BBC tows the "company line" when it comes to police harassment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Xmas Themes For Uploaded Photos
Next: Just out: 'Hot - Life in the Australian outback' - could use some help
From: Tzortzakakis Dimitrios on 5 Dec 2009 12:56 ? "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> ?????? ??? ?????? news:177e6123-b9f1-45f4-8720-50334d5a31bc(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > This is what happens when the state owns and runs media > corporations. > > amateur photographer online: > > Top Gear photographer story: BBC speaks out (update) > > Thursday 3rd December 2009 > Chris Cheesman > rights watch > > The BBC has moved to distance itself from comments made by a freelance > Top Gear photographer who blasted the attitude of the Metropolitan > Police towards photographers. > > Earlier this week freelance stills photographer Justin Leighton - who > shoots behind-the-scenes for the Top Gear programme and magazine - > said that taking photographs in London often raises suspicion, even in > areas where permission has already been given to shoot. > > Leighton, who works for BBC Worldwide, condemned the 'nightmare' > attitude of the Met's officers, and in particular, Police Community > Support Officers (PCSOs). > > The photographer blamed the behaviour of London's police for > restricting his shoots to locations away from the capital. > > However, a BBC spokeswoman told Amateur Photographer: 'The BBC does > not share these views.' > > The Corporation declined to comment further. > > We understand that the makers of Top Gear may be reluctant to further > inflame photographers' relations with the Met. > > Leighton's comments chime with many photographers, both amateur and > professional, who continue to complain about the attitude of police. > > Last year, the escalating issue moved Amateur Photographer magazine to > launch its nationwide campaign to defend photographers' rights. > > On Sunday BBC photographer Jeff Overs told the Andrew Marr Show he was > stopped while taking photos on London's South Bank amid fears he was > planning a reconnaissance operation for a terrorist attack. > > Today, the anti-terror watchdog, Lord Carlile again criticised police > use of anti-terrorism powers to stop photographers. > > In a front page story in The Independent Carlile said: 'The police > have to be very careful about stopping people who are taking what I > would call leisure photographs, and indeed professional > photographers.' > > He added: 'The fact that someone is taking photographs is not prima > facie a good reason for stop and search and is very far from raising > suspicion. > > 'It is a matter of concern and the police will know that they have to > look at this very carefully.' > > Earlier this year The Independent contacted AP for details of the > magazine's ongoing campaign to fight for the rights of photographers. I think all this "anti-photography" attitude ver silly. The Al Qaeda didn't go around the WTC, with large SLRs in broad daylight, taking photos. Neither they did ask a policeman the coordinates of the WTC, or what would happen if a jet hit one. They worked in concealment and disguise. It's silly to expect terrorists to behave so, and is unfair to treat every law-abiding citizen as a possible terrorist (read-shoes with explosives etc.) -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr
From: Neil Harrington on 5 Dec 2009 13:06 Chris H wrote: > In message <rP-dnScQDY9f4YfWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil > Harrington <never(a)home.com> writes >> Then who does own the BBC? > > No one as such... Since it's a corporation it ought to be owned by *somebody*. > it is funded by the License fee and governed by the > BBC Trust. Who are the people in the BBC Trust who govern it, and who selected them for their jobs? > > It is not state owned nor is it a commercial organisation in the sense > that it has no advertising or sponsorship. Hence it is completely > independent. Since it is funded by a license fee, as a practical matter that sounds pretty much state owned to me. I am assuming that it is some sort of state officials who also select the people who make up the BBC Trust. I don't think it's possible to have *any* enterprise "completely independent" which that much state involvement. > > This is why it is one of the very few completely independent news > companies in the world. It works very hard to be independent and > impartial . But it has for some time had a considerable reputation for being left wing, both here in the U.S. and evidently in Britain too. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-left-wing-bias.do Google brings up many other articles making much the same assessment. > > SO much so that not only both the left and right wing political > parties in the UK have claimed the BBC works for the other side (in > equal amounts of complaints) but the centre party also complains the > BBC is anti them too :-))) The fact that everybody complains about something isn't really evidence of even-handedness.
From: Bruce on 5 Dec 2009 17:39 On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:19:38 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: >Bruce wrote: >> For all its flaws, and for all the pressure placed on it, the BBC is >> still much nearer to the ideal of impartiality than any US TV news >> channel. > >That would be much closer to being believable if the BBC had any >competitors. When a single corporation has a national monopoly on TV news >coverage it is pretty naive to imagine they are going to be a model of >impartiality. Organizations are run by people, and people have politics. In >the U.S. at least we can get both sides. You really know *nothing* about the BBC, nor about UK television news in general. Even the commercial TV stations strive for impartial, objective reporting. For many years, BBC News and Independent Television News (ITN) competed, not on the basis of differing points of view, but rather on the basis of which would be more impartial and objective. Standards of journalism were very high, and they remain high, but with pressure being brought to bear by government there is no longer complete confidence in objectivity. Of course the UK does have its fair share of partial and opinionated journalists, but they are mostly to be found writing in newspapers and online, with very little evidence of them on television. As for the difference between UK and US television news, we can see several US news channels on satellite TV and those we don't get on satellite are usually available online. After a lifetime (I'm 55) of watching balanced, responsible, objective reporting on British I find the biased and opinionated reporting on US TV News quite offensive. The idea seems to be to tell viewers what to think, and how to think, rather than giving them an impartial report and letting them make up their own mind, which is what British TV viewers expect - indeed demand. The amount of shouting on so much of US TV news, and the extremely low standard of debate, combine to give the impression of an attempt to appeal to the worst in people. Presumably, those low standards are a result of aiming both the bulletins *and* the adverts mainly at people of lower intelligence. That would not be acceptable here.
From: Paul Heslop on 5 Dec 2009 17:41 Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:19:38 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> > wrote: > > >Bruce wrote: > >> For all its flaws, and for all the pressure placed on it, the BBC is > >> still much nearer to the ideal of impartiality than any US TV news > >> channel. > > > >That would be much closer to being believable if the BBC had any > >competitors. When a single corporation has a national monopoly on TV news > >coverage it is pretty naive to imagine they are going to be a model of > >impartiality. Organizations are run by people, and people have politics. In > >the U.S. at least we can get both sides. > > You really know *nothing* about the BBC, nor about UK television news > in general. Even the commercial TV stations strive for impartial, > objective reporting. For many years, BBC News and Independent > Television News (ITN) competed, not on the basis of differing points > of view, but rather on the basis of which would be more impartial and > objective. Standards of journalism were very high, and they remain > high, but with pressure being brought to bear by government there is > no longer complete confidence in objectivity. > > Of course the UK does have its fair share of partial and opinionated > journalists, but they are mostly to be found writing in newspapers and > online, with very little evidence of them on television. > > As for the difference between UK and US television news, we can see > several US news channels on satellite TV and those we don't get on > satellite are usually available online. After a lifetime (I'm 55) of > watching balanced, responsible, objective reporting on British I find > the biased and opinionated reporting on US TV News quite offensive. > Fox 'news' the single worst offender. Americans really do seem to swallow a lot of stuff about us 'socialists' -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
From: tony cooper on 5 Dec 2009 18:06
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 17:17:17 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote: >What sort of thing do you consider our "good stuff"? We have some very good >crime shows. I'm not aware that we have any sitcoms worth watching. It's all about personal taste, but I feel that "30 Rock" is as good a sitcom as you will see. Over on HBO, "The Larry David Show" is well worth watching. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |