Following on from the previous post...
Though there's doubtless a general tendency in this direction among the mainstream media as a whole, it surely says something significant about BBC reporting in particular that this morning's Today programme didn't follow up on one of its main stories from yesterday.
After trailing the ruling of the Al-Sweady Inquiry on Wednesday morning's Today - featuring a discussion with BBC reporter Caroline Hawley at 6.35 and interviews with John Wilkinson of Public Interest Lawyers and General Sir Mike Jackson at 8.35 - this morning's Today opted against featuring a follow-up discussion. Very brief mentions in the newspaper reviews were all Today listeners heard about it.
So, we had plenty of pre-report speculation yesterday but no post-report analysis whatsoever today. (And, yes, I've checked).
Today had clearly decided to move on.
Today had clearly decided to move on.
And that process of moving on started yesterday. On Radio 4 the story was covered on both The World at One and PM but by the time of The World Tonight it had been dropped as a topic for discussion. On BBC Two's Newsnight, which only last week was majoring on the findings of the U.S. report into 'torture' and the U.K's possible complicity with torture, also decided against discussing it. (Where was Newsnight regular Phil Shiner last night?) They too had clearly decided to move on.
And yet on certain stories, such as the Delilah rugby row, they can take at least two or three day to move on - not just around six hours.
Other media outlets aren't moving on so quickly though. As pointed out on the last thread, the Telegraph's defence editor Con Coughlin believes that the BBC owes the British Army an apology for its own past coverage of this story. He targets, above all, a 2008 edition of Panorama where Phil Shiner & Co. were given a platform to peddle what the programme itself, at the very end, conceded were somewhat extreme claims.
Curiously (and somewhat surprisingly) the BBC, at the time, featured a large-scale collection of viewer reactions on its website, and it makes remarkable reading. Typically, it begins by concentrating on supportive comments by British Muslims and craftily crowds a 'balance' of opinions at the top before revealing as you go further down the page what the vast bulk of commenters actually thought - that the BBC had utterly disgraced itself by broadcasting a piece of sensationalist rumour-mongering. There were plenty of accusations of anti-British Army BBC bias too.
And yet on certain stories, such as the Delilah rugby row, they can take at least two or three day to move on - not just around six hours.
Other media outlets aren't moving on so quickly though. As pointed out on the last thread, the Telegraph's defence editor Con Coughlin believes that the BBC owes the British Army an apology for its own past coverage of this story. He targets, above all, a 2008 edition of Panorama where Phil Shiner & Co. were given a platform to peddle what the programme itself, at the very end, conceded were somewhat extreme claims.
Curiously (and somewhat surprisingly) the BBC, at the time, featured a large-scale collection of viewer reactions on its website, and it makes remarkable reading. Typically, it begins by concentrating on supportive comments by British Muslims and craftily crowds a 'balance' of opinions at the top before revealing as you go further down the page what the vast bulk of commenters actually thought - that the BBC had utterly disgraced itself by broadcasting a piece of sensationalist rumour-mongering. There were plenty of accusations of anti-British Army BBC bias too.
Moving on...
After reporting on the siege in Sydney, the BBC's reluctant Sydney correspondent Jon Donnison also appears to have quickly moved on.
After one day of coolly dispassionate tweets about the attack (all avoiding any mention of the perpetrator's name or any hint of an Islam-related motive), he's now back to emotive tweeting on the subject that really matters to him - the Palestinians:
After one day of coolly dispassionate tweets about the attack (all avoiding any mention of the perpetrator's name or any hint of an Islam-related motive), he's now back to emotive tweeting on the subject that really matters to him - the Palestinians:
Atef Abu Sief' son is 11 years old & has witnessed 3 wars in his short life; already he's planning for the 4th. #gaza http://t.co/DaNd1D55LD
— Jon Donnison (@JonDonnison) December 18, 2014
Despite being moved to Australia by his BBC bosses, Jon Donnison evidently refuses to be made to move on from Gaza.
He is obviously obsessed. (As am I by his obsession), #notmovingon.
