Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
The BBC is in a unique position. It has a historical presence in the UK, would be almost impossible for it to be created today, and unlike News International it doesn't editorialise or 'campaign' via it's news presence. As such they react to the news agenda more than they set it.
|
I don't see the relevance of the BBC's history. I entirely disagree about the claims that the BBC don't editorialise or campaign. They have their own agenda and pursue it accordingly. The demographics of the staff within the BBC are quite abnormal within the UK, they have a far higher proportion of Guardianistas and Europhiles and their news output corresponds with this, they aren't robots who leave their own personal bias at home.
The stories they don't see fit to cover on TV speak volumes, as do the parts of stories they do and don't cover.
One really easy case that comes to mind -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-international
Quote:
|
In an interview with the BBC and the Guardian, Brown confirmed that shortly after the birth of his son Fraser in October 2006, Rebekah Brooks, then editor of the Sun, telephoned his wife Sarah to say the paper had obtained details from the boy's medical records, revealing that he was suspected to be suffering from cystic fibrosis.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Also to be honest the BBC has proved far more willing to report on it's own misdeeds and scandals than News International has.
|
I'm at a loss as to the relevance of that to plurality within the news.