18/07/2007
NEWS STORY
 |
Regular Pitpass readers, indeed anyone who knows me, will be aware that I have a fairly low opinion of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
My biggest complaint, other than the fact that I am forced - and I do mean forced - to pay for its services, many of which I rarely use, is its outrageous bias, particularly with regards news coverage.
In the last week, the BBC has been caught 'manipulating' two bits of film with the clear intention of adding spin, though for varying purposes.
One related to a documentary on The Queen, while the other attempted to show the new (un-elected) Prime Minister in a bad light by appearing to show his aides getting a little 'heavy' with a journalist.
The BBC has since apologised for both instances, particularly the manipulated clip which appeared to show The Queen throwing a 'hissy fit' during a photographic session.
In the great scheme of things, this might not matter, however, as any visitor to the excellent Biased BBC website will know, these two incidents are far from isolated. Other than a total lack of respect for The Queen, and an attempt to reduce her to the level of a Britney/Paris type 'celebrity', the manipulation of the film-clip is unlikely to have an impact on the rest of us.
However, when coverage of the recent attempted terrorist atrocity at Glasgow airport is involved, that is a different matter entirely. When it comes to reporting such an important issue the public should be given the facts and not an interpretation. Regular visitors to the Biased BBC website will be aware that sharp-eyed viewers noticed a number of discrepancies between what was being said with regards the footage of the attack and what was being seen.
Unfortunately, in this instance, unlike the coverage of The Queen's 'tantrum' or Gordon Brown's 'heavies', this wasn't picked up by the mainstream media, and consequently the BBC got away - courtesy of countless edits and re-edits - with a sleight of hand un-noticed by the general public.
Of course, to many of us this doesn't come as a surprise, the BBC has increasingly shown bias, giving clear support to some causes whilst making every effort to mock - if not destroy - traditional values.
As I've said, in the great scheme of things whether The Queen stormed out of a photo session or not doesn't really matter. On the other hand, clear, accurate unbiased coverage of the political situation at home and abroad does. Tweaking a story to make The Queen look like a drama queen (sorry) can be forgiven, showing bias in favour of a terrorist organisation cannot.
With the internet we have countless websites and blogs, anyone can become a publisher. I talk from experience.
However, anyone who puts pen to paper, who sits at a computer keyboard, with the aim of writing for the public has a moral duty to tell the truth, to inform and not to misinform, to deliberately mislead.
The ongoing espionage/sabotage saga has allowed some 'journalists' and 'web publishers' to run amok, to trample on the basic rules of journalism and as a result we are all the losers.
I am absolutely appalled to read headlines such as; 'Race fans believe McLaren guilty' and 'Did McLaren pay Stepney?' Talk about trial by media.
Few, if any internet polls can be taken seriously, with some 'fans' willing to go to extraordinary lengths to obtain the results they want. At Pitpass we regard polls as a "bit of fun", an opportunity for readers to air their view. They might give a very basic idea of the lay of the land, but would hardly count as evidence one way or another.
What is overwhelmingly sad is that some appear to be setting themselves up as advocate, judge, jury and executioner, never once stopping to allow the facts of the matter to get in the way. Never giving thought to the possible damage they might be doing in their quest for a sensational headline.
Naturally, on message boards and forums we expect a certain amount of bias and hysteria, with some clearly unable to see beyond their blind support/hatred of a certain driver or team.
However from those charged with informing the public, those who are supposed to be supplying the information on which readers will shape their opinions, we expect better.
When this whole sorry saga is over, a number of reputations will lie in shatters. Worse still, a few lives could be ruined.
However, there are some within the F1 media who should take a good hard look at themselves, for their coverage of recent events has been disgraceful, beneath contempt.
In the great scheme of things, taking journalistic liberties with such an obviously 'juicy' story doesn't really register that high. However, where does it end, and what happens when the media misrepresents far more vital issues?
Chris Balfe
Editor