I quite like Raymond Snoddy of the BBC's Newswatch programme.
Even on the on-air show he does seem to try, and though the whole format (a 'mea culpa' stuck on at dawn on the weekend to 'atone' or 'explain' (though sulky editors saying they don't see what the fuss is about hardly counts as either) for high-profile boo-boos in the peak hours seems contrived at best, just to tick a 'we're listening' box. Few complaints get followed up and fade away.
But in print he seem even more diligent, though it now occurs to me that I thought BBC journos were not supposed to write outside of Auntie to avoid accusations of... well, anything.
Anyway, check out the bit halfway down his Indy column, entitled Emily gets short shrift
I'm sorry I missed it.
Because, speaking of being tucked away, as HRH might say, one's gob is smacked that stuff is been created and broadcast that purports to be 'based on' factual, when it is nothing of the sort. It's just agenda dressed up as news, or information.
And if they can do this here, well, New York, New York, they can do it anywhere.
But then, this is a Corporation where 'staff somehow also managed to mislay champagne worth a total of £818...'.
Now I see why my licence fee must go up.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.