NICE BIT OF CREATIVE BBC REPORTING

The BBC shows its true [blue] colours reporting on u2's Glastonbury debut marred by tax protest. Everything it says is true. However, the article says little about the detail of the band's supposed [legal] tax evasion. But the article goes on to other performers and the weather! If you are reporting on an issue, stick to the issue. Don't try to muddy the waters with inconsequential and irrelevant information.

But anybody who knows anything about reporting will know this is a well known and well used technique to appear impartial while in fact directing the reader's/viewer's attention away from the facts (though there are few facts relating to the headline!)

I would like to know more about the issues the protesters were campaigning about. Why weren't Art Uncut interviewed and their views reported? Because the BBC supports the wealthy and their ability to [legally] avoid their [moral] tax responsibilities.

For those interested in more information about the protester's grievance, here's a link to Art Uncut's blog post on the subject http://www.artuncut.org.uk/blog/#blog-12.

It appears the story on the original link I posted has now changed from the 'tax protest' story. Fortunately, News Sniffer has the story here-

http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/404919/diff/3/4

NURSES, POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN TO HAVE PENSIONS CUT

I see the BBC is using its usual 'unbiased' reporting to manipulate public opinion once again. This morning's BBC Breakfast show headlines that civil servants and public sector workers to have their final salary pensions replaced with average earnings pensions; they should retire later and contribute more.

Immediately, 99.9% of non-civil servants will say it is right, based mainly on the premise of 'I don't get it; why should they?' Coup number one; they have successfully introduced the 'divide and conquer' scenario. Why aren't we supporting them and saying leave them alone; we want the same?

I suspect the same 99.9% of non public servants will envisage public sector workers and civil servants as the well-paid, pin-striped, bowler hatted old boys club, the popular conception of the civil servant.

In fact we are talking about nurses, hospital porters, doctor's receptionists, policemen and firemen. Coup number two; journalists are well aware that what you headline tends to form the opinion of the reader/viewer. In this instance, they will be well aware that headlining 'nurses, policemen and firemen' would possibly, even probably elicit a different response; one of support for our front-line services. (By the way we were promised these would not be affected by the cuts. Remember?)

This of course leads us into the May elections. What can we do that will boost our public perception? Hit the civil servants, but not too much detail or there might be a backlash if they realise it's the civil servants the most vulnerable rely on that we will hit the hardest… again.

Of course, this is still at the report stage. I suspect, however that the biased reporting is to ready us for the almost inevitable implementation of most of Lord Hutton's recommendations.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CON-TRICK

The government has told the BBC they have to make a 16% cut over four years. And do we get a 16% cut in licence fees? Get away!

Funny, though. The BBC should have such a small cut over so long. I’m sure their world-famous impartial reporting will be in no way affected by this generous act. Unfortunately the police, hospitals and welfare state in general do not enjoy such impartiality. Nor do they have the same infrastructure to be a potential threat to the government.   

Never mind. With the destruction of the welfare state this government is intent on, if you can make it to 75 you get a free licence! That is if you still live in your own home and need a licence!