Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
But the article is so much of a mess and conflates so many different cases that it's hard to see whether this is a case of the former or the latter. And that, in and of itself, speaks ill of the BBC.

I have long complained that, nowadays, reporters (this isn't a problem unique to the BBC) simply don't do the proper research to be able to effectively contextualize events.

News, to such people, is simply a noteworthy event. The idea that it might arise out of circumstances and require a context in order to properly understand it simply isn't a part of these people's training.

I'm afraid that hankering after real journalism comes under wishing for a pony. It ain't never gonna happen.

However, I would ask when the BBC has ever really been neutral. Whatever its claims to impartiality, it has always been pro-establishment, a little bit elitist and effecitvely moncultural. Also, individuals have their own bias which means that as reproters, they tend to edit selectively to suit that bias.

No individual, or programme, howver much effort is applied, can be impartial. Impartiality can only result from a plurality of voices and viewpoints, something which the BBC actively avoids, preferring to maintain the fiction that one view can be definitive.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Apr 7th, 2008 at 09:33:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series