大象传媒

But surely the need is not to "reassure audiences", it is to STOP LYING to the audience.

Does this include the promulgation of climate hysteria due to the representation of only one side of the scientific debate.

Apologies, reassurances, excuses, rationalizations, a pile of manure intended to obfuscate the fact that 大象传媒 is not and has not for a very long time lived up to its once lofty standards its reputation was built on. Somewhere along the way, the bad drove out the good and honest journalism presented in a sober, thoughtful, complete package was replaced by advocacy, sensationalism, and "info-tainment." 大象传媒 is not even a shadow of its former self but more like a mocking caricature of it. And for every time 大象传媒 catches the public eye with another of its obvious gaffs, we wonder how many more are undiscovered lurking in a closet or swept under a rug which they have succeeded in keeping secret. This is an organization which is too big, too rich, too powerful, too secure, and much to taken with its own self importance to be of any use to its audience. It needs a thorough top to bottom housecleaning.

Yes, because Mr. Van-Klaveren is so worth listening to. After all, he's the clown who decided that the 大象传媒 should renege on an agreement with Tom Stephens, broadcast his interview (which was only done for 'background purposes') and identify him as the arrested suspect in the Suffolk murder investigations in December, 2006.

The act of a trustworthy man to be sure.

Are there really no comments worth publishing on The Editors about the recent competition fixing disclosures?

I've sent in two messages, but the only subject that appears to have any messages passed by the 大象传媒 censors are the ones with praise (mostly and unnacountably) for storyFIX.

the man you are interviewing just doesn't get it, does he. THE FACTS WERE TWISTED. That's not a narrow point it's bent jouralism.

The recent exposure of deceptive practice at the 大象传媒 is, I fear, exposing only a symptom of a deeper malaise. That malaise is the 大象传媒鈥檚 fundamental and endemic loss of its understanding of its duty as a publicly funded broadcaster. Funded by what amounts to a poll-tax and so fiercely independent that it fears no real governmental intervention, it has become a law unto itself.

Recently there has been a criticism levelled saying the 大象传媒 has a 鈥榣iberal bias鈥�. This criticism has some justification, especially in the field of News Broadcasts. There is much use of editorially loaded adjectives, adverbs, verbal emphasis and story 鈥榓ngles鈥� that arise from what may be conveniently described as the Esther Rantzen Syndrome.

A simple example is the use of such phrases as 鈥榯hree short months鈥� or 鈥榯hree long months鈥� in a news story. Three months is simply that; three months. The addition of the adjective is purely editorial opinion being represented as straight reportage. A publicly funded broadcaster has no business inserting subliminal editorial opinion into news reporting. This is a simple example of the many ways that the 大象传媒鈥檚 deluded belief that it is its job to be a serious arbiter of opinion in news presentation. Any objective observer watching the 大象传媒 news over the period of a week will find many many examples of this subliminal editorial content.

Habitually statistics are presented without the all-important time frame that makes them accurate and meaningful. This time frame is omitted to lend power to an editorial slant. Why else would it be omitted, unless it is unmitigated sloppy journalism that has little or no regard for factual accuracy? Either way, it鈥檚 simply not good enough for a public broadcaster. One wonders if the news-writers even realise what they are doing. I think perhaps not. The 大象传媒 definitely has an editorial agenda. The sad fact is that I doubt whether anyone at the 大象传媒 could tell you what that agenda is. That is how automatic and thoughtless it has become.

I want the facts from my news. Just the facts. I expect to be given enough respect to be allowed to form my own opinions based on accurately reported facts. The fact that the 大象传媒 is unable to trust its viewers to form their own opinions is the clearest illustration of how far it has drifted from its charter obligations

We have a society that has a fear of crime and a concern for public safety that bears no relationship to published statistics. This has been fostered by the 鈥渋s it safe鈥� and 鈥渕ake sure it can never happen again鈥� editorial stance habitually taken by the 大象传媒. It is a form of nannyish popularism that belongs in the printed press but has no place in what should be the totally objective world of the publicly funded broadcaster.

Throughout the 大象传媒 there has crept in disrespect for the paying public that amounts to an arrogance that is not to be tolerated. It permeates almost everything the 大象传媒 now does. This recent exposure of the more obvious disrespect presents an opportunity for a serious reform of editorial standards going much deeper than telephone scams.