| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Telegraph Fisks Beeb via leaked emails |
| 2004-07-04 |
| Hat Tip: Lucianne BBC reports ’littered with errors’ By Chris Hastings, Media Correspondent (Filed: 04/07/2004) A significant number of BBC news reports are untrustworthy and littered with errors because the corporation’s journalists fail to check their facts, according to e-mails sent by one of the BBC’s most senior news managers. His messages reveal that the credibility of the news service is "on the line" because of a climate of sloppiness. So many rumors to The internal memos, which have been obtained by The Telegraph, highlight concerns about the standard of journalism on local BBC television and radio, as well as on the BBC’s flagship News Online service. They suggest that the corporation is struggling to keep its promise to improve the standards of its news services following damning criticisms levelled against it by the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly. Struggling? Improve? How about just slowing the rate of decline? The BBC was criticised by Lord Hutton after it emerged that Andrew Gilligan, the Radio 4 Today programme journalist - whose flawed story about the background to the Government’s claims on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was at the centre of the inquiry - had filed his report without it being checked by station managers. In their frenzied bid to topple Blair, perhaps? The Press Creed: To move UP the Food Chain, you must bring Somebody DOWN. The leaked e-mails sent by Hugh Berlyn, an assistant editor of BBC News Online, show that despite the furore surrounding the Gilligan report, dozens of "unvetted" stories appear on the internet every day. The result is a string of stories that are, at best, littered with errors and, at worst, inaccurate and potentially libellous. I would suggest to Berlyn that "littered with errors" and "inaccurate" can be reasonably described as synonymous. Thus there is no difference between the "best" and "worst" of Beeb reportage. It all sucks to some degree. In an e-mail last October, Mr Berlyn said journalists were not showing their reports to managers, who are supposed to check them in accordance with BBC rules. He wrote: "Yesterday we carried out a study of how many of your stories were being properly checked by a second pair of eyes before publication. To my surprise and concern, more than 60 stories around the country were apparently published without being second-checked." And Beeb Mgrs get paid for this non-performance? Another e-mail, sent in February, said that the number of "justified complaints" about the lack of accuracy in spelling, names, grammar or simple detail was growing. Mr Berlyn told staff that he received dozens of complaints a day. "I really think the level of complaints is such that our credibility is on the line and that cannot be allowed to continue." Lol! The Understatement of the New Millenium regards Journalistic Standards. Meanwhile, over at the NYT... same, same. Although his memos were addressed to staff at BBC Online, they highlight concern about local studios, which provide the internet service with much of its material. He said that it was no longer acceptable for News Online staff to justify mistakes by saying: "That’s what was in the radio and TV copy." He wrote: "We have to accept that the standard of journalism in local radio and regional TV is not the same as that required by News Online." Hysterical! Errors are okay in broadcast but less so for online? How about an internal single-source for copy / film which has been thoroughly vetted? F**kin Duh. BBC Online is the most popular website in Europe, receiving 1.9 billion hits a month. It has two million internet pages. One misled customer is too many when the errors are preventable with minimum effort. A BBC spokesman insisted last night that it had confidence in its journalists. "Since these e-mails were written, tighter procedures for checking copy have been put in place." The BBC has committed itself to implementing measures recommended by Ron Neil, the former head of news. Mr Neil, who was asked to investigate news services following the Hutton Inquiry, has recommended the establishment of a journalism college and expansion of local news services. Funny, I hadn’t noticed a difference. If they ever get their act together enough to root out the agenda specialists, perhaps they can stage a comeback. With the Telegraph "outting" the Beeb, how does one classify this? Red on Red -- or Blue on Red? |
| Posted by:.com |
| #9 Some years ago, I briefly wrote a column for a local "arts and entertainment" monthly (that is, a hippy gimme rag). I soon learned that the editor was the worst status snob I had ever heard of (declaring that "peons" like receptionists and janitors did not deserve respect), that she lied to advertisers about circulation (overstating it by 200%) and, conveniently enough, that she seldom bothered to review content before sending the new issue off to the printer. I therefore inserted this passage into my next column: "[editor] is a cretin and a fraud, nobody but her friends and a few doper-cranks read this stupid rag, and this is my last column" Sure enough, it went to print exactly as I had submitted it, and it was indeed my last column. The editor threw an altogether satisfying hissy-fit. She even blurted out that she would sue me for libel before I pointed out that this would inevitably mean suing herself and her own paper. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-07-05 12:28:01 AM |
| #8 Oh, and Gibson was talking about the fact that he had been "censured" by Beeb for expressing his own opinion, labeled as opinion. You can "editorialize" through your choice of articles, through your headline writers, and in the course of the editing process. And of course there's also the use of 'quotes.' |
| Posted by: Fred 2004-07-04 10:38:39 AM |
| #7 Cynic - I watched that very interview the other night. O'Reilly was waxing lyrical about the high standards of the BBC of days gone by, not the current Beeb. |
| Posted by: Fred 2004-07-04 10:33:58 AM |
| #6 I'd noticed that the Economist had got a bit Anti-American over recent years (rather dumb for a publication based on Economics to decry the worlds largest economy, no?) As for the FT, I've not read it enough in recent years to be able to give a definitive opinion, but there are certainly overtones there - again, not a particularly sensible move. And by the way, a very Happy Independence Day to our former colonies! :) |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-07-04 10:21:28 AM |
| #5 While you're at it read this Link Lastnight on Fox News Bill O’Reilly interviewed his fellow anchor, John Gibson, who has been censured by the British government, according to the Fox report. He had been particularly caustic about the actions of BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and the Dr David Kelly affair. Gibson correctly stated that it is a golden rule in British broadcasting that anchors and reporters not editorialise. O’Reiily, in unusually mellow tones, waxed lyrical about the BBC and its high standards. |
| Posted by: Cynic 2004-07-04 9:12:07 AM |
| #4 Anonymous5430: Much of the outright lies and hate directed at the US is the work product of the BBC. Don't expect it to get better. These are the dumb F***s that use the word "militants" to describe criminals and terrorists. It's not just al-Beeb. The Economist and the Financial Times have been on the same road for several years now. If they keep this up, they can kiss the non-hatriotic bits of their US market goodbye. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-04 8:20:07 AM |
| #3 Anonymous14453: Like the false story about WMD ! A "false" story that was corroborated by just about every intelligence agency in the world. Besides, we haven't found bin Laden yet. Does that mean he doesn't exist? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-04 8:17:20 AM |
| #2 Like the false story about WMD ! |
| Posted by: Anonymous14453 2004-07-04 3:51:15 AM |
| #1 Much of the outright lies and hate directed at the US is the work product of the BBC. Don't expect it to get better. These are the dumb F***s that use the word "militants" to describe criminals and terrorists. They also put out pure crap about how the UK doesn't do enough to make imigrants who will never try and assimilate "feel welcome. These folks will never get it. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5430 2004-07-04 2:52:18 AM |