Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in the news, Friday
| 08:56 UK time, Friday, 22 June 2007
The Independent: Law Editor Robert Verkaik on how Martin Bashir's Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales, changed the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's relationship with the monarchy. ()
The Times: Article in which the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's deputy director general Mark Byford's responds to allegations of "an innate liberal bias" at the corporation. ()
The Guardian: "The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is reviewing the generous relocation package it promised to staff moving to its new base in Salford." ()
Comments
It really is saddening to read My Byford's response to the allegations of bias. A number or reports have now outlined parts of this bias, yet he seems to just dismiss every point they have raised. It's the ostrich aproach to management, and actually reminds me of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú response to Mr Gilligan's Today program broadcast. A complete inability/unwillingness to even admit for one moment that there might be something wrong.
What is the point of commissioning these reports if they are just going to be dismissed by the person charged with looking at their conclusions? The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú seems to be completely out of control, charged with bias by its own research, it does nothing. Where is the independent oversight?
Further, if the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are really starting from the position that it has an "antiPalestinian bias" things are even worse than I thought. It bases this on its laughable report into its coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict where its measure of bias was to time how long different people were on screen. It would be funny if not so serious. The real report into its coverage of this area (Balen report) has been buried by the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú as they seem to be too worried to show it to us mere TV-Tax payers.
So Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, is Mr Byford's response all we can expect? Nothing to see here, move along now. If so you should be ashamed.