The BBC

[Huguenot]

An enquiry into what?

This Tory Paedophile ring story was being developed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a journalistic not for profit organisation whose stories would have been widely discussed by people who didn't know the details.

This isn't rumour-momgering it's just industry tattle.

The BIJ don't have a political agenda - they've targeted the EU, Public Sector Pay and Iraq War chicanery, in other words both right and left wing sacred cows.

[????]

The BIJ were investigating it fair enough

The BBC a publicly funded, politically neutral body broadcast it , terrible 'shoody' journalism to quote Lord Patten....not fair enough. It's not the fooking Sun and I'd expect that even they wouldn't have published it.

[*Bob*]

Great news all around.

Paedo-obsessed Britain, who's spent the last few weeks whispering, nudging, googling, pointing and twittering now know who the real villain is.. Why The Beeb, of course.

[????]

Why don't we just rename Newsnight Heat then *Bob* and then it will all be ok if to report this stuff on its major serious news output........

[Huguenot]

An enquiry into what? How inexperienced temporary editors cut off from a management structure that was just finding its feet under a new DG made a mistake?

What's to find out?

[????]

again, it's the BBC not the Croydon Bugle basic chain of reporting stuff within the media not huge complicated business moddelling. I dunno like "What's on the show toinight?" "we are reporting on a tory peado ring?". Hmm, what's your source? um this blokes claims and all sorts of buzz on t'internet. Ok, given the circumstances let's run with this without going for approval further up"

The enquiry I refer too is the one into the Paedo Rings that the PM announced last week but I guess you're once again commentatiting on events that you know little about being miles away that's not a dig but just noticing that you seem completley uunaware that this is actually the major media story over here in blighty.....not a load of right wing huff and puff.

I think the BBC is launching its own enquiry into both this and Saville. Raher than saying oh just a silly mistake from a new team/old team, nothing to see here.

[Otta]

What do you want to see the BBC do? And do you think Entwistle was right to / should have resigned?

[????]

As SJ said Entwistle is going, I suspect, as much becuase of his very lacklustre performance with Humphries as the scandal.

[womanofdulwich]

I wonder where he will go next and how much money he will receive.............

[nashoi]

Entwistle was director of BBC Vision at the time the Saville investigation was pulled so things haven't been looking good for him for a while.

[david_carnell]

Especially for Quids....this is why true BBC is still great and the alternatives are so lacking:

http://themediablog.typepad.com/the-media-blog/2012/11/george-entwistle-bbc-broken-embattled-still-best.html

[????]

I support public broadcasting, I said it earlier

Public Institutions shouldn't be beyond criticism and reform - something that most deeply conservative part of the establishment 'the progressive liberal left' seem unwilling to acknowledge, indeed reacts with the normal defence mechanism normally involving a pile of emotive set reactions including words like 'privatisation, profit, destroying the NHS/dismantling the welfare state etc etc and very little willingness to actually debate or discuss any reform.

Anyway back to the BBC horrendously overstaffed with far too much nothing jobs middle management and no clear lines of responsibility and generally not much of a price to pay for failure unless the events are as catastrophic as this one. he huge resources of the BBC dwarf that of say SKY and ITV both of whom produce just as good and news programmes and generally are more adventurous. Sky is also generally a far better sports broadcaster, revolutionising both football and cricket coverage for eg. My suspicion is, as said earlier, that the BBC could have quite a lot more knocked of its budget without damaging its output. I play up the lefty bias bit to rile you but however politically neutral it is it cannot be good that one public broadcaster controls 70% of UK people's news and its budgets stifle competition so makes it harder for other private media and especially in areas like digital is actually pretty destructive and sucks entrepreneurism away into its cozy near monopoly. Does some things brilliantly but not as much as its champions proclaim and stifles competition. I'd like reform of the BBC but I think everything business, the welfare state, the NHS, etc should be looked at for reform to suit changing times and needs whereas you socialists thinks everything should stay as exactly as it is, you conservatives :)

[????]

PS I hope Newsnight doesn't go as it is my personal favourite news programme but I don't think Channel 4 news is much worse and that's probably run on just Jeremy Paxman's salary

[Otta]

Channel 4 News is great.

[Huguenot]

Hmmm

[Otta]

Okay so some of the reporters are a bit fresh and tabloid, but I still like the way they bring me the news.

[Huguenot]

BBC: committed 100% creative 100% global impact 100% gives a shit 100% passingly bureaucratic 100% entwhistle salary ?450k

SKY: pointless twats 100% pays footballers 100% original programming 1% here today gone tomorrow 100% who? 100% James Murdoch salary ?6m

Shouldn't be even having this conversation 100%

If you attack the Beeb over this ridiculous saga you really need to get some sense.

[????]

are you talking to me? Harriet Harman? Gris Patten? John Humphries? The BBC itself? The Guardian. The telegraph? Many former DGs all who have criticised (note not attacked) the BBC over this 'ridiculous saga' or are you just howling at the moon again Huge?

[????]

if you stop your propagandist the Murdoch devil rant about SKY and think about

Sky News is widely respected within the industry, was the first to roll out 24 hour news in the UK and has many respected broadcasters and journalists on its payroll.

sky's business model is to buy content rather than create it. That doesn't stifle creativity it just means it is created elsewhere among small and large production companies from HBO to Al Murray,s production company, so is Sky that creative in that sense no, but the creativity is elsewhere and far less of a top down monopoly on creativity.

sky sports completely revolutionised cricket coverage from the BBCs old a few hours in the day and no overseas coverage other than highlights at 11.15

he irony on football is that one of the reasons that Sky bid so much (relatively) for the original Premiership rights was as a Trojan horse into a market so dominated by the state monopoly (BBC). To be honest, if football clubs chose to spend their new gotten wealth on making a whole load of footballers millionaires I don't quite know how you can blame that on Sky. Murdoch has to answer to the Sky shareholders not license payers, do I think James Murdoch is overpaid, yes, have I any shares in Sky, no. not my problem.

I haven't any Sky subscription incidentally and only watch the football in the pub as I am quite happy with my terrestrial (including the BBC) and Netflix but the Sky is the devil crap rather than a strong and well run broadcaster is unthinking, prejudice.

[StraferJack]

Agree with quids about much of what he says re: sky. Not all, but much

To take the more generalised points about the BBC tho..

?horrendously overstaffed with far too much nothing jobs middle management?

Might be true, might not ? can?t see your evidence tho. I know you are keen on unemotive arguments so?

?no clear lines of responsibility and generally not much of a price to pay for failure unless the events are as catastrophic as this one. ?

Certainly seems to be the case in this newsnight business ? altho my friends at the BBC have long complained about the culture of compliance and the punishments meted out to them if they mess up. So I?m not sure about the second half of that statement

On this particular case tho, look at the orgy of criticism (internal and external) going on and look at the casualties. Now compare with other news organisations who label people killers or paedophiles (eg Chris Halliewell in Bristol), with pictures on front page, and when that doesn?t come to be true, how many people lose their jobs? Given that any organisation is likely to make mistakes, at least the BBC is not hiding from this

It?s not just the ?liberal left? who fear this governments approach to the BBC and the NHS either ? there is a deep suspicion that their intent is idealogical. It?s not necessarily paranoia to suspect this (there may be positive outcomes from the NHS reforms but given their electoral mandate ? slim to nil - and electoral promises, they are taking liberties) and so people are ?conservative? over these institutions. No point ruining a good thing to end up with another rail network mess. Calling people liberal leftie conservatives might be part of your ?fun? but it does most of your arguments no credit

I suspect some people don?t like Sky not because of the product itself but it?s owner ? and that?s fair enough, I am a sky subscriber and agree with most of your points around the quality esp sport. That said, just to watch sky sports ALONE, one pays nearly double the annual license fee, so it should be good. The other reason to be cautious over Sky is to look at it?s owners channels globally in less regulated markets ? THAT is what people suspect they will end up with once the BBC is neutered. And I think that is fair comment

And if you are a pub owner (catering to your needs in this case) they charge exhorbitant rates ? and this (more than nappy-valley-syndrome) explains the diminishing number of pubs willing to show sports. My brother? last bill was for 12k. And that isn?t a big pub by any means

They are perfectly entitled to do it of course ? but to claim the BBC is stifling or has monopolistic instincts in light of this seems unfair

24 hour rolling news? A plague on society in my view ? regardless of the carrier. When something genuinely groundbreaking happens (very rare) then maybe ? but they (24 hour channels, not Sky) have devalued TV news as a product and now I don?t watch any of them

[????]

You and Danny Baker (and me as it happens), but my dear old mum loves it. Anyway I'll get back later re qs.

[woodrot]

the particular ins and outs of this this case aside, castration of the BBC would be a sad day for teh UK.

I am Far from being a conspiracy theory advocate,but the present ruling incumbent lot really have hit the jackpot for an opportunity to make structural changes on a massive scale - not just the BBC either.I would suggest that this opportunity goes far beyond what the Thatcher government was able to muster during their time.

The Bankers & SaVILE have broken Britian.

[Ted Max]

FFS, the Beeb. Please see below for how news orgs with innovative business models and clear lines of command act when they are rightly accused of shit behaviour.

Tap the phones of key MPs accusing you. Hire PIs to follow your accusers and dish up shit on them. Buy off the police that are investigating you. Sit and say nothing while one patsy "rogue reporter" goes to jail. Then rehire the rogue reporter on contract. Delete millions of emails and then deny you have. Perjure yourself as a result. Make retaining your stricken CEO your "only priority". When she resigns, give her millions. Only when all this has failed (and it will be years) do you sacrifice your brand, putting hundreds out of work. Then you relaunch it a few months later with a positively adjusted operational margin.

That's your shareholder accountability, right there.

[????]

I was waiting for that bit of obvious bile Ted......That's news International Ted not Sky, which is only 50% owned by Murdoch. That's not what this debate is about.

And letting a very dodgy TV presenter (and his mates) carry on fronting kids programmes whilst aware of 'rumours' for years aint that ethical....at all but it's ok it's the well meaning beeb

Move on from hatred into some fact.....

[Huguenot]

Haha.

I was howling at the moon - and at anyone who wants to turn an editorial error of judgement into a full fledged enquiry into the BBC. ;-)

This image gives a very clear idea of how many senior managers had been suspended over the Savile case, which lead to a complete breakdown in the deciion making chain.

The one thing that's clear is that there wasn't some sort of hypothetical over managed bureaucracy.