Posted on 02/17/2006 4:23:39 PM PST by presidio9
BBC rules on impartiality were broken during a report on the Ten O'Clock News, the corporation's governors said. The complaint surrounded Guto Harri's report about the night's edition of Question Time, a month before the General Election last year.
Governors said rules were broken when Harri said the then Conservative leader was booed, but did not mention the same thing had happened to Tony Blair.
The omission breached BBC guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, they ruled.
Interviews
However, they also said that overall the report gave a "fair and balanced" account of the event, and did not uphold the broader complaint of evidence of political bias.
The Question Time broadcast on 28 April 2005 featured interviews with Charles Kennedy, then Liberal Democrat leader, as well as former Conservative leader Michael Howard and Mr Blair. The three main party leaders had been questioned by a studio audience with Mr Blair and Mr Howard booed when they walked on stage.
The Governors' Programme Complaints Committee concluded: "Blair's Question Time entrance was greeted by pronounced booing and this did not come across in the subsequent news report.
"Given that the report referred to booing during Michael Howard's entrance, it ought also to have referred to booing during Tony Blair's entrance," it said.
"Failure to do so gave an inaccurate and partial impression of the reception Tony Blair received.
"The committee concluded therefore that, in the context of the report, the failure to refer to booing at Tony Blair's entrance had been unfortunate and breached the guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.
"This element of the complaint was upheld."
A Conservative Party spokesman said: "There were a number of occasions during the General Election when the BBC's coverage fell below it's normally high standards.
"This ruling will serve as a reminder to the BBC that they must meet the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality."
Fake but accurate. Where have I heard that before?
not even accurate.
The BBC is probably the only news organisation in the world which would hold such a review.
Well, the BBC is an unbiased as... Say the New York Slimes... Lets examine their two most recent editions...
This?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4699242.stm
"Last month Mr Lantos said there had been "a string of disturbing incidents" in which US-based companies had "caved in to Beijing for the sake of profits".
Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders has accused Yahoo of providing China with information that helped to identify and convict two internet writers.
Li Zhi was jailed for eight years in 2003, after posting comments that criticised official corruption. Writer Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison in April 2005 after criticising human rights abuses."
"Yet the Chinese government enforces strict laws on internet use, blocking content it considers a threat, including references to the Tiananmen Square massacre and notable dissidents."
Seems a reasonable summary. I would never rely on any one news site, but the BBC more useful than most as a starting point for keeping up with what's going on and as a basis for further reading.
thanks for the link.
My reference (in my post#7) was to a short news clip I saw in a BBC 30 minute TV broadcast. In that segment they did not go into as much detail, and managed to portray China's behavior in a more positive (neutral) manner.
"The BBC is probably the only news organisation in the world which would hold such a review."
Last I recall, there is an Obudsman for the United States's PBS who is responsible for reviewing all programmes broadcast on PBS's affiliates, and don't forget forget the CBC, RNZ, TVNZ, ABC (Australia), ZDF, ARD, etc as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.