I have tried very hard not to get too caught up on the accusations of BBC bias, being content to focus more on truly shambolic standards of professionalism and/or journalism, but staying in this twilight zone of naive belief is proving a trial.
No one is above a view or affiliation, but for sure if they are wheeled out it should be well known and shared. And I don't just mean Andrew Marr*:
BBBC
Imagine the scene:
-----
Saturday Editorial Meeting, The Andrew Marr Show
'Gordon's tanking all over the place; even his own party is turning on him. We've got a tame Minister booked, but what else can we do for a bit of balance?",
Moments of silence, and then Andrew Marr himself pipes up:
"I know! Was at a dinner bash only last night at Go... at a dinner party, and Mariella said she was free in tomorrow and didn't mind getting up early to rally the troops. How about her?"
Smiles all round.
"Perfect. Blonde celeb with a heart of gold. And she hasn't been on for, well...days!"
-------
Until these pages I had not realised she was also a close, personal friend.
Has it not sunk in with these numpties how such a selection might play? Or do they simply not care?
*Ms Frostrup is a close personal friend of Gordon Brown - she should declare that when trying to defend him in today's newspaper review
Stephen Jones, UK - On the feedback page which, oddly, and not for the first time, is restricted to a few comments but manges one twice.
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.