Light vs. fire

The Press TV pantomime

In a world dominated by US news organisations terrified of upsetting the Israeli government, particularly TV (not to mention our own timid BBC) it is hard to work up much angst in the case of Press TV.

Hence the BBC seeing no real problem in wheeling on Press TV 'employees/commentators' to act as 'balance' I guess.

Fair enough, but it was rather odd t'other day to have a lady (I think Ms. Ridley) pretty much ranting in a debate, but with her status not billed as such by the national broadcaster who invited her on, and only having thus 'outed' by another guest... to much subsequent finger pointing all round as if two biases make things objective.

Is it not possible for major media to attract quality commentary more for illumination than the ratings of flames?

Looks can kill cred

What did Jeremy Bowen do wrong?

Having by told of the terrible situation that resulted in one of Mr. Bowen's colleagues dying at the hands of the IDF, and in less than ideal circumstances for any of the protagonists, his views are quite understandable on a personal level.

However, professionally-speaking, when checking out CVs for objective suitability, I am pretty sure Aunty may opt for a near Somalian relative of a recently deceased Capt. Omar Sparrow to be hired to head up the editorial of the Washington bureau. Or the Guardian to get Damien Green on board for a balanced view of political blogging.

As 'Call me Lord' M has pointed out, looks can kill cred.

Spectator - The Facade Cracks

Those who can, do. Those who can't get hired to report/comment on the other half

Will Sarah Palin or Joe Biden screw up tonight?

It seems rather surprising to me that, in a nation of a few hundred million, half of whom (as here) are in the media commentariat, 'they' couldn't crank up a moderator who had a slim chance of being seen as balanced and objective.

ps: What a sorry testimony to the state of, well, everything really, is that one the highest offices in one of the most significant countries on the planet is, or at least deemed to be about who of two candidates 'screws up the least'. I sit here deeply reassured as to the future of my kids.

Well, I do declare

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.