The Rev Gaston

On 2005-06-10 18:00:29 +0200, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
said:

    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > []
    >> They gave the govt a softer ride than they deserved
    >
    > In what way?

In the way of not shouting from the roof tops that Blair was a horrible
little liar?

    >> - they were fast
    >> enough to hang Andrew Gilligan out to dry.
    >
    > Huh?
    >
    > If you recall, the reason that the BBC was causing so much ire was
    > because Gilligan initially got so much support from his managers, and
    > from the corporation as a whole. I don't know in what way they hung him
    > out to dry, really. Should they have not accepted his resignation?

Maybe they shouldn't have put him in a position where he felt he needed
to tender it? Maybe they should have told Alistair Campbell to go and
**** himself?

    > Despite being absolutely correct about his story, even he has admitted
    > the faults in reporting it, and saying things that he shouldn't have.

We can't all be perfect all the time (Mixi excluded of course).

G;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

The Rev Gaston <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 2005-06-10 18:00:29 +0200, [email protected]
    > (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    > said:
    >
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > []
    > >> They gave the govt a softer ride than they deserved
    > >
    > > In what way?
    >
    > In the way of not shouting from the roof tops that Blair was a horrible
    > little liar?

I think their reporting has been good in this regard. I certainly want
Blair and his government treated as roughly as a fair press can, and I
don't find myself screaming at the TV or Radio news much because of lame
questions.

[]
    > > If you recall, the reason that the BBC was causing so much ire was
    > > because Gilligan initially got so much support from his managers, and
    > > from the corporation as a whole. I don't know in what way they hung him
    > > out to dry, really. Should they have not accepted his resignation?
    >
    > Maybe they shouldn't have put him in a position where he felt he needed
    > to tender it?

What position did they put him in? He received strong support from the
BBC during the initial spat with Campbell, and during the inquiry. He
resigned following the publication of the Hutton report. I don't know
what choice he had, and who knows whether or not he would have _wanted_
to stay on?

    > Maybe they should have told Alistair Campbell to go and
    > **** himself?

They did. Why do you think he barged into a live transmission of Channel
4 News one evening and started shouting off? He was incensed at the
actions of the BBC, and their support for Gilligan.

I'm not without my criticisms of the BBC over this- I didn't feel that
Dyke should have been pushed to resign- and plainly nor did a lot of BBC
workers. There was a lot _less_ sympathy for Gilligan among BBC
employees though.

    > > Despite being absolutely correct about his story, even he has admitted
    > > the faults in reporting it, and saying things that he shouldn't have.
    >
    > We can't all be perfect all the time

No, but when you make mistakes in certain circumstances, such as this
one, the stakes are higher. Despite some aspects of his reporting which
I admire, you seriously think his position at the BBC was tenable when
he implied in an email to a Liib Dem MP that Kelly was Susan Watt's
source? (Another BBC journalist, who didn't authorise the leak.)

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Hatunen

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:21:02 +0200, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 9/06/05 21:44, in article [email protected],
    >"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> The Economist is the only one I read regularly these days.
    >>
    >> But it's a weekly.
    >>
    >> I know it refers to itself as a newspaper but as far as I'm
    >> concerned it's a magazine.
    >I agree. In addition its level of analysis is superior to that
    >a newspaper will offer. News is not analysis. Most journalists
    >don't have time to do investigative reporting. Even most newspaper
    >columnists do a generally sloppy, off the top of their head
    >analysis.
    >Over the last couple of years I have become increasing dissatisfied
    >with Newsweek and Time magazines. Anybody here can buy a copy
    >of them and the Economist and compare. I have consistently found
    >the Economist gives a more insight to what is going on in the US
    >than the American magazines. Why I don't know.

I'm far more insterested in the insight the Economist gives to
what's going on in other parts of the world.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:25:22 +0100, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to Jim Ley
    >>The Sun, the Star, the Mirror, the Mail are all absolute crap, in fact
    >>almost all the UK newspapers are in my opinion absolute crap. They're
    >>also very selective about what they publish, it may well be because
    >>they're less politically uniform you'll get one paper that feels it's
    >>in their ideological interest to mention a story, but that doesn't
    >>mean you can just read one and get any sort of balance or good
    >>reporting.
    >You need to alternate around the FT, Guardian, Independent and
    >Telegraph unless you want to just hear what you want to hear.
    >>The Economist is the only one I read regularly these days.
    >a weekly magazine with an agenda like everything else.

Indeed. The Economist is unabashedly capitalist and free trade.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:06:43 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley)
wrote:

    >On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:44:22 -0700, Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:16:49 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley)
    >>wrote:
    >>>The Economist is the only one I read regularly these days.
    >>But it's a weekly.
    >I'd be more happy with an argument about the fact it comes on shiny
    >colour paper in a magazine size than the fact it's a weekly, the vast
    >majority of newspapers in the world are weekly I believe - most local
    >papers don't have enough news to fill a week.

I se you've been reading our Tucson papers, although they come
out daily.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

The Rev Gaston

On 2005-06-11 00:05:36 +0200, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
said:

    > The Rev Gaston <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2005-06-10 18:00:29 +0200, [email protected]
    >> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    >> said:


    >>> Despite being absolutely correct about his story, even he has admitted
    >>> the faults in reporting it, and saying things that he shouldn't have.
    >>
    >> We can't all be perfect all the time
    >
    > No, but when you make mistakes in certain circumstances, such as this
    > one, the stakes are higher. Despite some aspects of his reporting which
    > I admire, you seriously think his position at the BBC was tenable when
    > he implied in an email to a Liib Dem MP that Kelly was Susan Watt's
    > source? (Another BBC journalist, who didn't authorise the leak.)

I think that that is the price we pay for a free press. The alternative
is that we just have a bunch of poodles who won't squeak until every i
is dotted and every t is crossed. By that time it's too late and we've
invaded Iraq.

Oh, hang on a minute ...

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

The Rev Gaston <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 2005-06-11 00:05:36 +0200, [email protected]
    > (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    > said:
    >
    > > The Rev Gaston <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
    > >> We can't all be perfect all the time
    > >
    > > No, but when you make mistakes in certain circumstances, such as this
    > > one, the stakes are higher. Despite some aspects of his reporting which
    > > I admire, you seriously think his position at the BBC was tenable when
    > > he implied in an email to a Liib Dem MP that Kelly was Susan Watt's
    > > source? (Another BBC journalist, who didn't authorise the leak.)
    >
    > I think that that is the price we pay for a free press.

I think mistakes are inevitable- absolutely. Emailing an MP hinting at a
colleague's source seems to me calculated- and a real no-no among
journalists. More to the point is, if he had somehow stayed on at the
BBC- would anyone have worked with him?

    > The alternative
    > is that we just have a bunch of poodles who won't squeak until every i
    > is dotted and every t is crossed.

    > By that time it's too late and we've
    > invaded Iraq.
    >
    > Oh, hang on a minute ...

It was too late when Gilligan made his early morning remarks on the
Today Programme as well!

More interesting to me was the way the BBC News service seemed to react
during the publication of the Hutton whitewash. Apart from the fact that
it was obviously being reported, there was no difference. Indeed, it
caused some anti-BBC commentators to accuse them of acting as though the
report had gone against the government and _for_ them. They were even
having quite fierce debates with various government ministers at the
time- some of whom seemed taken aback that the BBC reporters seemed to
be going at it as per usual.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Charles Hawtrey

In article <[email protected] .com>,
[email protected] says...

    > Funnily enough you omit the one that is probably the most ideology-free
    > in terms of its news values (though admittedly also probably the
    > dullest read): The Financial Times.

Agreed. The FT is always my first choice when the flight attendants ask
if anyone wants a newspaper.

Charles Hawtrey

In article <[email protected] .com>,
[email protected] says...
    > There is some speculation that The Guardian, when it changes to its
    > smaller size, is going to reposition itself to fill the gap left by the
    > dumbing-down of The Times -- ie the nonpartisan 'newspaper of record'.
    > Though IWHT The Independent better positioned to do so from the POV of
    > public perception.

I can't imagine that The Guardian could ever be considered non-partisan.
They'd have to make major editorial changes in order to become truly
non-partisan, and then they'd need to wait for public perception to
catch up.

barney

Charles Hawtrey wrote:
    > In article <[email protected] .com>,
    > [email protected] says...
    > > There is some speculation that The Guardian, when it changes to its
    > > smaller size, is going to reposition itself to fill the gap left by the
    > > dumbing-down of The Times -- ie the nonpartisan 'newspaper of record'.
    > > Though IWHT The Independent better positioned to do so from the POV of
    > > public perception.
    > I can't imagine that The Guardian could ever be considered non-partisan.
    > They'd have to make major editorial changes in order to become truly
    > non-partisan, and then they'd need to wait for public perception to
    > catch up.

I'm inclined to agree - the perception of The Guardian is quite a bit
leftwards of the reality. OTOH the convergence of the mainstream left
and right in politics makes it easier to straddle the gap.

Patrick Wallace

I'm a Guardian reader; it's considered the natural home for the left
and the liberals, but has a tendency to facetiousness that can grate
at times - think of Libération. The Times is owned by Richard Murdoch,
the Daily Telegraph has a reputation for wide reporting of the facts
but is treated as the house organ of the Conservative Party. The
Independent is liberal but under-resourced.

There is a publication called The Week which published weekly
summaries and excepts from across the UK press.

An old mantra (before Margaret Thatcher, the arrival of some new
papers and the collapse of communism) has it that:

The Times is read by the people who think they run the country.
The Financial Times is read by the people who really run the country.
The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who used to run the country.
The Guardian is read by the people who think they should run the
country.
The Daily Mail is read by the people who think their husbands should
run the country.
The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country should
be run the way it used to be run.
The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think the unions should
run the country.
The Daily Worker is read by the people who think the Russians should
run the country.
The Sun is read by people who don't care who runs the country as long
as she's got big knockers.

PJW



On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 17:12:23 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >The following item indicates that the UK newspapers are
    >now doing a better job than the now terrorized American press.
    >But what are the "good" UK newspapers? Which ones do
    >our UK readers recommend? Are they usually available
    >on the continent??

The Reids

Following up to Jack Campin - bogus address

    >> The BBC was considered a lefty organisation by the Conservatives
    >> when they were in power. Can you give examples of them being
    >> "soft right" then?
    >Supporting the Tories almost all the way in the Miners' Strike.

    >I wouldn't even call that "soft" right, they pumped out hundreds
    >of hours of lying fascist bullshit toadying to Thatcher and never
    >even pretended to give the miners a fair hearing.

Is there some other BBC?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids

Following up to Charles Hawtrey

    >I can't imagine that The Guardian could ever be considered non-partisan.
    >They'd have to make major editorial changes in order to become truly
    >non-partisan, and then they'd need to wait for public perception to
    >catch up.

I doubt they want to be.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids

Following up to [email protected]

    >> The rest of the dailies are strictly bogroll.
    >Funnily enough you omit the one that is probably the most ideology-free
    >in terms of its news values (though admittedly also probably the
    >dullest read): The Financial Times.

its also amusingly free of non financial values. I remember
reading a whole spread about the Sellafield nuclear power station
with not a word about leukemia clusters or similar.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Mary Pegg

Martin wrote:

    > On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 17:23:27 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >>What about the Manchester Guardian??
    >
    > Dead and buried decades ago.

It just droped the "Manchester" bit, when it moved.
A change of premises and name is not "dying".

--
Sit in sloppy faeces, and get the sole of
your shoe profoundly in it as well.