The BBC (and SKY) and the DEC appeal
Posted by: JamieWednesday on 26 January 2009
The Beeb and SKY have decided not to show the appeal on the grounds of their impartiality potentially being called into question and the appeal being 'politicised'. (The DEC thought it might be themselves apparently).
Given the nature and the sources of much of the criticism that I have seen (including anti Israeli rhetoric on demonstrators placards and some of the sound bites from MPs), those critics seem to be doing their very best to prove both broadcasters absolutely right!
Given the nature and the sources of much of the criticism that I have seen (including anti Israeli rhetoric on demonstrators placards and some of the sound bites from MPs), those critics seem to be doing their very best to prove both broadcasters absolutely right!
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by Derek Wright
The BBC is providing far more airtime to the non broadcasting of the appeal than they would have done if they had broadcast the appeal.
DEC do not know what a bonus the BBC attitude has been to them - every news broadcast since last Thursday has mentioned the appeal and that it will not be broadcast. Plus on TV news broadcasts film of the damaged area has been shown repeatedly.
Do not forget that HMG has already given £25million to the appeal so we are all in it for about 50p.
DEC do not know what a bonus the BBC attitude has been to them - every news broadcast since last Thursday has mentioned the appeal and that it will not be broadcast. Plus on TV news broadcasts film of the damaged area has been shown repeatedly.
Do not forget that HMG has already given £25million to the appeal so we are all in it for about 50p.
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by Adam Meredith
If the desire is to advertise the appeal - enough other, worthy, channels have stepped in.
If it is to bully the BBC once again - well, it continues.
If it is to bully the BBC once again - well, it continues.
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by u5227470736789439
Democracy in the UK will be much weakened once the organisation has been bullied into cow-towing to politicians.
Long may the BBC have the authority to stand up to politicians of all stripes, though the other News media seem to have just as much of a wish to bully the BBC as well.
I will not try to justify the BBC position beyond saying that often the BBC does the right thing without actually being terribly eloquent in explaining its position.
Once the BBC has been ruined then we will all have something to regret ...
George
Long may the BBC have the authority to stand up to politicians of all stripes, though the other News media seem to have just as much of a wish to bully the BBC as well.
I will not try to justify the BBC position beyond saying that often the BBC does the right thing without actually being terribly eloquent in explaining its position.
Once the BBC has been ruined then we will all have something to regret ...
George
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by Mick P
George
Well said.
Regards
Mick
Well said.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by Analogue
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
Democracy in the UK will be much weakened once the organisation has been bullied into cow-towing to politicians.
Long may the BBC have the authority to stand up to politicians of all stripes, though the other News media seem to have just as much of a wish to bully the BBC as well.
I will not try to justify the BBC position beyond saying that often the BBC does the right thing without actually being terribly eloquent in explaining its position.
Once the BBC has been ruined then we will all have something to regret ...
George
George,
Couldn't agree more.
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by JamieWednesday
OK. We all think the BBC is a good thing then. And SKY?
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by u5227470736789439
Is SKY even interested in what might be loosely be called British culture and democracy?
I thought it was a wholely private concern, and a foreign one at that, with interests residing in the capital and views of its owner.
This means it might be a good or a poor organisation, but the reasons for its making a similar decision to that of the BBC seem much less significant given its own limited significance in the cultural and democratic life of this country.
I do not have television, satelite or otherwise, so the actual output of SKY has only ever interested me in terms of watching cricket in the homes of friends ...
George
I thought it was a wholely private concern, and a foreign one at that, with interests residing in the capital and views of its owner.
This means it might be a good or a poor organisation, but the reasons for its making a similar decision to that of the BBC seem much less significant given its own limited significance in the cultural and democratic life of this country.
I do not have television, satelite or otherwise, so the actual output of SKY has only ever interested me in terms of watching cricket in the homes of friends ...
George
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by Christopher_M
I'm no sure whether the BBC or Sky are a good thing is either here or there. What I do know is that within media circles there's a lot of talk at the moment about the trustworthiness of the brand.
Like all brands, the Beeb and Sky are trying to protect their brand image.
Cheers, Chris
Like all brands, the Beeb and Sky are trying to protect their brand image.
Cheers, Chris
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by u5227470736789439
The BBC has a big problem in respect of the fact that if it refused to programme popular entertainment, then it would become elitist and remote.
I have on times had the wicked thought that it should completely abandon the populist aspect [sack Ross as a start], and concentrate entirely on its serious broadcasting, but this would leave it terribly vulnerable to accusations of elitism, and then it would certainly be marginalised in time, and we would be left at mercy of capital intersts of media moguls, who certainly would have a less benign agenda than the BBC all too often.
One problem is that the BBC has failed in the process [of attempting to become more populist] to maintain the scrupulous integrity which once characterised every aspect of the organisation.
I do not think these failings have generally extended to the serious parts of its broadcasting, which provide a vital counter-balance to other media and political interests, and in the face of general public apathy regarding politics, does at least offer a bulwark against the ambitions of politicians to gain ever great powers over those they govern in UK.
As with any human enterprise there will be times when the BBC makes mistakes and sometimes clearing things up is also handled with occasional breath-taking dimness. But I can think of no more important safeguard for democracy, and freedom of speech and thought in the UK than the continued vigour of the BBC.
Thus, whether any individual regards the BBC as a good thing or not, decisions over such as this charitable appeal will be seen as having real significance. That is because few, whether in other parts of the News and entertainments media, politicians, or churchamen or other public figures, would deny that if the BBC takes what at appears an unexpected or unpredicted decision, then certainly rather than immediately criticising the decision, first at least the reasons for it should be examined.
It seems the presentation of the charitable appeal [which the BBC declined to broadcast] may not adequately contextualise the events which have led to the reason for it. If this be the case, and that the appeal be couched in controversial terms, then the BBC has certainly managed the widest possible publicity for the situation [the ban has certainly kicked up more interest than the broadcast would have] without passing on a biased gloss of the situation.
In other words the BBC has caused a debate, far more significant than would probably have occured had the charitable appeal been broadcast, and which may well lead to the charities concerned benefitting significantly more, and all the while keeping out of the issue of broadcasting biased propoganda.
I would think that the BBC have trodden a fine line with considerable deftness in reality.
George
I have on times had the wicked thought that it should completely abandon the populist aspect [sack Ross as a start], and concentrate entirely on its serious broadcasting, but this would leave it terribly vulnerable to accusations of elitism, and then it would certainly be marginalised in time, and we would be left at mercy of capital intersts of media moguls, who certainly would have a less benign agenda than the BBC all too often.
One problem is that the BBC has failed in the process [of attempting to become more populist] to maintain the scrupulous integrity which once characterised every aspect of the organisation.
I do not think these failings have generally extended to the serious parts of its broadcasting, which provide a vital counter-balance to other media and political interests, and in the face of general public apathy regarding politics, does at least offer a bulwark against the ambitions of politicians to gain ever great powers over those they govern in UK.
As with any human enterprise there will be times when the BBC makes mistakes and sometimes clearing things up is also handled with occasional breath-taking dimness. But I can think of no more important safeguard for democracy, and freedom of speech and thought in the UK than the continued vigour of the BBC.
Thus, whether any individual regards the BBC as a good thing or not, decisions over such as this charitable appeal will be seen as having real significance. That is because few, whether in other parts of the News and entertainments media, politicians, or churchamen or other public figures, would deny that if the BBC takes what at appears an unexpected or unpredicted decision, then certainly rather than immediately criticising the decision, first at least the reasons for it should be examined.
It seems the presentation of the charitable appeal [which the BBC declined to broadcast] may not adequately contextualise the events which have led to the reason for it. If this be the case, and that the appeal be couched in controversial terms, then the BBC has certainly managed the widest possible publicity for the situation [the ban has certainly kicked up more interest than the broadcast would have] without passing on a biased gloss of the situation.
In other words the BBC has caused a debate, far more significant than would probably have occured had the charitable appeal been broadcast, and which may well lead to the charities concerned benefitting significantly more, and all the while keeping out of the issue of broadcasting biased propoganda.
I would think that the BBC have trodden a fine line with considerable deftness in reality.
George
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by fatcat
If the appeal was to be show on BBC News 24 they may have a point. Not a very sharp point, but a point. After all we British need something to be proud of. THE WORLDS ONLY IMPARTIAL BROADCASTING ORGANISATION. If only.
The broadcast can only be described apolitical. No mention of Israel, phosphorous or decapitated children.
Gaza Crisis Appeal
There’s no reason why the appeal can’t be shown on BBC1 before antique’s roadshow.
The broadcast can only be described apolitical. No mention of Israel, phosphorous or decapitated children.
Gaza Crisis Appeal
There’s no reason why the appeal can’t be shown on BBC1 before antique’s roadshow.
Posted on: 29 January 2009 by Howlinhounddog
quote:Gaza Crisis Appeal
Quite right Fatcat, can I respectfully suggest the BBC now sack Ross and send his salary to the appeal.
I know what I find more obcene and not worthy of broadcasting.