Saturday, May 09, 2009
I know it's not really on topic but ...
BBC 'News': Risks and gains of expenses leak
Well it does detail MPs expenses on second and third homes which is relevant. Anyway, I wanted to highlight the BBC's deeply questionable stance on the disclosure of MPs expenses in context of the BBC's remit. In this article the BBC argues that the 'risk' of exposing how much taxpayer money MPs are spending is that the newspaper might not be completely correct and that would affect the nespaper's credibility. Excuse me? I think the public would be prepared to take that risk - TO EXERCISE THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS UNDER THE FOIA DISCLOSURE RULES. Honestly. This article and the deafening silence of the BBC on baroness Uddin's breathtaking expense claims are the nail in the coffin of the BBC's remit to provide 'unbiased reporting' under the BBC Charter.
5 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. hubbers said...
This is hardly a new stance from the Brown Broadcasting Corporation.
My personal favourite was the plethora of articles about Gordon Brown praising Jade Goodie which came across as a transparent attempt to garner ggood will for the ailing Brown during dificult times for the unelected Prime Minister.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?scope=all&tab=all&q=gordon+brown+jade+goodie
I posted a link here when one of these "news" stories was the MAIN news article on the FRONT page of the BBC website but the link was taken down by housepricecrash.co.uk for some reason. Maybe it was a little bit to far off topic. But the point remains that the BBC are often guilty of strong pro-Labour pro-Brown bias.
2. paul said...
What irritates me is that the premise of the argument is so specious. It goes like this:
1. The source (The Telegraph) might not get all the details correct.
2. If the source gets some of the details incorrect, it may negatively affect people's opinion of that source.
3. If people's opinions of the source are negative, that source's credibility is in question.
4. Therefore the source should consider not releasing the details.
When this twisted logic is applied to other areas, we quickly see it is weak and distractionary:
1. The police might not get all the details correct when they arrest someone.
2. If the police get some of the details incorrect when they make an arrest, it may negatively affect people's opinion of the police.
3. If people's opinions of the police are negative, the police's credibility is in question.
4. Therefore the police should consider not arresting.
Utterly arse-about-face logic.
3. mark said...
Just as a matter of interest, we have actually caught out our local council yet they still continue to tell porkies and manipulate the truth, we have been fighting for 2 years about noise, prostitutes, toilet waste etc from wagon drivers parking around our neighourhood.
We have extensive proof of council letters, recorded phone calls etc, yet our MP is totally useless..
where can people complain if no-one can be trusted? it will only lead to anarchy in the end.
4. Jasmine Archer said...
BBC productions used to stand for outstanding quality - these days I rarely check out their drama on Auckland's TV One who believe that any programme requiring more than 10 minutes consistent viewing is beyond the average attention span of it's audience.
That together with the mostly poor stuff from BBC drama, makes the effort to watch rarely worth the bother. Have they dumb-downed their audiences so far that political bias and poorer standards no longer matter?
5. Mark said...
If cases are shown where the details prove to be incorrect, it is more than likely to be due to incompetence on the part of the Fees Office, whose role in these affairs needs to be exposed (as e.g. by the Daily Mail).