living is easy.
KEEP IT IN THE FAMILY...
>> SATURDAY, JULY 18, 2009
The BBC has paid £1.2 million in fees in the last year to companies owned by close
relatives of senior executives in new allegations of cronyism.
corporation, whose production company Juniper Communications was paid £715,000 last year.
of the BBC executive board which oversees the corporation's management and
directs its editorial output. The payments to Juniper will also further
enrich the family of Jana Bennett, the BBC head of Vision, who is tipped to be
the first woman director general of the corporation. Miss Bennett's husband
Richard Clemmow owns 10 per cent of Juniper. Last year Miss Bennett was paid
£535,000 by the BBC.
Isn'it it NICE to see how wisely your money is spent? All part of that very special relationship the BBC has with us.ONE KENNEDY THAT UPSETS THE BBC
Radio 2 presenter Sarah Kennedy has been chastised by the BBC for praising
right-wing politician Enoch Powell during her show. During her early-morning
show on Wednesday, Kennedy, 59, described Powell as 'the best prime minister
this country never had'. Enoch Powell was famously sacked from the shadow
cabinet by Ted Heath in 1968 'Rivers of Blood' speech about the dangers of
mass immigration. A spokesman for the BBC said that the corporation had received
25 complaints by Friday and that the presenter had been 'spoken to' about the
remark
I actually do listen to "Bunty" each morning and find her a harmless and good natured person. But god forbid that a BBC presenter should say something positive about a demonised figure such as the late great Enoch Powell. I suppose if she had praised Aneurin Bevan she would have been given a salary increase...THOSE JAKARTA "ATTACKERS"
>> FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2009
THE LOVELY SARAH
Breaking the Silence Part 2
The original question asked:
Should soldiers be compelled to risk their own lives by adhering strictly to military rules of engagement even when, in the fog and extreme chaos of war, they are faced with an unpredictable and fanatical enemy which is under no such obligation?
Now, I’m asking:
Is the media ever justified in abandoning journalistic standards of inquiry and investigation by publishing unsubstantiated hearsay?
What if they’re lucky enough to get hold of a sensational scoop that both exposes war crimes and bears out the very things they’ve been telling us all along, that Israelis are as brutal as Nazis - and the icing on the cake is that they’ve admitted it themselves?
Throw caution to the wind? Let the presses roll?
Seeking maximum publicity, Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence (to which the British Embassy has donated a generous grant) offered their report to the newspaper they felt would be most sympathetic to their cause, Haaretz.
But once bitten twice shy! Not so long ago Haaretz had their fingers badly burnt by rushing into print far too hastily with another uncannily similar tale. When it transpired that the whole thing was unsubstantiated and based entirely on hearsay, their credibility suffered a blow. So this time Haaretz behaved more cautiously, and before going to press they sought the IDF’s response. By which time the JPost had got hold of the story and published a critical version of it.
The BBC and some of the MSM also snapped it up, and beamed it far and wide tout de suite.
Which brings to mind Charles Enderlin’s impetuous decision to air the notoriousAl Durah report on French state T.V. channel France 2, and to distribute it to eager broadcasters everywhere. The footage that shocked the world was later exposed as a fraud, fabricated in order to inflame hatred and provoke violence. But by the time the deception was exposed the desired effect had already been achieved, and the iconic image of 12 year old Mohamed Al Durah’s horrific death at the hands of the Israelis had the disastrous consequences the makers intended.
The fact that it wasn’t quite like that was neither here nor there. The exposé received little publicity.
If the these two episodes have something in common it’s the alacrity with which anything that discredits Israel is grasped, perpetuated and publicised.
A disregard for journalistic rigour and integrity seems to take effect and override other considerations the moment the opportunity presents itself.
The BBC can publish and be damned. No worries. If they are forced to retract something, or apologise at a later date, they can bury it in some godforsaken corner, and we can like it or lump it.
Unless, that is, someone very litigious threatens to take them to court.MORE BUBBLY?
The heads of BBC radio and TV stations and senior corporation management figures used public money to pay for flowers, champagne, hampers for stars and "thank you" lunches and dinners. Read the sordid details here!
It's a luvvie merry go round oand we, dear reader, fund it. That's what makes itso special, you see.
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Posts
