91¸£ÀûÉç in the news, Monday
| 09:27 UK time, Monday, 29 January 2007
Daily Mail: "ÂœLord Puttnam has revealed he is considering a formal approach from the 91¸£ÀûÉç to be its chairman." ()
The Independent: Executive producer of 91¸£ÀûÉç Current Affairs, Dominic Crossley-Holland, asks whether a programme's success should be judged by the number of complaints it receives. ()
The Guardian: Interview with 91¸£ÀûÉç Sports News Editor Mihir Bose. ()
The Guardian: Letter from 91¸£ÀûÉç Director of Vision Jana Bennett on current affairs programming. ()
Comments
Lord Puttman to be the next chairman of the 91¸£ÀûÉç!,
This is the same man who complained about the Police arresting Ruth Turner along with Labour ministers, yet the 91¸£ÀûÉç claim they are impartial.
How much longer must we endure the 91¸£ÀûÉç telling us that they are not biased whilst Labour ennobled peers like Puttman are foisted on us?.
Also on the links for this blog are 2 for the Guardian and 1 for the Independent?, why is this?, I purchase the Times, Mail and the Sun and most days they have articles about the 91¸£ÀûÉç, yet hardly ever do the 91¸£ÀûÉç mention them, and when they do the 91¸£ÀûÉç NEVER gives a link to the original article.
The 91¸£ÀûÉç is not impartial and should stop insulting our intelligence by pretending it is.
I think that the answer to Dominic Crossley-Holland's question is roughly as follows:
No complaints - bad, because nobody's paying attention.
A handful - good, it means you are high enough profile to attract the notice of the green inkers, but nobody else is complaining.
Dozens - bad, you've definitely done something wrong.
40,000+ - high five! and laugh all the way to the bank.
The 91¸£ÀûÉç is at it again, yet another Labour crony to be placed in a position of power at what is supposed to be a impartial organisation.
Why does the 91¸£ÀûÉç just be honest and change it's name to the Labour appreciation society?.
To give an example of the biased reporting that the 91¸£ÀûÉç is now world famous for I give this nugget....
On the 91¸£ÀûÉç world service yesterday was an attack on Prince Charles for flying to America with his entourage to pick up a environmental award, the 91¸£ÀûÉç used an interview with Alan Millband in which he complained about the carbon footprint that Prince Charles had left by visiting the USA, yet, the 91¸£ÀûÉç failed at the same time to mention that Millband and 4 aides flew to India two days later for a 1 day trip....double standards at the 91¸£ÀûÉç.....again.
I have just read an article about the 91¸£ÀûÉç going to court to resist a Freedom of Information request seeking the relase of an internal report which it is suggested may indicate bias in 91¸£ÀûÉç news reporting. Why has this not been reported on the 91¸£ÀûÉç itself? Surely a national broadcaster seeking to prevent publication of such a report is a major news item? I make no judgment on whether there is bias but this is surely a significant news item? I can hardly find mention of it anywhere on the 91¸£ÀûÉç site.
Does anyone else find the idea of a Sun reader criticising the 91¸£ÀûÉçs impartiality hilarious?
Thank you Saskia, you've made my day!