Like I keep saying, no topic brings out the BBC's bias like BBC bias. Look at the mutants infesting the comments thread here.
As far as I can make out, the argument is that the BBC doesn't 'censor' inconvenient news, it simply 'filters' it. See? Completely different. Oh, and if you disagree you're a Nazi.
Hey, let's take that last point: yes, the BNP do enjoy reporting stuff the BBC's tried to suppress, but in so far as their reports are factually correct, it's not the BNP that should be embarrassed by that. Suggested new slogan: BBC News - now nearly as accurate as some guy with a swastika tattoo!
But that's not even it. The Beeboids admit they filter the news, but not in a biased way. A-huh! As the much defamed Joe McCarthy would say, if they just had appalling news judgement, wouldn't they sometimes go too heavy on the stories Laban points out? Not in this lifetime. So just what criteria do they use then?
It is entirely legitimate to question how a news organisation determines news value, and that goes triple for a publicly-funded one. To the point: can you imagine the likely reaction of Beeboid interviewers to the head of a private business who gave such slippery answers to valid questions? How about if a CEO responded to the latest diversity witch hunt by claiming his company didn't 'discriminate', it merely 'filtered'. Or perhaps he should claim their recruitment criteria depended on lots of factors and so, gosh darn it, you couldn't infer anything about prejudice just by looking at who they actually hired.
No, that would be ridiculous, but our state broadcaster claims the right to rummage through private industries garbage, even as it demands we all acknowledge its own right to carefully ration what the public is allowed to know. They're highly-trained gatekeepers, see?
Not any more, pal!
As far as I can make out, the argument is that the BBC doesn't 'censor' inconvenient news, it simply 'filters' it. See? Completely different. Oh, and if you disagree you're a Nazi.
Hey, let's take that last point: yes, the BNP do enjoy reporting stuff the BBC's tried to suppress, but in so far as their reports are factually correct, it's not the BNP that should be embarrassed by that. Suggested new slogan: BBC News - now nearly as accurate as some guy with a swastika tattoo!
But that's not even it. The Beeboids admit they filter the news, but not in a biased way. A-huh! As the much defamed Joe McCarthy would say, if they just had appalling news judgement, wouldn't they sometimes go too heavy on the stories Laban points out? Not in this lifetime. So just what criteria do they use then?
It is entirely legitimate to question how a news organisation determines news value, and that goes triple for a publicly-funded one. To the point: can you imagine the likely reaction of Beeboid interviewers to the head of a private business who gave such slippery answers to valid questions? How about if a CEO responded to the latest diversity witch hunt by claiming his company didn't 'discriminate', it merely 'filtered'. Or perhaps he should claim their recruitment criteria depended on lots of factors and so, gosh darn it, you couldn't infer anything about prejudice just by looking at who they actually hired.
No, that would be ridiculous, but our state broadcaster claims the right to rummage through private industries garbage, even as it demands we all acknowledge its own right to carefully ration what the public is allowed to know. They're highly-trained gatekeepers, see?
Not any more, pal!
No comments:
Post a Comment