What they forgot to mention

If the BBC learns generosity, it can become untouchable

cynosarge16 Mar 09, 1:19am

But one example, but well sai... written. I believe the Guardian might benefit from noting that some do get frustrated, or worse start to question the value of material that might be viewed to be tainted by 'bias of omission'. Certainly my eyebrow cranked with an opening that starts: 'We need the BBC', wondering if the author had merely assumed that included me or thought she had asked. Only on reading the information in subsequent comments do I come to understand what was meant, if rather making an unfortunate point in passing by the way phrased.

I also note, with interest, the recommendations to comments here, though I guess they are easily manipulated.

This is the online section of the Guardian, which I think would itself proudly boast to be a good FoB (Friend of Beeb), with a close financial relationship (recruitment ads) that in turn leads to other 'bonds' (the author's relationship with the subject of her story, and others).

With a readership to complement all this.

So far I merely note most comments reckoning that the BBC, especially with its news, would benefit from getting back to reporting facts objectively (especially in my pet area of frustration, namely science) without 'enhancing narratives', 'interpreting events', facilitating 'emerging truths' and a host of other weasels for a self-appointed, incestuous, over-powerful, privileged-by-position media 'elite' imposing their values of what is 'right' on 'wrong' on what they seem to feel is a misguided majority in need of redirecting to assist their personal, and indeed corporate group-think agendas.

Meanwhile, the 'I see the BBC bashers are out' argument (which it isn't - and rather proves another point) -deployers and their attempts at defence of this attitude (mainly comprised by using it themselves) are getting zippy... plus short-shrift.

No comments: