|
|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Archives |
Categories |
Recent Entries |
Links |
journalism.co.uk |
|
This blog is hosted by journalism.co.uk on a reciprocal link basis only. The opinions expressed on this blog are entirely those of the author and are not endorsed in any way by Journalism.co.uk. Additionally, all content remains the sole copyright of the authors. Powered by
Movable Type 3.2 |
April 21, 2006
Just because a party issues a statement doesn't mean you have to report it
The Liberal Democrats' biggest and most controversial political donor has been arrested in Spain on 53 charges of forgery and dishonesty, it emerged today. So begins the piece in the Times, the paper that has been doing an excellent job watching and reporting on Michael Brown for months.
BBC online has a very odd take, giving significant space to the Lib Dems attempts to put distance between themselves and the donor. "But a party spokesman stressed there was "no connection" between the charges and Mr Brown's donations," says the fourth para in its story. And later "A Liberal Democrat spokesman said: "We are not aware that this has any connection whatsoever with the Liberal Democrats.
I don't get it. Of course there's a connection. A bloke who gave a very large amount of money is under arrest for forgery and dishonesty. Why is the BBC giving space to this absurd spin?
Les
Posted by leshack at April 21, 2006 06:01 PM | TrackBackPretty simple answer to this question - the Broadcasting Act. In an election period, all broadcasters but particularly the BBC have to be scrupulously fair and balanced.
So a story about alleged misbehaviour of a big party donor has to be balanced by the Lib Dem's view, whether it seems reasonable to you or not.
Posted by: Ben King at May 17, 2006 04:20 PM