Assegnate 3 su 5 stelle

di Hector_Berlioz il Giugno 19, 2009 · link permanente

The independence of the BBC was threatened by the sacking of Greg Dyke and subsequent so called reforms in the light of Andrew Gilligan's reports that Iraq documents were "sexed up."

David Kelly lost his life and Greg Dyke got fired for something that was pretty much proved to be true. The BBC attitude changed after those incidents and they started to self censor in a way other news channels didn't have to. Channel 4 came into their own in this news period providing one of the few dissenting voices against what was and is a war fought for greed and profit.

It isn't fair that a Government in a Democratic country can say,” We don't like what you are broadcasting, stop it or else. However that is the legal situation in the UK and more so in the States and it always has been."

In the UK there is a legal framework for doing this called a D Notice which stops any broadcaster publishing or broadcasting details to which it is applied. In America they went one stage further and the embedded media concept was taken to its logical conclusion where only one side of the argument is heard or seen.

I think the idea that the BBC could be either totally impartial or totally biased is a silly one because they BBC is a massive organization which evolves on a day to day basis. Their will be pockets of impartiality on certain issues and those also within the Corporation that will fight against that.

I think that at the moment the balance of power lies with those who wish to seek security of the Royal Charter and a continued remit. In this way the BBC can never really be impartial because they are bound to the Government of the day. Neither can any other corporate entity that has to sing for its supper.

True impartiality is achieved by the individual educating themselves and not expecting to be spoon their values. I think the BBC is a great tool for gathering information so long as the individual knows how to separate opinion from fact.