Yesterday, James Forsyth over on the Speccie blog asked "Who should the BBC apologise too next?". This was after first it apologised to the Spectator for not allowing Emily Maitlis to be a Contributing Editor at the publication. Then it had to apologise to the Queen for basically dodgy editing.Well I guess the answer to the question is probably an apology to the Daily Telegraph now that it has told Andrew Marr he's not allowed to renew his contract with them. Perhaps also they should apologise to us (again) for allowing its news presenter Sophie Raworth, to appear in a Government funded DVD about road safety?
Sure, a film about not tailgating on the motorway is a worthy thing, but it's a bit rich for the BBC to deny its staff external roles in private organisations on grounds of post-Hutton political impartiality, whilst simulatenously allowing them to be used by the Government to make political infomericals isn't it?
2 comments:
Especially as al Beeb is currentyly encouraging other crown servants to commit criminal breaches of the law by speaking to the press without appropriate permission.
Whether you agree that such should be agin the various military Discipline Acts is a separate matter ...
S-E
How about apologising to licence payers for blatantly adverstising and serialising Campbell's book and being Labours mouthpiece.
Post a Comment