|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: BBC fiasco
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
So the two reports of what happened when Jimmy Saville was outed and the BBC implicated are available.
The top executives keep their jobs.
Others responsible for the fiasco are "moved sideways".
Do Shipmates think that the "no blame" culture prevalent today means that nobody is held accountable in any meaningful way? Such as being fired?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Organizations protect the people believed important to the organization. That's old news. If anyone gets fired, it will be some lowly person the organization thinks disposable, as a show of "doing something."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The major problem with Lord MacAlpine, seems to have been due to them hastily suspending and moving all and sundry in response to the first problem. Perhaps it would be wise not to repeat the knee-jerk response this time.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The major problem with Lord MacAlpine, seems to have been due to them hastily suspending and moving all and sundry in response to the first problem. Perhaps it would be wise not to repeat the knee-jerk response this time.
Sorry, but the problem with the Newsnight fiasco (I'm always amazed to see it on the tv guide still) and the BBC in general was their lack of journalistic professionalism. I normally write off claims of BBC bias, but in this case it was hard too. The BBC tried to cover up the wrong of one of their own (J. Saville) whilst going full out with a BIJ (which is by no means an neutral organisation - nor does it pretend or claim to be) investigation which was very much politically motivated - if anything sticks out in the coverage (except the complete lack of standards and checks carried out) is the constant reference to a 'Tory politician', every opportunity seems to have been taken during the witch-hunt to tag tory to paedophile... yet bizzarely the misdemeaners of labour politicians (of which there are several now who have been charged with actually having committed these crimes/been implicit in covering these crimes up elsewhere) have been ignored.
As for the pay-offs: it's very easy to be liberal with other people's money, especially a tax where our elected representatives have little control or say over how the money is spent.
To answer about the culture - it appears to me that it is a case of those at the top think they are above judgement by others, deserve to be rewarded for the 'sacrifices' they have made whether they have phaffed up or not - I think of the BBC and Mrs. Moran, Mr. McShane to name a few. All have committed great crimes yet nothing has changed - the new bod at the BBC is 'one of them' - little chance I feel of a change of culture.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The major problem with Lord MacAlpine, seems to have been due to them hastily suspending and moving all and sundry in response to the first problem. Perhaps it would be wise not to repeat the knee-jerk response this time.
Sorry, but the problem with the Newsnight fiasco (I'm always amazed to see it on the tv guide still) and the BBC in general was their lack of journalistic professionalism. I normally write off claims of BBC bias, but in this case it was hard too. The BBC tried to cover up the wrong of one of their own (J. Saville) whilst going full out with a BIJ (which is by no means an neutral organisation - nor does it pretend or claim to be) investigation which was very much politically motivated - if anything sticks out in the coverage (except the complete lack of standards and checks carried out) is the constant reference to a 'Tory politician', every opportunity seems to have been taken during the witch-hunt to tag tory to paedophile... yet bizzarely the misdemeaners of labour politicians (of which there are several now who have been charged with actually having committed these crimes/been implicit in covering these crimes up elsewhere) have been ignored.
As for the pay-offs: it's very easy to be liberal with other people's money, especially a tax where our elected representatives have little control or say over how the money is spent.
To answer about the culture - it appears to me that it is a case of those at the top think they are above judgement by others, deserve to be rewarded for the 'sacrifices' they have made whether they have phaffed up or not - I think of the BBC and Mrs. Moran, Mr. McShane to name a few. All have committed great crimes yet nothing has changed - the new bod at the BBC is 'one of them' - little chance I feel of a change of culture.
I think there was an element of unfortunate closeness in the relationship between New Labour and the BBC whereby the BBC was able to increase the licence fee substantially and in return the Blair/Brown government got an easy ride. But that said they got that from the Official Opposition as well. The effect of the additional resources that the BBC enjoyed was to create a mediocre management nomenklatura with high salaries and stuffed pension pots but who have no real worth to the organisation.
Despite the valiant efforts of the excellent Margaret Hodge I doubt whether the hopeless Coalition Government will do anything about it.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I think there was an element of unfortunate closeness in the relationship between New Labour and the BBC
I'm not sure that it was unfortunate, rather intentional... when high-ranking, influential and celebrated BBC personalities come out and say that there is a liberal bias at the BBC, recollections of great partying after the '97 GE, to name a couple of the examples out there in the public domain, it can't be classed as an unfortunate, but a concerted and desired relationship...
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
... the excellent Margaret Hodge...
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) p-l-e-a-s-e... I'm sure the word excellent takes offence at being used in such a manner! She's just another politician with grubby noses, it's the act of a desperate person to threaten legal action over business affairs which are suppossedly morally superior to any of the other companies which have been in the news of late.
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I doubt whether the hopeless Coalition Government will do anything about it.
Though I imagine we disagree on what makes this current government useless, I can kind of agree that it is a little useless... though evidently not so bad as Labours rhetoric has been trying to paint it... I direct you to the latest developments in pleb - becomes plod-gate, Labours rather infamous blank 'One Nation' website (though I'm not sure if they've now fixed that...) the ever-eternal, and if possible more infamous, 'blank sheet of paper for policies' and the mad position they have now gotten themselves into over welfare and pay... The government is rather shambolic, but then again so is the official opposition.
(Sorry for getting a little hellish... politicians make me angry, as does certain parts of the BBC... Jeremy Bowen...)
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
I cannot agree with you about Margaret Hodge and the politician who comes out of the BBC saga very badly is the ubiquitous Lord Patten - a fat and useless Tory placeman. As for Pleb/Plodgate the one politician who has been right about this was Chris Mullen. These things are not really a matter of party politics.
[ 21. December 2012, 12:29: Message edited by: aumbry ]
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I cannot agree with you about Margaret Hodge and the politician who comes out of the BBC saga very badly is the ubiquitous Lord Patten - a fat and useless Tory placeman. As for Pleb/Plodgate the one politician who has been right about this was Chris Mullen. These things are not really a matter of party politics.
Whilst no fan nor no great disliker of Lord Patten, I would say that the problems have been much longer in the brewing, probably being traced back to Michael Grade's tenure, where the management and oversight system was changed to the mess it is now, with Grade then promptly leaving anyway, then the Labour placeman of Sir Lyons taking over did not help the culture, and the management structure was not changed either. Lord Patten hasn't done enough either to ensure that the BBC management and oversight was streamlined into a feasable and accountable fashion, so yes he falls foul too, but unfortunately he is not to be solely blamed, all those other management peeps who have managed to avoid the chop, been shifted sideways, or even given one heck of a hefty pay-off are also to blame. No one person at the BBC can be blamed for this fiasco (something our blame culture tries to do - the classic scape-goat rather than accepting our individual parts in the responsibility) the whole lot of them need to be seriously interregoted, as the Culture, Media and Sport select committee is out and about doing (under the fabulous leadership of the excellent John Whittingdale ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) and hopefully something proper will come of this, whether it is a restructuring of the BBC (who's Charter is up for renewal anyway) or a slimming down of all those unneccesary radio channels to make sure that tax payers money is spent in a more efficient and appropriate manner.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The major problem with Lord MacAlpine, seems to have been due to them hastily suspending and moving all and sundry in response to the first problem. Perhaps it would be wise not to repeat the knee-jerk response this time.
Actually, contrary to the subsequent debate, I agree with this. The trouble is the BBC tends to panic in a crisis (in many ways, it still hasn't got over the David Kelly/Hutton report one) and, far from being arrogant, tends to flap and report endlessly on how terrible it is etc. It then changes things dead quick, in ways that come easily to it and which can get the press and the government off its backs (as if either of those, of any stripe, are in a position to throw stones at the BBC), rather than stopping and *carefully* thinking how it can best change things to improve its structures and try and prevent things like this happen again.
I was surprised a lot of people were "moved sideways" rather than sacked (although part of me does wonder what good the ritual sacking of people in crises like this does, apart from make everyone feel a bit better than "something's been done"); perhaps that's symptomatic of large corporations and organisations, rather than anything peculiar to the BBC.
The thing that does get me about this (apart from all the humbug from MPs and the press) is that assumption by many that the BBC is primarily a news organisation and the success or otherwise of the whole organisation can be judged by how well or badly its journalism and current affairs output fares. Important as that is, the BBC is far more than a news organisation and to suggest the whole corporation needs to be shaken up/taken down because of what one bit of it does is, IMNSHO, dangerously close to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, change the things that need changing, look carefully at the structures within BBC News and current affairs and do whatever it takes to make it a proper, serious, news-gathering organisation: but don't destroy the whole thing in the process.
Or we'll wake up one morning and it'll be gone. And we'll wonder what on earth we've done...
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
[ot, but hey]: On a lighter note, finally some common sense from a leftie! I must check to see if hell has frozen over today, or maybe this is a symptom of the end of the world, but keep saying it loud and proud Polly Toynbee... by gum someone has finally twigged one of the problems for the Labour party and is predicted an outcome that could not come soon enough! [/ot]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The thing that does get me about this (apart from all the humbug from MPs and the press) is that assumption by many that the BBC is primarily a news organisation and the success or otherwise of the whole organisation can be judged by how well or badly its journalism and current affairs output fares. Important as that is, the BBC is far more than a news organisation and to suggest the whole corporation needs to be shaken up/taken down because of what one bit of it does is, IMNSHO, dangerously close to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, change the things that need changing, look carefully at the structures within BBC News and current affairs and do whatever it takes to make it a proper, serious, news-gathering organisation: but don't destroy the whole thing in the process.
Or we'll wake up one morning and it'll be gone. And we'll wonder what on earth we've done...
I couldn't agree more. There are two things I'm fed up with, one short term and the other long term.
The short term one is the way the BBC seems to think that its in-house anguishes are headline news, that the rest of us are interested, and that if we aren't, we ought to be.
Steve Webb was saying on World at One this week that the BBC had become far too obsessed with its own navel, and was wrong to assume the rest of us should be too. I agree with him.
The long term one, is their persistent belief that the news and sports parts of the channel are more important than the rest. So if something they think is important happens, or if a match overruns, they are allowed to bounce the rest of the schedule.
There could be a minimal justification for a really unexpected sports overrun, though why not bounce those onto something like the Parliament channel that nobody watches. There's none for letting news bounce the rest of the schedule. What on earth do they think their 24 Hour News Channel is for?
It's the assumption the news people have that being excited about the news in some way makes you more morally worthy than other people that really drives me up the wall.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
On the other hand, I'm amazed at the critical reports on the BBC carried by other BBC news programmes. How many other organisations are there that expose their wounds so publicly?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
