Chaos at the BBC
By Aleksander Boyd
London 31.01.04 - Yesterday commentary about the BBC playing the ridiculous role of an underdog was not so far-fetched it seems. I took the liberty of posting that very opinion piece in the discussion boards of the BBC only to be surprised this morning by the reply of the moderator, whom predictably enough found my posting offensive and did not allow for its publication. To Vcrisis readers delight the BBC’s message has been enclosed in this editorial. Further, I just can not bear the thought of these people playing the victim’s role it just does not fit them. Take the Programme Complaint Unit for example; I have been trying endlessly to get in touch with them, in person, by phone, by email and by letter to no avail. They just do not have the decency to grant a genuine request for my right to reply -in regards to the propagandistic film “The Revolution will not be televised”- to be honoured, which by law they are obliged to. The latest communication I received from Fraser Steel, head of the unit, was an excuse for failure of performance due to “pressure of work and staff sickness.”
Some of you might think that I am becoming quite repetitive with this business of the BBC, however in my humble opinion the BBC continues to stand for biased-politically-driven journalism. And I have no compunctions of mind in saying so. They have not convinced me differently. Where does integrity come into being? Webster dictionary defines integrity as:
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire 1: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values: INCORRUPTIBILITY 2: an unimpaired condition: SOUNDNESS 3: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS synonym see HONESTY
Any person with an iota of intelligence could work out that reports generated by individuals sympathising with a certain cause will never speak favourably of those who do not agree with their chosen ideal or concept. However the BBC excels in promoting itself as being impartial and trustworthy in spite of having a manifest leftist editorial line, moreover it has the extraordinary ability of divorcing itself from it in order to become a balanced news outlet. Well I do not believe any of it. It has been said that great lawyers could argue successfully for both sides and perhaps the BBC is such a persona. Still I do not buy into that for they have not proved it. Can any of you picture socialism-bent journalists trying to make the case for the FTAA? Free-market bent specimens arguing in favour of nationalisation of industries? The question arising is what sort of journalists make the bulk of the BBC’s staff? Market oriented or socialists?
Andrew Gilligan resigned yesterday with much fanfare. He maintains that the government indeed sexed up the dossier and introduced the 45-minute claim. His alter ego must be yelling at him “I am the whistle-blower here, I am the one who initiated this mess that can bring down Blair’s and Bush’s governments, I have put them in the defendants’ chair, I will not let go and I will rest on my laurels…” Quite rightly so he criticized Lord Hutton for having failed to give a token quota of strong criticism to Blair’s government, especially in view of the abundant evidence to prove the implication of Campbell et al in the forging of the dossier. So the sling-mud fight that characterizes this dispute between the BBC and the government is now turning its feminine anger towards the arbiter. What I believe is that the BBC is culpable of an atrocious lack of journalistic professionalism and, worse still, the government is guilty of taking this country to war based on fabricated premises.
As regards the political strife in my country, Venezuela that is, I stick to my guns; the BBC has been getting it wrong, a propos, and what is even more disturbing is that they do not seem to be intent in correcting the situation. Enjoy now the integrity, impartiality and trustworthiness of the BBC:
Thank you for posting a message to a BBCi message board.
We very much appreciate your interest, but are sorry to tell you that your message has been removed.
This is because it contains content which other readers might find offensive. Please remove any potentially offensive content from your message, then resubmit it.
(Please note that we remove offensive messages even if they are posted in what could be seen as 'justifiable anger'. If you see a post which offends you, please don't reply to it on the board. Instead, click the 'Complain about this post' link at the end of the message in question, and fill in the form provided, giving details of why you think the message breaks our House Rules. The message will then be flagged up to us for urgent attention.)
Again, thank you for your time and interest.
BBCi Messageboard Moderators
send this article to a friend >>