Could the cliche that there is no such thing as bad publicity be anymore true for the DEC Gaza appeal and the BBC? The BBC refuses to broadcast the appeal because it has (rightly or wrongly) concerns about it potentially breaching its impartiality obligations. BBC News editors then make the refusal a massive row, run it at the top of many of its radio and news broadcast over a number of days.Could the DEC have asked for better and wider coverage than that? Seriously. They wanted a quick video slot to broadcast an advert apepaling for help which most people would probably be boiling their kettle during anyway. What they've got is round the clock coverage for four days instead, where BBC News basically slates itself whilst simultaneously bringing the appeal to an even wider audience.
I would be most interested to see how much money they actually raise compare to what they hoped to raise with the original broadcast that was refused.
16 comments:
Would it much too cynical, or just implausible, to suggest that it is exactly this point that informed the decision not to broadcast the appeal in the first place? This way the BBC don't get in trouble with the pro-Israeli bloggers, and the message still gets out. I think it might just be a wonderful piece of media-management.
Great minds think alike :o)
I would never and could ever be so cynical!
Well, even Melanie's been left contented with the decision.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/debatesearch/article-1127433/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-BBC-won-8217-t-Gaza-appeal-protect-impartiality-But-viewers-really-believe-impartial.html
She still hates the BBC, of course.
'...I personally believe that on this occasion the BBC has made the correct decision. For what few in this country are aware of is that Hamas is said to be systematically stealing shipments of humanitarian relief and shelling the aid crossing points.'
Probably best to stop sending it then.
We've heard much about BBC impartiality in the last few days. Excuse me while I fertilize the whole garden with raw puke.
Someone really ought to tell the government:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page18129
Needless to say, the No.10 website is also still in "Beta"...
Impartiality?
Anyone who thinks that the BBC are impartial clearly hasn't been watching BBC for a number of years.
As the mouthpiece and general media outlet for political announcements (ahead of Parliament itself)for Nu Labour, impartiality was discarded at about the same time Mr A. Blair took control of the party.
Dizzy, isn't it just as likely that people who would have donated will not do so on the grounds that they think the BBC is effectively saying a donation to the DEC is the same thing as siding with Hamas and so is an anti Israeli action, as opposed to a charitable one? Seems to me the BBC has unjustly smeared the likes of the British Red Cross, Cafod, Christian Aid and Oxfam by implying that there is no suffering among the Palestinians which needs to be allieviated or that if there is those charities are incapable of providing it.
Hmm, 'unjustly smeared' the likes of Oxfam, Christian Aid, Red Cross etc.? Well let's face it, all of those charities give the impression of being distinctly anti-Israeli - to such a degree they practically make the BBC look like Zionists.
Troymolloy - Hi. Could you give some specific examples of what these charities have said or done which is "anti Israel" ? It's a serious charge that you make. I'm a supporter of a couple of them, including Cafod, Oxfam and Christian Aid, and I don't want to go on giving them money if what you say is true.
Hmm, that's a really cute kid in that picture. I have to donate, thank you Dizzy for bringing this to my attention as I have been avoiding radio and have no telly....;-)
All this serves as a reminder to send the boys and girls at the IDF another round of pizzas...
"They were accused of losing their “heart, common sense and humanity”. Sir John Tusa, former BBC Worldservice chief, led the criticism.
He said: “This is a sadly wrong decision and I say that as somebody who has worked for the BBC for 50 years.
“When you see images of the devastated landscape, when you see images of dead children and of orphaned families and children, you are appealing to people's common humanity.
“Nobody surely in their right mind can say that is being partial' towards the victims. I think the public response shows the common humanity of looking at those scenes and saying for God's sake, let's help them'.
“How did the BBC feel when it took this decision? I think it thought very, very hard and it left its heart behind. A great organisation has to have a heart. Common sense and some humanity seem to have been left behind.” "
I agree with Sir John Tusa.
I reckon it's all to do with the Balen Report. This was commissioned by the BBC itself and inquired into systematic pro-Palestine bias. The report, finished in 2004, has never been published - this despite legal action by campaigners which has now reached the House of Lords. The BBC await their lordships' verdict and will be anxious to do nothing to rock the boat.
BBC impartiality? Bit of an oxymoron, I'd have thought.
BTW the last DEC appeal I gave to was for the tsunami. Sent them £100, only to learn later that most of it had evaporated en route.
If I'd been running the BBC, I would have happily broadcast this stupid ad, with the sound turned down a bit and a voice-over explaining that the parents of these poor homeless starving children voted for a bunch of murderous corrupt psychopaths who live off UN and EU welfare, waste all their money on rockets to attack Israeli civilians and that this is the inevitable result.
The final message will be "Kids - make sure your parents don't vote for extremists".
It seems a bit rich that the BBC paints itself in Labour red for the best part of a decade, then suddenly gets squeamish about 'impartiality'…
Post a Comment