Now that there’s Guido, the Daily Mail and many more, does ITBB have a right to exist? I don’t watch the Beeb very much these days and neither does Craig. Where’s that furlough scheme when you need it?.
Still, fancy Panorama featuring the daughter of obsessive BDS dogmatist Brian Eno without identifying her as such. I misread her name as ‘Trial’ (and error)
“Irial Eno, was a ‘doctor working with Covid patients’ who has ‘decided to speak out’. She said ‘I feel really angry at the Government’.”
Smoulder away, Dr Trial but public opinion is gradually shifting away from the left and almost imperceptibly creeping towards, I don’t know - let’s call it ‘reason’. The BBC’s buttresses are crumbling without much help from the likes of us.
But then, just because you feature the opinions of leftist dogmatists it doesn’t mean you ARE one. Maybe the BBC was just testing? To see if anyone was watching?
Oliver Dowden is on the case. A bit late in the day, but: Coronavirus: Minister Oliver Dowden warns BBC about ‘bias’ after Panorama story
“In his letter Mr Dowden said that he was sure Lord Hall “will agree that at a time of heightened risk of misinformation and disinformation, it is more important than ever that the BBC upholds the values and standards we all expect”.
“Monday night’s Panorama was a rigorous, properly sourced investigation into the procurement and supply of PPE, which posed serious questions for the Government. It also included contributions from health professionals about their frontline experience.
“The programme spoke to a range of interviewees, including public health policy experts, and those involved in the supply of PPE. Where it was relevant, we indicated that they had been vocally critical of the Government.
“Some of those interviewed are members of a political party and some are not. We believe that if the doctors featured in Panorama feel their lives are at risk due to lack of proper PPE it is valid, and indeed in the public interest, for them to reflect on that experience, regardless of the political views they may or may not hold.”
This looks like the classic defence that goes: “Never mind the source because we all know this is the kind of thing that goes on.”
I’ve heard that one before and it’s not really good enough. It’s lazy and glib. ’Posing serious questions’ is not very difficult. Any lazy hack could do that, but listening to, examining, and if necessary debunking the answers (or excuses) is where investigative journalism starts.
I will level with you. I didn’t watch the programme, so do tell me; when the programme spoke to ‘those involved in the supply of PPE’ did they follow up?