´óÏó´«Ã½

'...no ´óÏó´«Ã½ staff had intended to breach guidelines, but there seemed to be a lack of knowledge or genuine confusion about the relevant guidance. Clearly we need to tighten our procedures so that it doesn't happen again.

We must not damage the audience's trust in what we broadcast. We know we have some hard work to do to make up for this, but we are determined to do so.

One wonders what the response would have been had this been a tack James Murdoch adopted?

Conflict of interest is dangerous for any news outlet that values independence.

It is just a shame that ´óÏó´«Ã½ World News is such an execrable beast in a market that is really dire in totality. News channels that vie for businessmen in hotel rooms seem to be nothing more than vehicles of advertising. How about that for conflict of interest?

How ´óÏó´«Ã½ World News can be that bad when the domestic ´óÏó´«Ã½ News channel is so good (but still too variable) is a mystery.

I stopped visiting the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or watching the ´óÏó´«Ã½ news channel some time ago because it's lousy, biased reporting. I just popped in to see if you'd cover this news.

Frankly, it didn't occur to me you were taking money, I just thought you were incompetent. I hope this will be followed by a clear out and a return to standards.

It's interesting to see the ´óÏó´«Ã½ taking sponsorship from green organisations. Given that we know that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has also taken sponsorship from green groups to sponsor meetings looking at editorial policy, is the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s credibility shot?

'is the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s credibility shot?'

Oh, no.

It's the world's most trusted national treasure with a genetic impartiality built-in.

Mind you, that does get repeated a lot pretty much, well, here mainly.

And Newswatch, where Editors can repeat they 'get it about right'. Apparently.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

´óÏó´«Ã½ World News is so depressing to watch, that I deliberately avoid it. It has such a particular 'Weltanschauung' (that of some anglophone, supra-national, corporate elite bestraddling a fantastic globalized Utopia), that it is unwatchable by the average Brit abroad. I switched it on by mistake in a hotel room in Baden-Württemberg last week, and found it so execrable that most of the German TV channels seemed to offer better viewing. I heartily endorse comment 2 (by Kit Green). Are there really enough lonely business persons in lonely hotel rooms to justify ´óÏó´«Ã½ World News's existence? I understand the nature of the beast, but I hate it...

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

´óÏó´«Ã½ World News does offer a valuable service and presents Britain favourably in an international context. Sometimes the programmes are painfully politically correct, and I suppose this naivety has been reflected in the programmers lack of awareness.
("but there seemed to be a lack of knowledge or genuine confusion about the relevant guidance.")
Of course programme makers have agendas. Of course programmes are made to promote, slant, mislead and obfuscate. The point is that it is not the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own agenda that has been promoted and all that is required, surely, is that any programme sponsored, backed or made by, or with the assistance of any organisation other than the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be clearly labeled so that we, the viewer, are aware of these affiliations.

´óÏó´«Ã½ World News is something that gives the world access to ´óÏó´«Ã½ News, If it funds itself keep it

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

‎"You! Yes, you! Stand still KID and say NOOOOOO!

We don't need no CERVARIX
We dont need no GARDASIL
No dark sarcasm FROM THE DOCTORS
Hey Killers ! Leave our kids alone!
All in all it's just more money in your pocket
All in all we are just a number in the system.

We don't need no CERVARIX
We dont need no Gardasil
No dark sarcasm from the doctors
Hey you leave our kids alone
Hey! LIARS! Leave our kids alone!
All in all it's we are just a number in the system.
All in all you're just a killer with no face.

"Wrong, you know you wrong but Do it again!"
"If you don't know the pain you caused , the suffering in our kids eyes, the deaths you caused, and the lives you token away, you can't have GOD power.
How can you still look at yourself in the mirror, when you are killing innocent kids, someone’s child.
Behind a mask with no name you keep on killing mode, against our, our children.

"You! Yes, you behind the mask and false promises, stand still and face the truth!"

I don't need no arms around me
And I dont need no drugs to calm me.
I have seen the writing on the wall.
Don't think I need anything at all.
No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.
All in all you were all just bricks in the wall.

STOP GIVE ME MY LIFE BACK

I don't think anybody would really mind some sponsorships provided the overall quality of the reporting at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not affected.. that for me would be the key. Economics around reporting are an unfortunate fact of life that media houses need to deal with.

Craig

I came to the bbc wondering if there would be any reporting on the 35 Ethiopian Christians in Saudi Arabia(Jedda) who were imprisoned by the security forces during a prayer meeting in a home on December 15th there but there was nothing on this story. I could only find this story reported by World Net Daily. After finding out the conflict of interests in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ wonder if the news reporters are seriously biased. If it were islamic followers I'm sure it would be front page these days.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I am still amazed at the ´óÏó´«Ã½s blatant censorship of comments to current affairs news articles. No, I am not sure if the Uk has a rights-of-free-speach Act. But i am sure the UK does not have a constitution in the sense that the US has; and possibly the ´óÏó´«Ã½ does not feel the need ot provide the possibility to coment on each news article published. However, this would relieve frustration.
Moan over, I wanted to comment the article 'Latino exodus' but there is no direct blog available.
I am the last to be rasist, but there are fundamental rights and securities that a nation needs to protect. A country needs to protect its borders and assure who is entitled to cross and live within those borders. Several countries do this vehrmently, dare I say canada and australia. Times move on, and circumstances change. An open arms welcome-all policy was fine for the US when it needed bodies, and had a prediminately agricultural come post industrial revolution economy. Anyone wanting to live there had to either work or starve. These days expectations and living standards are different, and the economic dynamic substantially so.
The article says that a State Judge oppossed tightening immigration laws on constitutional grounds. Everyone has heard (rightly or wrongly) that judges in the US have their own local populartity to worry about, so it is not surprising that one convelutes justice promoting sensationalism. What is surpising for those of us from other jurisdictial/political systems is that when it comes to a matter of national security a mere state judge can get away with throwing a spanner in the works. This seems to be a major flaw in the US system.
The tone of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ article defends the judge, neglecting the fact that had illegal immigration been tightly controlled from the outset, those communities disrupted economically by the departure of the hispanics would not have arrisen in the first place. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ article appears to purport that two wrongs do make a right, contrary to common acceptance.
On the humane front it could be argued that stopping further illegal immigration is different to ejecting those with established lifestiles. Personally, I am glad i am not a law maker on that score, because that would be an extermely difficult line to draw. If as the article says over the last 10 year the US overall has experienced a 43% increase in the hispainc population that at Nation level the concern is to curb/stop immigration this is only understandable, and a state level judge should not be able to oppose it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I just watched an incredible program prepared by Jonathan Dimbleby. It was very well done, very informative = "African Journey With Jonathan Dimbleby" 'Jonathan travels through Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania, discovering people who are self reliant'. Please let me know when you will next air programs by Jonathan Dimbleby - as they are excellent!