|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 25, 2024 11:46:46 GMT
But the post that opens this thread specifically refers to BBC online news coverage — what else of relevance are you noting…? i know what the title and article refer to. I think you’ll find it was redrum who started diversifying into irrelevance Although as i think you will note yourself the so called BBC News website covers a whole koad of stuff not remotely ‘news’ and often hardly newsworthy and in that sense i think it useful the taxpayer funded BBC be brought to account for what it publishes with our money. Surely, what is and isn't news — and whether it's worthy of inclusion in whatever vehicle is carrying it — providing it's lawful, needs to be left to the judgement of editors and consumers?
Editors will decide what they think will be of interest and relevance to listeners/readers/viewers, and consumers will accept/argue/reject what's presented. News presentation ranges between information and entertainment and I guess it's up to each of us to choose if, how, what and when we want it. My preference is for it to be factual — that is to say, as factual as is known at the time the item is presented...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 25, 2024 12:39:01 GMT
From the BBC Charter: Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services -
television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines.
The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.
The external activities and public comments, for example on social media, of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality. Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest.You are referring to BBC output there, not output of BBC employees. You obviously didn't read the last paragraph, Andy. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Jan 28, 2024 6:42:39 GMT
It seems there is little to be concerned over, moves are afoot to bring the BBC to heel:
|
|
