INTO THE BELLY OF THE BEAST

INTO THE BELLY OF THE BEAST

>> SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2011

I will be on the BBC tomorrow morning discussing the ethics of public sector strikes. I am sure you can guess my arguments. BBC NI Radio Ulster Sunday Sequence around 9.30am. If anyone has views on this please post now!

WHAT A GAY DAY!

I was doing a little research on Lib-Dem Lynne Featherstone for another post I am writing and came across this little snippet;

"Lynne has been a champion of gay rights in Parliament and outspoken critic of the Government’s Equality Bill, which fails to explicitly outlaw harassment of young people in schools because of their sexuality – gay bullying. She has also fought for greater protection against discrimination for transgendered people in the new law.

The awards ceremony with take place on Thursday, 5th November at the V&A and celebrate “the range of positive contributions being made by the individuals and organisation to the lives of lesbian and gay people in Britain today”. The judges are Sue Perkins and Evan Davis."

Would that Evan Davies, BBC "Today" presenter and Sue Perkin, much loved BBC "Comedienne"? Good to see BBC employees so ACTIVE in promoting the Stonewall agenda.

CURIOSITY KILLED MORE THAN THE CAT

Let's start with the bare if not so lovely bones, so to speak. This paean to the IRA Chief of State and Irish Presidential candidate Martin NcGuinness appeared on Today this morning. (8.43am)

Martin McGuinness, once a leading figure in the IRA and who was feared and loathed in almost equal measure, is now a respectable political leader. So respectable that he wants to become president of the Republic of Ireland. Ireland correspondent for the Guardian and Observer Henry McDonald.

For starters, turning to the Guardian and Observer correspondent for opinion is hardly balance but I suppose it is natural for the BBC to seek the opinion of their own print arm. Helpfully, Henry is able to instantly point out that just like Martin McGuinness, he lives in Northern Ireland but chooses to have an Irish passport in preference to a British one. Natch. We know where this one will go, Then let's move on to this business of McGuinness being "once a leading figure in the IRA". Good to see that the BBC now grudgingly admits McGuinness actually was a terrorist commander but their journalistic curiousity seems a tad restricted. For example, why not ask when did McGuinness leave the IRA, exactly? When he was occupying the position as Capo di tutti capo, just how many innocent lives did he arrange to have terminated.Perhaps even more pointedly, how many peope did he murder HIMSELF? What exactly did he "command"? Why is the BBC so coy about pursuing these aspects to the McGuinness pedigree? I venture to suggest because the State Broadcaster has been central to sanitising the reputation of bloodthirsty IRA killers and McGuinness is being increasingly presented as a warm if not cuddly character that we all need to learn to love. Not sure if those families who visit lonely graveyards care of the actions of this piece of Republican scum would agree - but then again, through the BBC prism, I'm the extremist.

Editorial Independence, Or Unaccountability?

Can somebody please read this update of the BBC Agreement (as in "Charter & Agreement") and tell me if "Editorial Independence" actually translates into "Unaccountability"?

Continuing Agreement

Concerns have been expressed that the NAO reviews could lead to individual star's salaries becoming public, or the details of managerial decisions on finance, because the NAO can ask for any information it needs for its audit. The wording of the agreement makes no specific reference to those concerns and no such information has been revealed in previous NAO reports on the BBC.

A Trust spokesperson said: 'The NAO already have full access to the information they need to carry out reviews of the BBC; today's announcement confirms and continues that arrangement. In addition it will now enable the NAO to decide which areas to look at, but in an arrangement where it will continue to submit reports to the Trust. We believe that the terms agreed build on the BBC's existing relationship with the NAO to the benefit of licence fee payers, while preserving the BBC's independence.'

Editorial Independence

The agreement makes clear that whilst the NAO is 'entitled to review any BBC decision' it is not entitled to 'question the merits of any editorial or creative judgment or policy decision about the way BBC services are made or distributed.'

The Trust will still do its own value for money reviews, in fact the agreement requires it to lay out its own programme of such work each year. The NAO can't examine the same area as the Trust in the same year.

The NAO will submit its reports to the Trust, which will prepare a response before sending both to the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament.

There's more at the link. The NAO (or anyone else, presumably, like OfCom) can say what they like, but the Trust will decide what to present to Jeremy Hunt, decide what is value for money, and decide if the BBC can syphon off extra Government/taxpayer cash to spend on the World Service. (Hopefully not for hiring yet another field correspondent to cover the US.) This sounds like unaccountability by any other name.