The Bbc

[Gonzo]

Seems fair enough to me. What possible interest is there in the inevitable confirmation of how corrupt the septic legal system is? Two non-stories, so they went with the british one.

The BBC is politically biased I agree, but in this case I would have done the same thing. In fact, I wouldn't have bothered covering the OJ "trial" at all.

I have to agree.

The OJ Simpson trial may have been interesting in a tabloid voyeuristic sense but had no impact on the life of people in Britain and so I would question why it would be an item in the main news in the UK.

As for this story I am not sure that a couple of hundred nutcases getting a bit vocal one afternoon is a national story. I like this bit

The BBC's Dominic Casciani said police filled two double-decker buses with protesters from the English Defence League and transported them to Lancaster Circus.

"Both buses were filled with right wing protesters," he said.

"Police made them hold their protest in an underpass at Lancaster Circus, where no-one could see them."

Not that I am saying the BBC is perfect. Charlotte Green was interviewing a Conservative spokesman about some spending proposals on the Today programme last week and all she was interested in was getting the line out

"So your proposals would mean job-cuts?"

That's all she was interested in.

But having said that, try living somewhere where there is no equivalent to the BBC and you will really start to appreciate it.

 

[PRC1964]

In the 90s when the OJ Simpson trial was at an end and the jury were coming back - even in this country everyone wanted to know if he would be sent down or get away...

The verdict was due at exactly 6pm UK time. After the credits for the six o'clock news ran, the newsreader said something like... "And straight away, we are now going to take you live to.... the labour party conference."

I kid you not. They went live to the conference to show a recorded, I repeat, recorded speech by leader of the opposition Tony Blair earlier that day. It wasn't even a live speech. I think they mentioned OJ's acquital in passing on the 3rd news item.

It was like they went out of their way not to report on something that was clearly newsworthy to a lot of viewers. A secondary factor was that at the time (mid 90s), the BBC were seen as very, very friendly with the labour party. The labour spin doctors (in opposition remember) had been pestering the TV news channels to ignore the OJ verdict, but the BBC were the only one's that obliged.

Linky link http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96jun/blair/blair.htm

American who played a game we don't or leader of the UK opposition (and future PM)?

I'm with the British Broadcasting Corporation on this one.

 

[bobhope]

Shame, as a child, I used to think that the BBC was great: independent, high quality stuff being produced.

That was a long time ago.

 

[minestrone]

SKY is an national broadcaster, the BBC an international one. Do you really want the world to know everytime there is a bit of a scuffle with 2 bus loads of the English Defence League?

 

[Peoplesoft bloke]

There was quite a long item on BBC radio news about this last week before it took place. A guy from the English Moron League was interviewed and put his very weak case for holding an event desgned to provoke trouble. The reporter was trying to investigate claims that much of the membership of the English Morons was the same as some orgaised football hooligans - when he sought a contact for the footie thugs he waa given the same name and number as the one for the EDL

 

[Peoplesoft bloke]

oh and
Murdoch can get knotted - Sky is awful imho.
Everyone thinks the BBC is biased but often in different directions which makes me think that while they aren't perfect they aren't too bad.