Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Censored posts on the BBC Editors' blog

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David C
site administrator


Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 234
Location: Southampton

Post Post subject: Censored posts on the BBC Editors' blog Reply with quote

On Thursday, 21 October, 2010

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/10/bbc_news_linking_policy_4.html#comments

A censored post:

Comment #18: "How does this square with the new editorial guidelines?"

It's not any different from the old guidelines. Bear in mind that 'BBC' also stands for 'Bin and Bypass Complaints':
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/10/100708_bin_and_bypass.php

In 2006, BBC news editor Helen Boaden described how she deflects public criticism sent to her by email. Francis Elliott explained in the Independent:

"Don't bother emailing complaints to BBC head of news Helen Boaden. She was at the launch evening for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford last Monday night. Discussion turned to protest groups and lobbying outfits which email their views to senior editors. Boaden's response: 'Oh, I just changed my email address.' So much for the Beeb being accountable." (Elliott, 'Media Diary - Helen the hidden', The Independent, November 26, 2006; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-tossers-who-could-win-for-the-tories-425799.html)

David Cromwell
Co-Editor, http://www.medialens.org

===

Another censored post:

The BBC's new editorial guidelines supposedly reaffirm the corporation's commitment to "impartiality". But this "impartiality" is routinely asserted, rather than demonstrated with proof. The inhouse "BBC complaints" procedure and the establishment-embedded BBC Trust are systemically incapable of ensuring true impartiality.

When rational arguments backed by copious evidence undermine the whole edifice of BBC "impartiality", the BBC has a public duty to make such arguments known to the licence payer, however uncomfortable this may be to senior managers and editors.

Is silence or censorship a fair response? Is it wise?

Media Lens media alert: The Silence Of The BBC 100
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/091204_the_silence_of.php

The public deserves better.

David Cromwell
Co-Editor, http://www.medialens.org



Finally, posing a logical conundrum for fun, here's a post that was NOT censored:

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:03 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker