大象传媒

I think 6,200 words is a bit long

Impartiality and neutrality are too difficult to achieve. One tries to be objective, but you cannot be impartial when reporting massacres, rapes and ethnic cleansing committed by one group against another because the former does not like the latter. Recent history is full of examples, Bosnia, Iraq, Israel/Palestine and Rwanda and now Darfur.

In the circumstances the 大象传媒 is doing a sterling job getting the news delivered quickly and accurately.

The 大象传媒 was criticised by the Arabs on various occasions for being Pro-Israel but at the same time the Israelis criticised the 大象传媒 for being Pro-Palestinians. Therefore it must be getting right.

You confess that you went into journalism partly as a way to tell the audience what to think 鈥� then you realised the folly of this approach (or words to that effect). With regards to 大象传媒 News and its detrimental effect on society and democracy, you have hit the nail on the head. Whereas you may have seen the light, it is plainly obvious that many other 大象传媒 News people (not just journalists) are still harbouring these power-thoughts.

I remember the Today programme strap line (quite a few years ago): 鈥淲e set the agenda鈥� - and being disgusted by it. I was disgusted that I and millions of others went to the trouble of voting for a member of parliament and a few unelected nobodies declare that they are setting the agenda.

After a promising start when you confessed that many journos want the power to change people鈥檚 thoughts, you confessed that the 大象传媒 limited contributions from extreme groups and at last admitted that anti-immigration and 鈥渁nti-Europe鈥� contributions were also limited (are you sure they were not anti-EU or ant-Euro or something?). After this promising start when at last you admitted to practices which many of us suspected all along but which were denied by the 大象传媒, I then started to lose you. It was at the point when you dismissed a large group of people 鈥� the on-line contributors. People writing to the 大象传媒 on line are taking the trouble to engage. You seem to suggest that on-line contributors are a race apart, winding each other up with their own pet hates into a frenzy of extremism. You also seem to claim that THEY are the biased ones and the 大象传媒 are not. Perhaps you should leave a public notice on your web site telling us how we should temper our comments and feedback in line with your expectation. You also appear to be suggesting that the more unbiased is the 大象传媒, the more us on-line aliens complain of bias. If I鈥檝e got this right, the more we complain of bias, the less bias you feel.

So, this is your story: 鈥渨e at the 大象传媒 were biased but now we are not and we can prove it because of the increase in people accusing us of bias鈥�.

Your comment that 鈥渨e must now provide them with all sides of the story and space to think for themselves鈥� is a bit rich. Since John Birt you鈥檝e had so much money to spend that you taken to employing so-called correspondents who tell us what they think; they tell us what politicians and others really think; they speculate what will happen tomorrow, next week and next year; they often sum up a piece with a range of options from which the government or others must choose, like a kind of 大象传媒 multiple choice.

Think for ourselves you say. How about sacking all the correspondents and just get on and report events. How about getting rid of 大象传媒 Journalism and just having agency feeds and freelance reports. Instead of 5 items on the 10 O鈥檆lock News perhaps there will be room for 15 items once these 4 minute monologues are taken out. Perhaps there will even be more room for the politicians who we elected to have their say.

Just think of this: the power of the media is obvious 鈥� just ask any advertiser or, dare I say, any journalist. We are all affected and influenced by it. Broadcast media is the most powerful of all. An organisation that runs 50% of British broadcasting is therefore a powerful beast indeed. Your confession that views of those that the 大象传媒 does not want to hear from have been curtailed in the past is symbolic of the wider problem facing us. The major political parties have realised that, in order to get votes they must get on the telly. In order to get on the telly they must be 大象传媒-friendly. So we end up with the three major political parties with almost identical liberal policies leaving real views unrepresented. Can you not see how destabilising and dangerous this has become for our country? Now even people with moderate views (anti EU, for instance) are being marginalised. Where do they go?

You say we should be given space to think for ourselves? I have a revelation for you: we DO all think for ourselves. We and our ancestors practiced thinking before 大象传媒 correspondents came along. The problem is we can鈥檛 express ourselves. Until now, that is. Now the internet is here and at last you are hearing en masse from your audience. The problem is, of course, you don鈥檛 like what you hear because, apparently, it is US that are biased. I guess if things don鈥檛 change then one of us has to go. Your audience figures have shown you that the decision has already been made.

Firstly the 大象传媒 needs a competent proof reader.
Secondly the 'News' needs to be reported on the basis that you tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, too much relevant information is sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
Useful examples of this include the facts that before the imposition of catalytic converters cars emitted hardly any carbon dioxide and HIV infection in heterosexual caucasians accounts for less than 5% of total cases.
Bias is evidenced by what you don't say as much as what you do say.

I'll confess I didn't read the whole thing. Please blame it on the whirlwind pace of modern life rather than my morning laziness. Still - and this is definitely in the spirit of modern life - I'm going to give my opinions all the same.

I was rather disappointed towards the beginning of the piece. When you noted that most services online are "preaching to the converted," I couldn't help but think about the 大象传媒 news website, which almost certainly falls under that same umbrella. Read the 'recommended responses' in a Have Your Say, for example, and you rarely seem to get two sides of the argument.

What I was both surprised and very pleased at, though, was your aim to present more interviews with people we don't like or agree with on the TV. I probably won't like many of them, but I agree that it's essential both to attract a wider range of people and to try to educate people properly (including me!).

Hopefully you realise that on your website, you have an even greater opportunity to give a wide range of opinions. There may only be room on TV for a few of these more controversial pieces a week, but there's a whole lot more space on the web.

You argue that 大象传媒 News should appeal to the C2s, D and E socio-economic groups - sure where the opposition are not. But it is clear to me that 大象传媒 Breakfast has changed into much more of a GMTV-copy format, not in order to give viewers an alternative, but to get more viewers than GMTV. 大象传媒 News should br providing an alternative in the mornings, not more of the same...please bring some dignity back to Breakfast, and make it a proper news alternative in the morning.

"... when Tom Cruise was dumped by his Hollywood studio, 80% of respondents claimed that it did not interest them."

So, forgive me if this is so obvious to you that you didn't even bother mentioning it, but isn't it inevitable that, when asked what stories they are interested in, people aren't going to say Tom & Katie but something weightier?

Surely you are taking this into account? Maybe not:

"We're beginning to realise that what people want to read when they are online may be very different from what they want to watch on TV."

Is that really the case?

Cynics might suggest that any perceived contradiction in audience preferences can be explioted by editors wishing to ignore it, e.g. "the audience gives us conflicting messages so we just have to use our own best judgement".

"these increasing shouts of bias against public broadcasters are more a reflection of the distorted information environment the complainants themselves live in. They are so conditioned to their own shared perspective that they are more inclined than before to see impartiality as bias."

Actually, many people would accuse the 大象传媒 itself of possessing its "own shared perspective" where its own biased viewpoints are claimed as impartial.

There is a disconnection here between on the one hand your beliefs and your intellectual justifications for these beliefs most of which are fundamentally laudable and on the other hand your actual actions as editor(s)
The 大象传媒 is not impartial. Sometimes it is politically correct but often it is just plain biased, presenting a distorted and inaccurate version of the truth.
Editors and managers use their impartiality argument when it suits them. For instance, they frequently fail to represent the general opinion in the UK; nor specific groups of white people eg the white working class. (Leaving aside the international coverage)
They have an arrogance that whitewashes over feedback. When editors are interviewed to justify their approach they often bounce off criticism without specifically responding to it.
One could take each supporting point and challenge its intellectual rigor but the piece is overlong and it would be playing to your defense of intellectually justifying your position and bouncing back that others are wrong and you are right so the reality of what happens on the coal face is rarely homed in on
This biased approach which is on the increase is clearly evident on the 大象传媒 website. The website unfortunately is seen throughout the world (riding on the back of the 大象传媒鈥檚 good reputation accumulated over many years). I spend half the time in the US. When I am back in Britain I can contrast the inaccurate reports with other sources of media to find the truth. People abroad are not able to do this.
Furthermore your complaints section is ineffective. I complained about the inaccuracy of a piece. An arrogant person phoned back telling me I was wrong. I pointed out that the complaint as he understood it did not represent my actual complaint. At that he merely repeated that he had looked at the article and felt happy about it. As Grade implies on the complaints website you are only as good as your complaints procedure

I like the arguements and agree that news delivery has to change to cater for a much broader view of opinon delivery. News over the air or on line, is i think viewed as entertainment and this brings its own limitation on speed of apprehension or interest. The same may not be true of newspapers news which regretably probably has a greater power to form public views however biased the presentation. So I would want to see 大象传媒 retain as much repectable authority as it can and not fall prey to popular commercialism.

I enjoyed your thoughtful essay and appearance on 5live which suggests that there are those at the 大象传媒 who are listening to criticism levelled at them.

Your section talking about bloggers who write news analysis for their own audiances was interesting as I tend to think that 大象传媒 television has been doing a similar thing for several years.

You surely know the vast majority of 大象传媒 journalists take The Guardian - it's a club membership badge and there is nothing neccessarily wrong with that - except when you allow this paper's worldveiw to become the centre of your political spectrum. If that is what you believe it will come across in your reporting even if you are careful to appear impartial.

It is pretty obvious what the veiws of the presenter are on any given subject by studying their body language.

Perhaps it might be a way forward for your journalists to express their political leanings and then for you to impose a quota system on those you employ - 'Positive Discrimination' to use a favourite PC term.

I can provide a short response to the above scroll.
I have watched the news on and off for a few years now , and at 17, I can safely say, Ive found a predicatable routine in news material,taken from a constantly changing, unstable and unpredictable world.When I tune in, I can expect, war,scandel,health scares and impending doom.All of which doesn't effect me,it merely provides a mildly stimulating alternative to "the adverts"

There is an enormous contradiction sitting slap-bang in the middle of your lecture.

Mea-culpas aside, I still get the distinct impression that you yearn for the good ol' days of opinion forming!

And so you should!

As a child during the 1960s I well remember the Beeb at its Reithian best. Dodgy public school types, typically with slicked-back hairdos and horn-rimmed specs would tell us about the strange lands abroad, the funny habits of the peoples who lived there, how backwardness was being overcome with the import of Morris motors and the mandatory tour of some sub-royal.

Or you could watch your parents nod comfortably off in front of "The Ascent of Man" while being able to remember enough of it to wonder why the Borgias - if only we had a few more like 'em today - went wrong during Sunday dinner.

That, at least, is one side of the false antinomy that's often set up when talking about the relationship between a government institution (the 大象传媒) and "pop" culture.

Because, of course, even if you accept the above stereotype you have to account for all those annoying changes that seemed to take place "outside" of the map the 大象传媒 is accused of using: Civil Rights, Women's Rights, anti-colonialism, the sexual revolutions yadda, yadda, yadda.

And I'm still referring to the 1960s by the way...

Because of it's non-commercial nature the 大象传媒 fostered a pool of talent that could (even if they were in a minority internally) engage with profound social and ethical change. But let's be honest, the dog wagged its tail, not the other way round. When social changes did filter into the 大象传媒s agenda there were, unlike commercial broadcasters, layers of extremely talented and confident editors, journalists and broadcasters ready to take up issues in a robust and challenging way. This though, I seem to remember, was far more true of the 大象传媒s Arts & Drama services than it was for news production (note the wobbly subjectivism).

The 大象传媒 today is locked in an identical hand-wringing debate some 40 years on. And I'm sure it's been going on even longer.

I have no idea whether or not there are overall gains or losses for the 大象传媒 in terms of users. Someone earlier mentioned the "long tail" and it's a very important consideration now. The "long tail", by the way, is a relatively recent term employed to describe the role the internet plays in ensuring that products (books, bamboo window shades, car parts) and *content* no longer need a single mass market surge to be successful but can make even more impact just by being perpetually available.

It therefore seems that rather than focus on the form (Web 2.0 forums, blogs, PDAs, texting etc. etc.-- these are technology issues, just get them done it's cheaper to do it now than it's ever been!) the Beeb should concentrate on content.

The long-tail requires content, ideas, positions, bias, points of view, data, argumentation, evidence.

You're then back at opinion-forming, because we need to engage with something, not a self-referencing club (and those who say that most blogs are narcissistic self-preservation exercises need to spend more time on them -- they either wither or turn into WWIII in short order).

New medias are making assumptions, opinions, positions, histories and actions more and more transparent. In this climate we need a 大象传媒 that does the best job of, dare I say it, editorialising! You guys have the manpower, skills, travel budgets to do (and you do do) a fabulous job. But, you will need to be clearer and clearer on what your (collective or individual statements are fine) "take" is. The Beeb should be able to have a Robert Fisk and some Wall Street Journal boilerplater on the same show (if not making the show). Transparency of politics and ethics is what will win more usage of a great system.

I'm a big fan of Jeremy Paxman, I can guess his politics -- but don't overly care what they are in the particulars -- but I know his ethics. I know he won't tolerate BS-artists where power is being misused to harm others. That is an ethical dimension: we are against the use of power or ideas where they result in harm to others.

When I read; "... by definition, the audiences that consume our services least are also the least engaged in public debate..." I thought I was back with the dodgy public-schoolboy brigade. Are you serious? They're not engaged in "your" definition of the public debate but they are definitely debating. They just don't see the Beeb as a forum through which they'll ever be heard or recognised.

Getting down with the kids ain't the way forward. The kids want an argument, with bias, with prejudice and with a staunch ethical flavour. Oh, and I'm not talking about an open-mike night with the BNP either. More like Paxman interviewing Muslim Association leaders for a couple of hours that can then be chunked up and disseminated/re-purposed across this media.

Or let a Chris Hitchens slog away at some poor anti-war protestor for a day (you get the picture). Create arguments and don't be afraid of stating positions.

Until open ethical positions are robustly defended what point is there for any of these communities to come back and participate.

The Beeb needs to retain its reputation in depth. Breadth is something your IT dept. can help with.

"We are against causing suffering and want to reduce harm being done by one group to another -- now here's the news! -- and you may not like it..."

Peter,

It sounds like you believe, after all your hard work, that everything is now going to be different from how it used to be. It鈥檚 all sorted.

In your speech some good points are made, but rather like plums in a mess of porridge 鈥� a mess of woolly thinking, unstructured arguments and self-contradictory assertions. I have to say that I do not 鈥榙istrust鈥� the concept of impartiality 鈥� but I do distrust your view of what it is and how easy it is now going to be to supply it.

The early part of your argument introduces incoherence. 鈥� You seem to have tried to use as a premise a plaintive assertion, the spine of which runs: 鈥楻egulators, politicians and lobby groups are often united 鈥� But these interest groups and those of us who once thought we could shape the views of our audience are being ignored by the audiences those groups control.鈥�
Unless you somehow mean something completely different from what I understand by the last word in it, that spine is self-contradictory (perhaps you had a particularly subtle point in mind by 鈥榯hese interest groups 鈥� are being ignored by the audiences those groups control鈥� but it didn鈥檛 quite get expressed). So, where you attempt to build on that throughout the rest of it, your piece also makes little sense.

Your claim that 鈥楾he internet is in danger of becoming an enormous exercise in preaching to the converted鈥�. If that were true, then, in the light of the information you have yourself here supplied, your claim could be seen to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, because clearly you [I do not mean you personally, but as in 鈥榶ou lot鈥橾 have always been pretty impervious to responses to your output and content to live in your own 鈥榗osy鈥� self-confirming little world: 鈥楢s for taking the views of the audience into account, that was almost never thought of. The "duty log" - the overnight list of phone calls from the audience - was regarded as being a repository of entertainingly eccentric commentary. Letters from viewers would, I exaggerate only slightly, lie in yellowing piles on the desks of producers weeks after the transmission of an item that was being complained about.鈥�
Though there may well be 鈥榩ockets鈥� in the net where few intrude and which therefore stagnate, that is no less true of your world, and that you are now trying to do something about that is, you acknowledge, at least in part because you are under some pressure from the internet. In fact, anyone can join in on-line and do so on an equal footing in presenting their information, whereas you have made it clear that no-one in its audience is on an equal footing with the decision-makers of the 大象传媒: no matter how much they try to join in or whatever they offer, it鈥檚 always and only 鈥榶ou lot鈥� deciding what to present.

If you believe 鈥榯he need to cover stories people find attractive in an on-demand world, as well as those that are significant, means we need to broaden our story range and our definition of what constitutes news鈥�, then, in being provided with 鈥榥ews鈥� that people find 鈥榓ttractive鈥�, I believe they may well be entertained or even pleasured, but they will not be informed about the world, nor in any positon to do anything to change it, even if they felt so inclined. Is that your purpose? Or is it just to boost the ratings?

I have the same criticism of your idea that you should aim to ensure 鈥榯hat the bulk of the population sees its own perspective reflected honestly and regularly鈥�. What if what is happening in the word does not fit their perspective 鈥� contradicts it 鈥� are you going to keep the truth of that matter quiet so that you don鈥檛 disturb their customary self reflection, don鈥檛 lose your new audience? I mean, for instance, those whose perspective is that Jews, Gypsies and Blacks are lesser beings in some way. That is not a perspective to be reflected, however honestly, but rather it is one to be challenged. Perhaps you mean that you wouldn鈥檛 do the first without the second, i.e. you would both reflect and challenge such perspectives. That would be fair enough, but it doesn鈥檛 sound like you mean that, because you say you have given up trying to 鈥榝orm鈥� opinions, perspectives, et al.

Your argument leads you to conclude: 鈥楽o the 大象传媒's purpose in such an environment becomes clearer 鈥� to provide the widest range of information鈥� and 鈥榃e must now provide them with all sides of the story鈥�.
But what is new about that? That is exactly what you should already be doing now, according to the 大象传媒鈥檚 Charter. See the Editorial Guidelines (4) 鈥淚mpartiality & Diversity of Opinion鈥� 鈥楾he Agreement accompanying the 大象传媒's Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the 大象传媒 is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views.鈥�
And it鈥檚 precisely providing 鈥榯he widest range of information鈥� and 鈥榓ll sides of the story鈥� that you are consistently failing to do! And yet you seem to want to dilute the aim of what you should already be doing.
You fail to grasp the fact that that failure is exactly what most of the complaints being made are about. Everyone wants accuracy; not, however, just accuracy about some tiny fragments of a story, but about the whole story.

And that鈥檚 where the real difficulty lies 鈥� trying to see beyond what you believe is already known, to get the whole story.
This is the difficulty at the heart of any attempt to provide information 鈥� how to define, in any given sitution, what constitutes the 鈥榳hole story鈥� 鈥� and you simply do not address this difficulty, much less tell us how you are going to deal with this, the real problem with your output. Unless you see and acknowledge that as the problem you鈥檙e never going to sort it.

I have a painting that illustrates this difficulty. It shows a close-up of the upper halves of a few men, rather huddled together, looking out at the viewer of the painting. They look intent and, so, look interesting, are dressed well, if in antique garb and, being the only people in the picture, standing before a back-drop of drab hills in the distance under a cloudy sky, are the only conspicous areas of interest in the painting. Someone giving information about it would feel they had to go into a lot of detail about these men, the differences between their clothes, between their complexions, possible countries of origin and the objects they were carrying. How is one to know when the information is complete? Perhaps it鈥檚 when the men have been well decribed and stories about them and about what brought them together at this spot on this evening well-imagined. It would have taken a lot of looking and describing of ever wider, less interesting areas of the painting before the inconspicuous, but not quite invisible trees on one of the distant hills could have been seen to be 3 crosses, and before, amidst the whirls and whorls constituting the sky, even more inconspicuous then the crosses, a dagger could have been discerned looming over the scene, with, when looked at carefully, a distorted image reflected on its blade, an image of, according to the angle of the blade, the viewer, but looked at closely, actually a smiling but bloody baby. And the whole focus of the information, now that the 鈥榬ange鈥� of it has been provided, changes completely. And even then only the beginning of the story has been unfurled. The corrollary of this would be to imagine a scene that you already completely understand 鈥� say from the past, a ghetto in wartime Germany, and then imagine someone supplying information about it 鈥� supplying lots and lots of detailed information 鈥� but all of which fails to mention any of the features which make this place a ghetto, which make life in this place so unimaginably difficult as to be hardly worth living, which makes it hell on earth.

Unfortunately this is exactly the serious error I regularly hear made by the 大象传媒 when they report from the Occupied Palestinian territories. Rarely are the words 鈥榤ilitary occupation鈥� used, even in broadcasts where that fact is the most relevant. Radio 4鈥檚 Today program of Thurs 2nd Nov 8.50am from Bethlehem, was supposed to be about the cause of the Christian emigration Bethlehem has been suffering in recent years. It did not mention the Israeli occupation, nor the encircling wall and Jewish-only settlements and roads, nor the house demolitions, nor the 14% of the district of North Bethlehem recently annexed to Israel, nor that residents in the South have recently been told they are next in line, but instead implied that the problems are entirely the result of a religious 鈥榞lobal conflict鈥�. From Our Own Correspondent of Sat 11th Nov 11.30am was about Beit Hanoun. As well as the above ommissions, it also managed to imply that both sides are equally to blame and actually managed to include the words 鈥榯he Palestinians are to blame for the impasse鈥�. For some reason the Chrisitian Archbishop wasn鈥檛 interviewed, nor were the public words of a recent letter to his parishioners quoted or refferred to.

He wrote:
鈥楥hristians of the Holy Land, we live in a situation of conflict: the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It consists of a military occupation imposed by the Israelis on the Palestinians, and of the Palestinian resistance to this occupation in various ways, violent and non-violent. This conflict has an impact on the entire region, as well as on all Christians in the region.
The conflict is not religious.鈥�

鈥楢s Palestinians and Christians, we say three things, which are complementary. First, occupation is an injustice that must stop. Occupation must be rejected. We must share in all the sacrifices necessary to regain our freedom and bring the occupation to an end. Resistance to occupation is a duty and a right. Second, resistance can be violent or non-violent. We, as Christians, call for non-violent resistance. Third, our position is based on the following fundamentally Christian and human principles: all human beings are equal in dignity before God. They all have the same rights and the same duties. No one, for religious or political reasons, should be subjugated by the other.

鈥業n all Palestinian towns and villages, since the year 2000 and until today, daily Israeli incursions demolish Palestinian houses, take Palestinian prisoners, and kill others. At the same time, there are violent reactions by Palestinian militias.
The official Palestinian Authority is insisting on holding peace talks. The Israelis are taking their time; they prefer to go on with their reprisals in the Palestinian Territories until all manifestations of violence stop. They do not seem to be in a hurry to have peace talks or peace.鈥�

鈥楾he social aspect of this situation: the 鈥渨all鈥� surrounding the Palestinian towns has transformed these towns into big ghettoes or prisons. The 鈥渨all鈥� and the Israeli military checkpoints make social, economic, and human Palestinian life day after day more and more difficult.
There are many voices and movements in Israel calling for the cessation of all violence and for the resumption of peace talks, but they are not numerous enough to impose a new direction on the conflict. The louder voices remain the ones that prefer to go on with the reprisals and with the direct violent repression of Palestinians.鈥�

鈥榃hat is the Israeli agenda in this conflict? It is hard to know.
What is declared is the need for security. But all military actions taken so far have led to more insecurity.
What is the agenda of the international community? It is less clear.
From what we have lived and seen until now, we can say that we have had many declarations, analyses, talks and partial agreements in Madrid, Oslo, Camp David鈥� With all of that, we are at the same point: we continue to live in conflict, under occupation, and in human conditions that are worsening day after day with ongoing violence, demolitions, deaths, hatred, and insecurity, all of which create a harsh economic and social life.
What should be done? To engage firmly and decidedly in peace talks in order to resolve the core problem, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This alone will produce security and give birth to a new phase and to a new life in the relations between the two peoples. Moreover, it will give peace to the region and to the world.鈥�

鈥楾oday, Arab Palestinian Christians in Latin America, who emigrated there in the 19th century, are far more numerous than they are in their original homeland. The same is true of Arab Palestinian Christians in North America, the United States and Canada. The same reasons that led to their emigration at that time are still present today, though in a different way: economic and social difficulties compound the current political instability.
Some American observers and congressmen insist on a 鈥減resumed鈥� Muslim persecution of Christians as the main cause of the emigration. It is true that difficulties exist in our Palestinian society, but the main reason is that the Occupation prevents the creation of a strong public authority.鈥�

This is Archbishop Michel Sabbah, The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, September 29, 2006. (c.f. )

I judge that it is the Archbishop of Jerusalem who has described accurately not just the fragments of the situation that got the attention of the 大象传媒鈥檚 correspondent, but a much wider range of more relevant information which makes his account acceptable as a lot nearer to the truth of the matter than the 大象传媒鈥檚 correspondent in the programs I instanced above. I find the discrepancy between the correspondent鈥檚 account and the Archbishop鈥檚 shows that the 大象传媒 failed to be impartial and accurate in those programs.

The 大象传媒 necessarily fails to be impartial whenever it reports from the West Bank Gaza Strip without clearly mentioning the continuing existence there of that 鈥榤ilitary occupation imposed by the Israelis on the Palestinians鈥� which the Archbishop describes, and which Israel has been making the Palestinians suffer for almost 40 years. Every day its stranglehold increases, unreported by you, and its deleterious effect upon the lives of each of the millions of people trying to live there deepens.

You say you met a 鈥榮enior Israeli on a recent visit to Jerusalem, who 鈥榓rgued that we should not be attempting to be impartial (or "neutral" as he put it) about the threat from terrorism鈥�. You say he 鈥榤ade a case that was forceful - both emotionally and intellectually. How could the 大象传媒, as an upholder of free speech and an embodiment of liberal democracy, be prepared to be neutral in the face of extremists who wished to undermine such principles.鈥� 鈥楬e argued that you couldn't apply the values of reporting a political institution such as Westminster to the struggle Israel faces - against foes such as Hezbollah and Hamas鈥�. the 大象传媒 had to put away what he saw as an ultimately self-destructive obsession with impartiality鈥� I find that neither a forceful nor a remotely sound case. The words 鈥楬e would say that wouldn鈥檛 he鈥� spring to mind. This is a clear case of special pleading. Understandable, but lobbying none the less. He wants the 大象传媒 to jettison its vaues, because then it will have none 鈥� and how then will it judge what to do? 鈥� It will have do whatever he says, accept his frame of reference, join in his demonisation of his enemies. That is, it will be doing his PR work for him, including, of course, refraining from ever asking why they are his enemies.
They are his enemies because wants no more resistance to the implementation of Israel鈥檚 policy of dispossession of the Palestinians. This policy of dispossession has been going on more or less continuously for almost 60 years, the military occupation for almost 40 years. Resistance is, as the Archbishop pointed out, a right and a duty. Although the Archbishop says of himself and his parishioners, 鈥榃e, as Christians, call for non-violent resistance鈥� he also acknowledges that 鈥榬esistance can be violent or non-violent鈥�. But the Israelis want everyone to term those who engage in resistance 鈥榤ilitants鈥� and those who do so violently 鈥� even if that鈥檚 only throwing stones 鈥� 鈥榯errorists鈥�, because it鈥檚 better PR. The 鈥榮enior Israeli鈥� was trying to persuade you to let him use the 大象传媒 for his PR. You could hardly do that if you were determined to maintain your impartiality. But perhaps you didn鈥檛 realise that.

Given the repeated failure of impartiality in 大象传媒 broadcasts about and even from the region, I see no grounds at all for the tone of complacency in your speech. The awful thing is, it reflects your obvious total inability to even see the problem, much less solve it. For, though you claim to have eshewed your initial motivation, given this consistently partial dissemination of information, you are completely failing to avoid being an 鈥榦pinion former鈥� of the worst sort 鈥� you are consistently forcing your listeners to base their opinion on a partial and misleading picture of the situation.

I hope I haven't frightend you off from reflecting on this matter again. For all I have criticised your effort to date I have been glad of the opportunity to do so and thank you for that.

Roy

Peter Horrocks,

As interesting as your speech was, I couldn鈥檛 plough through all of it, but mostly scanned it briefly. You appear to have scant respect for the blogging world, speaking of it as if it comprises herds of sheep, faithfully following and perpetuating the point of view of any given blog. Evidently you either have only a passing acquaintance with blogs or your mind is so firmly made up about them that no evidence to the contrary will shake your preconceptions about them.

On the other hand, you appear to have a good deal of respect for the intelligence and awareness of audiences. This begs the obvious question: How do audiences differ from those who contribute to blogs? Are they somehow brighter through sitting in front of a TV screen or a 大象传媒 speaker rather than a computer? Or could it be that your perception of blogs is influenced by the fact that they have made, and continue to make, an important contribution in exposing the unprofessionalism, ignorance and implacable bias of mainstream media such as the 大象传媒?

Leaving that aside, I was disturbed by your cheerful, breezy admission of past gross dereliction of duty and journalistic ethics in ignoring feedback from the public in the form of letters that would 鈥渓ie in yellowing piles on the desks of producers weeks after the transmission of an item that was being complained about.鈥� I was one of those who experienced a good deal of frustration in having my letters ignored by newspapers and other media. I never bought the standard blurb that they couldn鈥檛 publish or respond to letters because they were inundated by them. That was obviously a poor excuse for indolence or political preference or both. Thanks, at least, for verifying my suspicions of your sloth.

You appear to indicate that these attitudes belong to the past. However, as others have pointed out, they are very much prevalent today. Try, for example, as a member of the public, to register a complaint about some aspect of the 大象传媒鈥檚 output. At best, you will receive a short, belated reply which both skirts the point of your complaint and promises to forward it to the relevant department 鈥� where it will be ignored, if in fact it ever reaches that department. At worst, you will receive an automated reply, and that will be that.

The 大象传媒 has become bloated, lethargic and unaccountable through feeding for way too long at the public trough. It would be good to see some real effort on your part to change this state of affairs.

Is this a blog or a thesis?

Impartiality is best achieved by stopping the media deciding what鈥檚 news and what isn鈥檛, and the 大象传媒鈥檚 commitment to giving the public a say in this matter has been clearly demonstrated by their decision to stop the public deciding what can be discussed on the PM Messageboards.

I doesn鈥檛 matter how many words you write - the 大象传媒 are still stuck in patronising instruction mode and will be until they provide the democratic thinking space you refer to. The 大象传媒 are wasting their time trying to stave off the empowerment the digital age has given Joe Public. Either they embrace it or they鈥檒l find themselves slugging it out in the real world with commercial broadcasters.

It is difficult to exaggerate changes that the 大象传媒 has already made in some respects, even if it is equally difficult to recognize that it has done so.

Within living memory the 大象传媒 used to assume that not only announcers and presenters should be dressed in a tie. I recall hearing about 30 years ago the novelist Beryl Bainbridge remarking, during an interview on R4, that when she was young she used to hear the announcer taking his leave from, it may then have been, the entire 大象传媒 audience, after, I think, the last weather forecast of the day, with the words: 鈥淕oodnight Gentlemen鈥�.

Roy

A clue may be in the "anti-elitist revolution" and the fact you're losing the "C2, D and E's"...
The 大象传媒 still appears to speak unto the nation from its staff's own background.
Which, having worked for you at Current Affairs, still reeks of Oxford/Cambridge folk who live within 10 miles of White City and barely have a regional accent between them.
I'm not surprised you don't have the C2's, D's and E's watching you, when the topic of conversation by too many of your staff is about their where to get a good live-in nanny, laughing uproariously at the plebians on the duty-log and sidelining anyone who speaks less than RP as a comprehensive-educated thickie... Frankly, some of the chinless wonders at your place haven't a clue about real journalism and work on the 1950s theory that the lesser classes need to be "educated" rather than learn from them.
I still recall the 20 mins handed over to the 6 O'clock news on the Queen Mum getting a fish bone in her throat. Meanwhile, mud-slide in Brazil killing 400 hardly got a mention. Elitist? The 大象传媒?
It's not all whippets, pasties and coal outside London, Peter, but there is news out there and "local" people want to hear about it, and even report on it if needs be. That's why you got so much from people on the July 7 bombings. Ordinary people, who take the bus and the tube, wanting to tell their story.
Here's a fact - the majority of Essex does not get local TV news from the 大象传媒. Your transmitter doesn't work out East. The most densely populated areas of Essex are forced to watch 大象传媒 London. Totally pointless. Much of London's businesses are staffed by Essex people - although very, very little at the 大象传媒 I hasten to add.
If you ignore an area, don't be surprised if it ignores you back. If you ignore a cultural grouping - to the point of not even employing them - again don't be surprised if the C2's D's and E's ignore you back.
You may not be "hideously white" as Greg Dyke once said you used to be, but I'd just love to hear Gnasher Thompson or yourself argue you're not "hideously middle-class" and then try and prove it without putting forward a collection of low-ranking token C2's, D's and E's.

To Roy in comment 17#,
Perhaps your pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli rant would be better served if you actually checked some of your comments !, you take the 大象传媒 to task for assumed bias, yet your entire message is completely biased against the Israeli's.
Do you really think that the Israelis are the only people who have blood on their hand in the on-going conflicts in the Middle East?, do you think that just because someone is a Palestinian that they also do not support violence?.
As to frightening people as to your final point in your 'rant', the only frightening thing about your comments is that you obviously think that your bigoted viewpoints are the only valid ones.

I cannot see any grounds for differing substantially with Peter Horrocks.
It is clear enough that the combination of the rapidly increasing rate of transfer of facts and the multiplicity of news gathering sources is creating great difficulties for all sections of the media.
The smallest unwarranted personal opinion or misstatement of fact is around the world and back, in minutes, with the remnants of the perpetrators reputation. Add to that the continuous criticism by the biased and the ill-informed.
Are we going to end up with 鈥淭he News鈥� followed by 鈥淭he Verified News鈥�?

Response to Joe #23,

In my careful considerations (post #17) that you call a 鈥榬ant鈥�, I was trying to comment to Peter that he had not really acknowledged how difficult his job is, how hard it is to know when enough fragments of a story (or wide enough range of views) have been gathered to be able to say the whole story is being told. And I pointed out that this difficulty, the general difficulty at the heart of his profession, is exacerbated when there are people around deliberately trying to hide or distort some of those fragments in order to prevent the whole story coming out. I instanced the persuasion he explained had been brought to bear on him by a 鈥榮enior Israeli鈥�.

Now I don鈥檛 know what set of fragments you rely on to come to your picture of what Israel is doing, and don鈥檛 know which of the sources I have used to come to my view you would find worthwhile examining.
Perhaps you would find interesting the recently expressed view of someone who doesn鈥檛 agree with me about the racism at the heart of Israel鈥檚 policies and activities but who I find honest and careful and in a good position to know what he is speaking about and so I think what he says is well informed. He is a former President of the United States of America.

In his recent book President Carter carefully lays out how he sees the basic problem:

鈥楾here are two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East:
1. Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and
2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.鈥�

And he explains that, of the available options, one of the worst is:
鈥楢 system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy now being followed, although many citizens of Israel deride the racist connotation of prescribing permanent second-class status for the Palestinians. As one prominent Israeli stated, 鈥淚 am afraid that we are moving toward a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arab subjects with few rights of citizenship. The West Bank is not worth it.鈥� An unacceptable modification of this choice, now being proposed, is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory, with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences, and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them.鈥�

Of the present he says:
鈥楾he overriding problem is that, for more than a quarter century, the actions of some Israeli leaders have been in direct conflict with the official policies of the United States, the international community, and their own negotiated agreements. Regardless of whether Palestinians had no formalized government 鈥� Israel鈥檚 continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land. In order to perpetuate the occupation, Israeli forces have deprived their unwilling subjects of basic human rights. No objective person could personally observe existing conditions in the West Bank and dispute these statements.
Two other interrelated factors have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and regional upheaval: the condoning of illegal Israeli actions from a submissive White House and U.S. Congress during recent years, and the deference with which other international leaders permit this unofficial U.S. policy in the Middle East to prevail. There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories. At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7,500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan.
The United States has used its U.N. Security Council veto more than forty times to block resolutions critical of Israel. Some of these vetoes have brought international discredit on the United States, and there is little doubt that the lack of a persistent effort to resolve the Palestinian issue is a major source of anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity throughout the Middle East and the Islamic world.
In order to achieve its goals, Israel has decided to avoid any peace negotiations and to escape even the mild restraints of the United States by taking unilateral action, called 鈥渃onvergence鈥� or 鈥渞ealignment,鈥� to carve out for itself the choice portions of the West Bank, leaving Palestinians destitute within a small and fragmented remnant of their own land. The holding of almost 10,000 Arab prisoners and the destructive military response to the capture of three Israeli soldiers have aroused global concern about the hair-trigger possibility of a regional war being launched. 鈥�

And of the future he says:
鈥楾he bottom line is this: Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens鈥攁nd honor its own previous commitments鈥� by accepting its legal borders.鈥�
(from Chapter 12 of Palestine - Peace not Aparthied by Jimmy Carter quoted in 鈥楥onflict in the Middle East鈥� 27.11.06 in Geneva Initiative c.f.
)

In an interview last week, challenged about his use of the word 鈥榓partheid鈥� in his book, President Carter said:
鈥業 was not referring to racism, but simply to the desire to acquire Arab land inside Palestinian territory. And there is a total establishment imposed by Israeli powers of a separation of the two peoples from one another. I would say that in many ways the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying forces is as onerous 鈥� and in some cases more onerous 鈥� as the treatment of black people in South Africa by the apartheid government. All Palestinians have to carry passes. When I was there monitoring elections in 2005, there were 719 roadblocks closed by concrete barriers, earth mounds or by official Israeli checkpoints. The Palestinians can't move from one place to another. They can't grow produce, for instance, to sell to their own people if it competes with Israeli fruit, vegetables and flowers. Gaza, which was supposed to have been abandoned, is absolutely imprisoned in a wall that the Israelis have built all around it. There are only two possible openings in that wall. One opens into the Sinai, and is open to only a few chosen people. And the other is open into Israel, and it has been closed almost all the time since the Israeli so-called withdrawal from Gaza. So the Palestinians are horribly abused and persecuted and deprived by the Israeli policies in the West Bank.鈥�
(Interviewed by Marty Rosen, Courier 鈥� Journal, quoted in 'Carter shares insight on peace in Mideast' 26.11.06, in Geneva Initiative c.f. )

In my view, unless we have particularly good reasons for believing that the sources we have normally been using are more well-informed, then the degree to which what President Carter says here differs from what we thought we already knew should be taken as a measure not of how wrong he is but of how ill-informed we have been by the sources upon which we normally rely for our information.

Dear Roy,
Firstly, thank you for taking the trouble to respond to my comments, I must clearly state that I still find it unfortunate that you only use left wing sources to back up your world view. Mr Carter is the man who allowed the Cuban government to send across all it's criminals etc to the US and destroy Miami, Mr Carter is one of the worst leaders of the US ever (Democrats own survey, he is hardly the figurehead that I would use to justify my position!.
In your comments about the 'Roadmap' and how the Israeli's are stopping it's success, I would ask that you check with the UN as to who is stopping it's success, the Palestinians have repeatedly tried to stop the success of any peace initiatives, a good example of this double standards would be electing Hamas a terrorist group into power in the West Bank and Gaza !, I do not see in any of your comments any remarks about this?, I also do not see in your remarks any negative comments about the Palestinians.
Also perhaps you would like to explain why other Muslim countries have not been supporting the Palestinians since the money which comes mostly from the West was stopped after the election of Hamas?, also if the Palestinians are so innocent then the massacre at the Munich Olympics, Bombing of Busses, Airlines, Airports etc are what exactly?, a cry for help?, come on Roy lets here a more balanced opinion from you.

Re 3 JamesStGeorge 30 Nov 2006.

In most circumstances, is probably best to leave an article to be read for its content and what it says about the writer.
The FarePack situation is special and represents the 鈥渦nacceptable face of capitalism鈥� at its most ugly. It should not be dismissed with a few comments. The deposits concerned should have been ring-fenced or there should have been adequate financial cover otherwise.
We should be demanding full explanations from the directors of the company and the associated companies. The CBI, the Bank(s) and all financial concerns involved in this kind of transaction should give considered opinions on why this sort of situation should have arisen and whether they are capable and willing to produce a remedy or whether they should be forced to do so by legislation.
Meanwhile are they planning to include in their Christmas feasts a toast to the victims and their 15% sop, or are they going to get off their collective backsides and put the matter right?
Carry on 大象传媒: many more articles about FarePack, its Directors and financial supporters, until we have some FairPlay.

I am strongly confused by the so-called "democratic" development in the media.

I am confused by sitting in front of written pieces telling nothing about the honesty and seriousness of the "posts" and people.

I am strongly confused by mistakes and misinformation provided by so many people and

I am strongly confused by confusion - not knowing what is right and what is wrong because of too many insecure sources and different subjective point of views.

From my point of view (subjective) people are bored and seek shelter in endless, non-informative and emotional discussions while sitting in front of a PC.

(I do because I am automatically confronted with the bored while trying to research a topic. And I cannot avoid seeing the statements and endless amount of words. I am bored - the other way round - bored by the "out of control" - democracy of the Internet.)

One can call such a behavior (trying to add one`s words - useful or not) "democratic" (the word is defined), but surely not essential for providing INFORMATION, CAREFULLY SELECTED information, trying to be objective and provide a broad base for making one`s own mind.

Therefore I hope that I and people like me can rely on the few who can help to widen opinion by giving information without too much confusion.

Watching 大象传媒 news 24 For any length of time shows how little information you wish to divulge.

You, as the 大象传媒 dare not call a donkey a donkey. So why are you surprised nobody I know (home and abroad) Cares or believes what you say? Impartiality is a dream that we will never live to see.

While I'm on one. If Radio 4 ever mentions or talks about the holocaust or someones' "Jewishness", again! I'll kick the radio out of my car.

Is it possible to summarise your speach in a few bullet points please? (I only had time to view a couple of thousand words you see. Thanks. Lydia, 24, South Wales