Scrap it.

If the BBC is just going to bend-over and give in to rightwing papercuts, it doesn’t deserve our attention.

Seriously, have some balls. The BBC reminds me of the dog from The Fly 2.

Scrap it.

If the BBC is just going to bend-over and give in to rightwing papercuts, it doesn’t deserve our attention.

Well Polly Toynbee was editor of Social Issues for most of the 90s so I think we ought to have at least of decade of editorialising from the Daily Mail to settle the score . If however you want to get rid of it ; ok I `ll go for that .After years and years of having top pay for a broadcasting corporation which held a Party when Tony Blair took power , I `d rather see it gone than ever put up with that again. It is still routinely biased if mostly outside the flag ship current affairs programmes
Then ,if enough people want to pay for it , you can have as much Radio Hamas or Noraid news as you like .

I agree entirely, it would seem that the BBC can somehow differentiate between a bleeding, broken child of war and a bleeding, broken child of an earthquake, for example. To me and the vast majority of people there is no difference, they need help and the BBC should be a part of the process. I hope that they see reason and have a change of heart but as any listener to ‘Feedback’ will know, they very rarely admit that they were wrong.

I know the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross scandal isn’t the most apposite comparison and I was one of the BBC defenders (if you count me decrying them as spineless throughout) but I don’t recall the BBC Trust criticising politicians for interfering then:

“In a letter to the BBC director general on Saturday, BBC Trust chairman Michael Lyons expressed concern that the “level and tone” of some of the political comment was “coming close to constituting undue interference in the editorial independence of the BBC”.

He assured Mr Thompson that the Trust would “do everything in our power to ensure that you are given the space to make the editorial decisions you feel, after due consideration, are right in the circumstances”. ”

Then again, the Daily Mail isn’t shaking with phony apoplexy over this, and that seems to make all the difference.

think the BBC situation is very interesting. Perhaps the pressures on it of late have been excessive and certainly this issue will help harmonise matters,

The decision not to air the ad. is a clear indication by BBC whose side they are on. To the BBC it looks like an Arab Child in need is not the same as any other child around the world. This decision the BBC took was simply not to show an Isreali created humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

This decision was taken to protect Israel which BBC sees as more allied to the west. Well guess what BBC to those people who are Freethinkers around the would Israel is nothing more than a morden day coloniser, an aggressor, a carbon copy of the apartheid regime in South Africa which the west constantly defended and called a strategic Ally

Leonard

media are always Biaset. Journalizem should be fair and honset. BBC,s refusal to Broadcast the human dissater of Gaza showes the egnorance and luck of human respect. Natural and man made dissaster needs the same coverge . but it showes the BBC is taking sides.