´óÏó´«Ã½

Martin - thanks for this on the Balen Report.

A more rounded view than "´óÏó´«Ã½ hold firm its secrets and shows hypocrisy" Mr Bartlett. I will follow it now with a little knowledge

Mr. Martin,
Whatever you or ´óÏó´«Ã½ might say about the Balen report or any other case, to an outsider like me, it seems only logical that your documents and your papers shall be made as open as that of the government and the government related departments. As we all realize, the import and relevance of the media in today's time is no less than anyone else. Hence, what happens behind the walls must come out for the people at large. In fact this is the spirit of law and the ´óÏó´«Ã½, being one of the front runners in the movement must follow it to the mark.
Amitabh Thakur,
Lucknow,
UP,
India

Why in any case is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ shying away from making the contents of the so-called Balen Report available to Mr. Steven Sugar? If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ really believes in the Freedom of Information as a basic right, does it not hold true for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ as well?
Is it not true that what one preaches must be practiced in its fullest intent?
Nutan Thakur,
President,
Jan Shakti,
India

Martin,

As we are forced to fund the ´óÏó´«Ã½ shouldn't the public get to read reports that it commissions whether the FOI act requires it or not?

This whole affair makes people wonder what is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ trying so hard and with other people's money to hide?

Mr Martin

Why don't you just admit you are biased, apologise to Israel, change your group think, & save us (the public) money, instead of fight a court case?

Or is suppressing uncomfortable information & the promotion of Muslim victim hood is what you really do?

I think it is important that people commenting on this blog posting by Martin recognise why it is necessary for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to have protection for its journalistic material.

This is not to preserve some competitve advantage against privately owned news media that are not subject to the FOI Act.

It is because if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ were required to provide access to its journalistic material under FOIA, many of those it interviews to report on an event would cease to talk to it, fearing that their 'off the record' comments - which are invaluable to any journalist trying to understand a complex story - would become more widely available, and hence be 'on the record'.

Disclosure of journalistic material would also lead to attempts at 'prior restraint' on publication by the ´óÏó´«Ã½, with those fearing that they may be about to reported in an unflattering manner, or be exposed for wrongdoing, using FOIA to try and gather material to justify taking out an injunction against the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to prevent it broadcasting the report/programme.

I also have no idea where the Balen report falls on the dividing line, since I've not seen it. But the balance might be fairly fine since the Commissioner took one view and the Tribunal another.

My wife,who still enjoys the rubbish on television,buys our TV license.I have long had no confidence in the accuracy of your news reports so do not see why I should help fund you.Perhaps in another time you were trusted.Not today.Suppress the Balen report if you can but it will make no difference to the opinion many people now have of you.

There are many public organisations who would rather hide their sources and nature of their work be it medical practice in the NHS, provision of waste and refuse disposal for example in the local authorities, what and how education is taught in the schooling system and what source materials are used. Why should the ´óÏó´«Ã½ be exempt?.After all the ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists use the FOI to get their information from publc corporations but they are unwilling to reveal a report which was commissioned with Taxpayers License money. As for protections for Art and Literature,it seems that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ does not believe in the free expresion of ideas and opinions. What a travesty of freedom defended by the British Broadcasting corporation. The public advisory Nolan Committee would surely not consider that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was complying with reasonable standards of openness and transparency in the way the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is behaving in relation to the Balen report.

Another apology demanded, by whom on behalf of the ´óÏó´«Ã½? "Mr Martin" mentioned twice reminds me uncomfortably of another web site. Flash mob also came to mind. Why?

We had one gentleman making a spectacle of himself on the abolition of slavery issue just yesterday. Demanding an apology from the Queen.

I suspect that was more about the protester themself than anything else. The Me, me, me society which I so detest.

All the above texts have been carefully read and I will just say it is not all reasoned. A document unread but the jury has sat and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are guilty. Of what?

Say the ´óÏó´«Ã½ release this document and it doesn't say what seems to be assumed it says. Falsification charges to follow. Hmmm I trust if I am ever accused of anything I do not have a few of my fellow texters on any jury. I like more flexible opinions but may be that is just me.

This is the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s official statement on the case.

'The Balen report has always been intended as an internal review of programme content to inform future output. It has never been intended for publication, whereas the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has already released the independent impartiality review on the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s coverage of the Middle East conducted by Quentin Thomas’s committee.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is asking the High Court to reconsider the information tribunal’s decision that Balen’s review is covered by the FOI act because it is very important that it obtains clarification from the courts about the extent to which the act applies. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is also asking the Court to decide on the procedure that should be followed in cases where it is unclear whether or not the act applies.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s decision has nothing to do with the fact that Balen’s review is about the Middle East – the same approach would have been taken whatever area of news output was covered by the review.'

Turn on your speakers and click the link below and hear a 4 minute speech by a representative of "United Nations Watch" which was banned by Commission on Human Rights.

Could this be the type of middle east and world coverage that toothless aunt beeb is unwilling to report upon???

It must be helpful to all worldwide powers that be to have the UK news media gagging themselve on the grounds that the news was garnered
for "purposes of journalism, art or literature".

It does seem bizarre that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is technicalities to block publication of a potentially damaging report.
Looking at the FOI requests the ´óÏó´«Ã½ does make (naughty Israel gets nuclear weapons, naughty Americans kill 655,000 Iraqis, naughty police fit-up saintly Greenham Common protestors, etc) its quite clear what the agenda is. No wonder the Balen report is kept locked up....

Andrew,

This is not a question of protecting sources. This is a question of how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is run.

Martin,

Let right be done but I have turned my attention to this Balen Report and I will sum up my feelings to date. "If they are all shooting at you(The Beeb) you MUST be doing something right".

Quote from one text above: Amitabh Thakur wrote: "to an outsider like me, it seems only logical that your documents and your papers shall be made as open as that of the government and the government related departments"

Mr Thakur assumes government departments are open just because of FOI.

I take the Independent newspaper which today did a vox pop on this subject (alleged bias by the ´óÏó´«Ã½) and it strikes me that if you (the ´óÏó´«Ã½) bend over too far one way you get it in the neck and vice versa. Greville Janner, Rod Liddell and a few others were asked and I came away with "they are all shooting at you"

I want just one time a negative report from someone being favoured by "this suggested bias" but the usual suspects are only concerned seemingly if they are painted as "in the wrong". Unbiased reporting would take forever and suggests fair actions by all parties/countries all the time. Not in my lifetime. All countries have done things they may be ashamed of - all countries.

I think I was right in my earlier text but will bend if convinced. The case is being considered by better minds than mine but don't tell me the Beeb needs to apologies to anyone - just do their best to be fair to all.

Most of the above texts seem to ask for bias FOR Israel.

Firstly, credit to Martin for addressing this.

Exemptions in the Act are there for good reason. Unfortunately, many public bodies, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ included, have not caught on to the 'change of culture' necesary to see everything as freely available unless there is a particular legitimate reason not, and are using this equivocation over 'journalism' to avoid releasing an embarrassing report. Are there sources that need protection ? stories that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ don't want to be scooped on ? Hard to imagine.

On Monday I implied Martin was being hypocritical in covering his eyes towards the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s actions whilst trying to hold other bodies to account. I apologise for that - it's not hypocritical. However, in truth, it's not exactly admirable either...

I suppose there's a difference between a journalist being 'professional;' in the sense of following accepted ethics and goals (e.g. uncovering corruption)and 'professional' in the sense of picking up a salary at the end of the month.

Paul in blogs 1, 9 & 14 (which shows some bias considering no-one else is ever allowed more than 1 post) defends and defends the ´óÏó´«Ã½, yet he fails to strike home one point.

He ignores the central question, all he does is complain that people are questioning the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s so called impartiality, sorry Paul but this is not 1970's Russia and people are allowed a different perspective.

If as Paul seems to be claiming that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is great what harm is their in publishing the 'Balen' report?.

Andrew uses the excuse that it would be dangerous to publish this report because it could expose someone who gave an 'off the record interview'!, this comment left me speechless was it not the ´óÏó´«Ã½ who broke an agreement to not name the original suspect in the 'Ipswich murders'?.

It seems that the left leaning viewers of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ seem to suffer from the same myopic views as that of the right wing viewers they so love to attack.

So until the ´óÏó´«Ã½ publishes this report the only conclusion I can come to is the following : Yes the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is biased and should be made to apologise for wasting our tax payers money on questionable appeals regarding court cases that they have already lost.

And in the interests of impartiality I would be grateful if you publish my comments.

Joseph -

You are entitled to your view of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, but I must correct you on one point. I can assure you that there is no limit placed on the number of posts allowed from people who attack the ´óÏó´«Ã½. You may think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is biased in general, that's up to you, but there is no bias in the comments policy on this blog (as should be obvious to anyone who actually reads it). I have never blocked a comment because it criticised me or the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Martin

Since this High Court case represents a major issue of how the FOI legislation effects a major public body like the ´óÏó´«Ã½ one would think that this would be a very newsworthy item yet I have barely heard any mention of this cas eon the main ´óÏó´«Ã½ news. I wonder why? Could it be that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ which normally trumpets its championing of the freedom to publish is in this case a little "shy" about its own attempts to supress information? I dont know what is in the Balen report and if it makes a case for ´óÏó´«Ã½ bias. What I do resent is the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s two faced attitude to freedom of information.

I thought this was a discussion board, Joseph and now I am being called a mouthpiece for the BEEB? Russian suppression.

Read my pieces - I came here originally for a FOI reason and stayed because I love discussion in general. And as I say, come back at me - and if I am wrong I will 'fess up. But do not come with a seemingly one sided view and if I disagree in effect yell "you are part of the conspiracy". I will give it short shift.

What you see depends on where you stand. As a left wing organisation the ´óÏó´«Ã½ obviously sees the FOI Act as a tool for prising secrets from the establishment but refuses to see that as a public body it must abide by it too.

Dear Martin and Paul,

May I first of all thank you both for taking the time to respond to my comments and provide me with feedback.

I have re-read my comments, I accept that my comments were not particularly constructive, so I apologise if either of you felt that I was attacking you personally. I agree entirely with Paul's comment that I actually contradicted my own argument, and I also accept that my personal view of certain ´óÏó´«Ã½ policies are not representative of everyone

My main point does stand, why not publish the 'Balen' report?, I cannot see how it will impact the ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporting news events or discussions with anonymous sources.

I can understand that certain topics are sensitive for business reasons, but this is surly a topic which comes under the banner 'National Interest' as it would refute/show if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is impartial or biased in some areas of it's reporting?.

Joseph, Thank you.

I must say I am becoming intrigued by this Balen report - "The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Behind Closed Doors" - when it was Washington Behind Closed Doors it was something called the Primula Report and it got more terrifying because it was never seen.

But like that juicy apple just out of reach of a little lad scrumping hand - let us hope it isn't maggot-ridden in disappointment on the other side if it does get released by The ´óÏó´«Ã½. I I hope to see such fervour from all sides if some Institution is reputed to hold a report that shows any country in a bad light. Now about that nuclear spy.........

Oh - it went quiet, Martin. I wonder why? LOL

As the person who commissioned the Balen report (but is no longer involved in the decisions about whether it should be published or not) I can say that if it is ever released there will be many disappointed people. There is no "smoking gun" and indeed in my view it says rather less than the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Governors review of Mid East coverage which was published last year. The issue, as Martin explains, is a legal principle and trying to establish where the boundaries of the derogation lie - which is important for many organisations, not just the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Well Richard glad you cleared it all up with your comment, if you say that you have nothing to hide I am sure that you will now release the blasted report and show how silly some of us have been!.

I cannot accept that you think it says less than the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Governors review from last year, if it did why have you appealed the courts verdict?.

Of course I have a biased view on the ´óÏó´«Ã½, however, I am honest enough to admit it, if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has a biased view on certain topics than you should be honest and admit it.

To finish I must commend you for actually responding to the comments published here, it is appreciated even if the message you wish to put across is not going to convince a cynic like me.

my concern is not much the result -although I have to confess that I would love to read the mentioned report. Today ´óÏó´«Ã½ is saying that this is not about Israel, rather about the FOI itself. If eventually ´óÏó´«Ã½ wins, then I am curious how the outcome will be presented to the public by the ´óÏó´«Ã½: (a) as it has been presented to Justice Davis [this is to say, "to what extend ´óÏó´«Ã½Â´s information comes under the FOI"] or (b) as a "proof" that ´óÏó´«Ã½ was not biased [´óÏó´«Ã½ already conveyed a counsel of wise men who declared that there is bias] .
In conclusion, it is not much about the case itself but rather on what ´óÏó´«Ã½ says the case is about. Will they hold two different intepretations? stay tuned...

17 - And in turn I’ll have to correct you. You may have never blocked a comment critical of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, but not only do the ´óÏó´«Ã½ block posts by people who as you put it ‘attack’ the ´óÏó´«Ã½, they also ban them from using large swathes of the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s user generated services.

As for the Balen Report…. It was paid for by the licence payers and now the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are spending more licence payers money making sure licence payers can’t read it. By any definition if the word, accountable it is not.

'Nation shall speak truth unto nation' - remember that?

I heard Mr Sugar had his earlier decision for his FOI request turned over by the Appeal Court. So what next? Keep going back until the "right" decision is achieved?

And Number 28 Ben. If that were so about nations and truth speaking - they wouldn't have had to invent the diplomatic posts - where allegedly they are sent abroad to lie for their countries.

I do find it somewhat hypocritical that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is refusing to disclose this on the grounds that it would inhibit future internal discussions amongst journalists. At the same time the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is campaigning for full public disclosure by MI5 of classified information regarding anti-terrorist operations and decision making. Where is the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s moral authority in demanding openness from other organisations?

Isn't it about time that ´óÏó´«Ã½ came clean.

In view of the the latest report on failures in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and political correctness, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should now admit that the Balen Report should have been isssued to the public, in that the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s non impartiality on Israel was questioned at that time, and now the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have commissioned a report which illustrates the same thing, but even more so.

In the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own words
'Impartiality is no excuse for insipid programme-making '

Richard Tait, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trustee

The report also quoted former political editor Andrew Marr, who said the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has an "innate liberal bias".

I think the case for non ipartial reporting and programme making is clear, and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should admit their failures with the release of Balen report.

Irony of Irony the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own internal report confirms what the rest of the country has known for years that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is biased.
All the newspapers are carying this story today the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are not!.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ must now publish the 'Balen' report, I cannot see how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can claim to be impartial in how it presents current affairs etc.
I suppose the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will finally get around to commenting on this latest report, however, it will do it in it's normal style i.e. 'The ´óÏó´«Ã½ may have made some mistakes, and we will learn from them', of course the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will do no such thing, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will continue to misrepresent the news as it has done ever since it allowed itself to become a mouthpiece for any minority group with a grudge.
Finally, to quote the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s very own Rod Liddell in the 'Sunday Times'; the ´óÏó´«Ã½ needs to stop recruiting journalists just from the 'Guardian'.

Over the past few months I have contributed to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio 5 World News Messageboard regarding the Balen Report.

I have used various silly names such as Willy_Waver or Mr_Unpopular (a bit daft - but doesn't harm anyone) to ask why it is that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ strenuously trying to hide the Balen Report.

I already knew the ´óÏó´«Ã½ didn't want too much attention attracted to news about the report, however I didn't expect all of my postings to be removed and my entitlement to post messages cancelled.

Yes - I'm banned from the Messageboards for raising the topic and repeatedly asking questions about it.

I can't see which of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ 'House Rules' the raising of this subject might - but I can imagine it must be irritiating for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to host questions about thier behavior on their own platform.

At a click of the mouse: the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are able to remove any annoying questions asking them to prove their self proclaimed impartiality.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has no right to hold any of its information, journalistic or not, from the public.

This is the most unbeleiveable case of hyposcrisy i have ever seen. The government should force the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to release the Balen report or as a consequence remove its funding.

You have to ask yuorself why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ wishes to block it. The only conclusion you can draw is that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ knows it is a partisan liberal biased organisation that is not loyal to the labour party per see but is loyal to its own liberal agenda. Hence why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has been critical of Tony Blair but at the same time in a general sense is very pro New Labour.

As for the middle east you only need to look at the amount of self gratifying vulgar diplays about alan johnstons kidnapping and compare them to the total lack of any journalism about gilad Shalit to conclude that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is both bias and anti semetic.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be ashamed.

12-07-07

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ was forced to make an embarrassing apology to both the Royal Family and the photographer Annie Leibovitz today, after a promotional trailer wrongly showed that the Queen had stormed out of a photoshoot during a fly-on-the-wall documentary.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ said in a statement: "This was not the case and the actual sequence of events was misrepresented."

This says it all really!

I for one find it hard to take any protestations of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for the freedom of information whilst they refuse to publish the Balen Report.

Come back to me when you practice what you preach!

There's a flaw in your argument. That the FOI Act doesn't cover the report is no reason not to release it. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ may publish it regardless of the FOI Act.

So why doesn't it? When can I stop paying for you?

As things stand you have to keep paying for me until you reach the age of 75 or cease to own equipment capable of receiving television pictures. Sorry about that. But the good news is that if you did dispose of your TV you'd still be to get access to this blog, and for free.

"As things stand you have to keep paying for me until you reach the age of 75 or cease to own equipment capable of receiving television pictures".

What's new? We all know that the beloved Beeb is not only secretive and arrogant, but extortionate too. Back to the main subject: When will the ´óÏó´«Ã½ publish the Balen Report - a document I, and all other TV licence/tax-payers funded?

So what happens when matter/anti-matter or spin/white-wash meet?

Better not let this article get too close to any about the U.S. or Israel.

I crack myself up.

But naah, I know the real tune being fiddled here.

This is Microsoft showing the public: "See? We got all our anti-trust issues done, you can trust us now." The entire suit orchestrated in advance for that PR.
Now look at their position.

The Balen Report will be published after accumulating sufficient interest, and it will turn out dissapointingly benign.

Nice try, Aint Bee.

There is no mystery as to what the Balen report says. The actions of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ make the content of the report crystal clear. Does anyone think that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would withhold the report if it gave the ´óÏó´«Ã½ kudos for impartiality? Anyone who follows ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage of the Middle East knows the truth.... shame on you ´óÏó´«Ã½!

I understand the High Court has indicated that it will issue a ruling that, because the ICO agreed with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ (that the the report was excludedfrom the Act), the Information Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal.

So, if the ICO agrees with a public body that information is outside the scope of the Act, there will be no right of appeal to the tribunal.

Conversely, if the ICO agrees that information does fall within the scope of the Act, the public body will still have a right of appeal to the tribunal.

So it looks like the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will be able to keep their secrets secret.

By the way, as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have stated that the content of the report really isn't that bad, and they are just fighting disclosure to 'clarify a technical issue', once all the legal arguments are finished (one way or another), and the 'technical issue' is 'clarified', will the ´óÏó´«Ã½ choose to make the report public anyway?

For some years I have been remonstrating with those in authority (well, allright, in office) about a local planning decision in which there was clear breach of statutory duty. Subsequently connected with this fiasco were various errors of omission and commission perpetrated by ´óÏó´«Ã½ Wales, which has stoutly invoked the above-mentioned derogation to justify its non-disclosure of information. Serviceable a piece of kit as this may be to the ´óÏó´«Ã½, it is not so serviceable to the public interest - which would certainly be served by the disclosure of the information being sought. And yet ´óÏó´«Ã½ Wales has the gall to blazon on its website the slogan "Accountable to you."!

Attempts to raise the matter of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s stewardship of the public interest with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust have been blocked by the equally arbitrary and effective pretext of ruling the complaint inadmissible.

Openness and accountability? Please tell me about it!