I don’t think the BBC will actually be privatized. That’s just too radical. But, pissing off the government doesn’t seem like a good idea for an entity that is more-or-less a government agency. Especially, when they have already pissed off Tories as well. ISTM that BBC management has become awfully full of themselves.
They say pride goeth before a fall. One way or another I would expect to see the BBC punished for its hubris. How do you think this drama will play out? Will the Beeb be privatized? Will its management be replaced? Will its budget be cut? Or, will the BBC weather the storm without any adverse consequences?
This BBCwatch thing smacks of www.campuswatch.org … it might seem open and honest at first, but read some of the material and things look very different.
This is just lame. The BBC will weather the storm without any adverse consequences. The Labor backbenchers most likely sympathize with the BBC point of view on Iraq, as well as the Liberal Democrats and most of the population. The government would fall if it tried to mess with the BBC right now.
Second, the BBC is correct. The intelligence was “sexed up.” The US did it, too. All the forgeries and lies.
So you believe all independent agencies (even news agencies) should only act as lackeys to the whim of the Government? Seriously?
It should be noted that the security quote used in the *‘dodgy dossier’ * stating WMD could be used in 45 minutes was also from a single and uncorroborated source.
Yet the Government had no qualms about using it in reports, because it supported their position.
BTW, who are BBC Watch, and who funds them? Can you confirm they are fully impartial in their ‘watching’? Looks extremely mickey-mouse to me.
Depends on what you mean by “should.” From a moral standpoint, I don’t think the government should control the news agencies. I’d like it if US public radio and TV were privatized the BBC were privatised.
But, this thread is about real-world consequences. The BBC is funded by the government. Its top management is selected by the government. The government has the legal power to punish the BBC in various ways. The question for debate is whether they will do so and what means they might use.
We agree on this, at least. Nor should they attempt to, either.
As Neurotik has said, and I agree, they will do nothing but blow hot air, mainly because they, and they know it, have no case.
IMHO, Campbell is going ‘mad’ (unprecedented behaviour for a Press Secretary) because he has finally realised Blair and Straw have set him up to take the fall for this debacle.
Quite - the BBC is a government agency :rolleyes: Please.
Note to December, stop talking crap about things you can’t be bothered to make an effort to understand properly. The BBC is editorially independent of the government as well as commercial interests, which is why it is so highly regarded.
It is also not financed by the government, except indirectly through a license fee whose level is set by the government.
This row is purely a government attempt to get the public to take the eye off the ball concerning the lies and exaggerations that led the UK into an illegal war, specifically to snow a Commons inquiry into aspects of the matter.
If the govt can take us to war using a single uncorroberated source then the BBC can damn well report what other unnamed sources say. And many different intelligence sources were leaking to many different outlets at that time.
I specifically used the modifier “more-or-less” to try to avoid this argument. For the purposes of this debate, one should note that the government can control the BBC in many ways.
AFAIK the UK government:
– Selects their top management
– Enforces their collection of TV tax money
– Has the legal power to set various rules and restrictions on what they do
– Could spin them off and privatise them
– Could shut them down
– Could reduce or eliminate the TV tax
– Could give them a smaller share of the TV tax money, and give some of that money to commercial statios
So, the government has the legal power to punish the BBC if they really want to. If they try to do so, I guess the BBC might react by attacking their enemies. So, I suppose politicians won’t want to take up this battle. But, in the long run, the government could restructure the BBC any way they liked.
Comments:[ul][]It seems remarkable for a news organizattion to negotiate conditions on admission of error. If the BBC made a mistake, they should just admit it, shouldn’t they?[]What’s the difference between offering to admit error and admitting error? It’s reminiscent of the famous Watergate quote when a White House spokesman said that some previous assertions were "“no longer operative.” [] The BBC being furious about the consequences of their own mistake shows their level of their hubris. Their management seems to believe that an incorrect BBC report deserves more respect than an accurate government response. []It’s just desserts that, “Greg Dyke, the director general, and his executives are angry that Mr Campbell has - in their view - used a single story to rubbish BBC journalism in general.” BBC has done just that to the Blair administration and to Israel.[/ul]
The furor seems overblown to me - it’s pretty obvious that the reports were “sexed up” - the whole sorry war and it’s ongoing aftermath have proved that pretty emphatically.
December quoting the evil leftist, biased Guardian, wonders will never cease!
If a Government made a mistake they should just admit it, no? I see no WMD’s pointed directly at us, usable within 45 minutes…
Why can’t they admit that, perhaps, the intel used and relied upon was incorrect? Not that they used it knowing it was incorrect, just that, in light of the current situation on the ground, the intel may now have been found to be incorrrect or overstated. Why not just admit that?
As others have said, the cart is a little before the horse here. Alistair Campbell is defending by attacking, since it is clear that there is a greater disparity between what the Government claimed and what has actually been found than that between anything claimed by the BBC and reality.
This happened as part of his appearance before a Parliamentary Select Committee, which are no-nonsense interrogations which can be very uncomfortable. You will notice that, in other news, at least one commitee member is calling for his resignation - this explains Campbell’s aggressive tone rather neatly.
So, you see, it is not the BBC which is in trouble of losing the license fee, by any means: It is the government’s chief spin doctor of losing his job, and perhaps the governing party of losing the next election.
I’m going to join the chorus that says you know nothing about the concept of an independent, publicly-funded broadcaster. The government does not have any editorial control over the BBC, and any government that tried to seriously impose any would find itself suffering huge political repercussions.
The BBC a government agency, well that’s a laugh, it’s a publically owned broadcasting corporation independant from most governmental controls.
Alastair Campbell, ‘the Wizard of Spin’, looks likely to lose his job over this report.
As I said in another thread the reason why the Israelis are threatening to cut links with the BBC is becasue it ran a documentry on it’s nuclear and chemical program, they as of yet have to refute any of the allegations made in the program. It’s very childish to call a news organisation bias for not being Israeli-apolgist. Palestinian media monitors have called it bias too, so it can’t be too biased.
