"Measures should be taken to strengthen the monitoring of impartiality issues in business and to ensure there is compliance with the BBC's high standards. In particular, measures should be introduced to address lapses which occur when covering commercial issues. Presenters should be regularly reminded of their obligation to be impartial." – The Budd Commission on BBC Business Journalism
The Observatório da Imprensa (Brazil) reports that "the BBC has been found innocent of partiality in its coverage of financial affairs" by the Budd panel commissioned by the BBC Trust.
I did a double take when I read that.
Are the Observatório and I reading the same document?
The report that the Observatório cites as its source, by Tara Conlan of the U.K. Guardian, was supposedly dated May 25, 2007.
Another report by the same reporter, filed May 26, 2007, however, was headlined as follows:
* BBC business news failing impartiality test, says report
Black is white. War is peace. Death is life.
In a May 25 press release, the Trust concluded:
"The panel, chaired by Sir Alan Budd, does not believe the BBC has a systematic bias against business. Its overall conclusion is that most of the BBC's business output meets the required standards of impartiality". But the panel also says it has seen a number of individual lapses and identified some trends which lead to repeated breaches of the BBC's standards."
It is not "systematically biased," according to this press release.
And yet its coverage displays "trends that led to repeated breaches of BBC standards"?
The commission concluded that it should "strengthen the monitoring of impartiality issues," start "addressing lapses," and "regular remind" presenters of "their obligation to be impartial."
It sounds as the commission has concluded that controls on compliance with BBC's stated impartiality standards repeatedly failed and should be more systematically applied.
The distinction is lost on me
keyboard shortcuts: V vote up article J next comment K previous comment