ALL A MATTER OF SUBJECTIVITY?
>> WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2011
Here's an interesting letter of complaint from one of our readers to the BBC; "Hello, like many of your readers/contributors, I listened to the surreal experience that was the Today programme last saturday (20.08.11) which studiously avoided any mention of fridays arrest of an officer involved in Operation Weeting. This prompted me to make a first time complaint to the bbc as follows. 'Dear sirs, given the importance the BBC and radio 4s Today programme has placed on coverage of phone hacking over the past few weeks, I listened to the whole of the Today programme on 20th August to find out more about the arrest of one of the police officers involved in Operation Weeting for allegedly leaking information to the press. I was very surprised to discover it did not warrant any mention whatsoever. Perhaps you could explain the reason for this.' Here is the reply I received today: Dear Mr XXXXXXX, Reference CAS-947408-F931RG Thank you for contacting us regarding 'Today', broadcast on 20 August. I understand you were disappointed with the content of this programme. Choosing the stories to include in our bulletins and the length of time devoted to them is a subjective matter and one which we know not every listener will feel we get right every time. Factors such as whether it is news that has just come in and needs immediate coverage, how unusual the story is and how much national interest there is in the subject matter will all play a part in deciding the level of coverage and where it falls within a bulletin. Essentially this is a judgement call rather than an exact science but BBC News does appreciate the feedback when listeners feel we may have overlooked or neglected a story. To this end, I can assure you that I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is a daily internal report of audience feedback which is made available to all BBC programme makers and commissioning executives, including their senior management. It ensures that your concerns are considered across the BBC. Thanks again for taking the time to contact us. Kind Regards Jamie Patterson BBC Complaints www.bbc.co.uk/complaints NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided. So that's alright then?
BBC Censorship And The Economic Delusions Of Mark Mardell
Andrew has already mentioned this (Pg. 3 of the open thread @ 9:28pm GMT) list of White House attack points on Rick Perry posing as an editorialblog post by Mardell, but now there's a nice BBC censorship angle to add, so worth a full post. The BBC US President editor wants you to know how to understand Rick Perry's claims that his non-Left policies helped not only to keep Texas above water during the Recession/New Depression, but to actually become a business and jobs leader in the country. As Rick Perry is now more or less the leading Republican horse in the race (thanks at least in part to the President's foolish desire to punch downwards), it's Mardell's duty to tell you not to believe what Perry says interpret the issues involved for you. The main claim to fame here is that Texas creates lots and lots of jobs, right? Even the full power of the Mainstream Media and the White House propaganda machine can't change that fact, so they need to instead spin it so that you think those jobs are not good and so don't actually help the "miracle" Perry is claiming, or simply that Republican policies weren't responsible at all for any success. So Mardell uses one of the older tricks in the book, and generalizes from a single anecdote. He's found a cardboard box manufacturer in Texas as his anecdote. The boss waxes enthusiastically about what a great business environment he's found. Of course, as Mardell points out, his main reasons are geographical location and the availability of the labor he needs, neither of which Perry can possibly claim credit for. Hence the usefulness of this anecdote for the Narrative. The only policy one can point to as being a contributing factor is the clumsily worded "tax abatement". By itself, this is just an anecdote. Nothing else offered about any other businesses similarly successful no thanks to specific Republican policies. Yet Mardell expects that this is enough evidence, combined with his other White House talking points, that the Texas success story isn't what it's cracked up to be.
SHAMNESTY KNOW BEST
Been away all day but listened to a debate on Radio5 Live this morning concerning the fate that awaits Ghadaffi. Best laugh was when the Amnesty International mouthpiece came on. Her view was that he should be tried in the Hague because there were "problems" with the Libyan Judicial system. It would take a few years to fix them to the high standard that Amnesty deigns to accept. She was also adamant that the Death Penalty should NOT be applied and for good measure she confirmed to a breathless BBC interviewer that Saddam was "denied justice". She repeated this for all to hear. However a Libyan came on and he denounced her typical Amnesty arrogance in no uncertain terms and with considerable success, to the evident concern of the BBC who swoon at the court of Shamnesty. It strikes me that Shamnesty are fully aligned with the BBC and so it was very uncomfortable to hear an ordinary Libyan declare that his country was quite capable of putting Ghadaffi on trial, with execution as one very possible outcome.
Posts
