Not going ahead with a report is not "suppressing evidence". A police expert had examined all the evidence, and the victim herself could contact anyone else she wanted. So how did Newsnight "Suppress" anything?
They had a story based on the word of one victim willing to go public and nothing else. No corroborating evidence, no witnesses, no physical evidence. And a police investigation into the exact same behaviour that had also found no evidence.
The BBC was criticised by Hutton for running a story without proof. Here they are being criticised for demanding that proof (the forged letter from the police that one victim said she had) and not airing the report when that evidence could not be produced. The editor gave them a week to get it. They didn't. So he cancelled the report.
They don't even control the terrestrial transmitters, or the Sky platform, or the EPG. Financially they are dwarfed by Sky who can out spend the BBC on anything they want because the have a couple of billion pounds more income each year, and who are partnered with the worlds biggest newspaper publisher that dominates the UK newspaper market with The Sun and The Times.
BBC do not "control" the news media. They don't have any newspapers and the only reason BBC News channel is so popular is because most people choose to watch it over Sky News. ITN, CNN etc.
Just how can they "drown out" Sky News, ITN, CNN etc?
On my EPG they are alongside each other and I can freely pick whichever one I choose to watch. How does their funding force me to pick BBC News?
Sky have far more money than the BBC, and that's not including their sister company News Int with its newspapers (which frequently cross-promote Sky channels)
Sky can out spend the BBC in any area they choose. Maybe you haven't noticed all the sports rights they have... :rolleyes:
The only reason BBC have such good viewing figures is because viewers choose to watch them.
In any discussion of TV news market share, ALL the news channels are almost totally irrelevant.
The overwhelming majority of TV news viewing is viewing of the main bulletins on the "main" terrestrial channels - primarily BBC1 and ITV1.
Unless anybody else manages to run "general mainstream" channels with anything like BBC1 / ITV1's viewing share then the current situation re TV news viewing shares will remain broadly the same.
I think the BBC beats ITV in news viewing share primarily because people prefer BBC news though BBC1's higher overall viewing share is also of some (limited) advantage.
Sky obviously does have some general entertainment channels but this is not Sky's prime area of focus. Sky could invest much more in this area but chooses not to presumably as it wouldn't be profitable to do so (I know they are investing a bit more but it's not remotely in the league of BBC1 / ITV1). Of course at the moment Sky doesn't put news on the likes of Sky 1 but in theory that could change though it's completely hypothetical to the issue anyway because of the previous point.
again, i don't think "suppressing" is quite the right word, but the concept that the BBC had the necessary material to begin an internal investigation then, rather than now, is correct.
if they had done that then, rather than now, it would have caused the Police to re-open matters sooner rather than later. so in that sense, it is progress on the case that was suppressed, rather than evidence.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9630811/Chris-Patten-personifies-everything-that-is-wrong-with-the-BBC-elite.html
"The Savile Three" - and that - in a nutshell - is what is wrong with biased journalism.
Not going ahead with a report is not "suppressing evidence". A police expert had examined all the evidence, and the victim herself could contact anyone else she wanted. So how did Newsnight "Suppress" anything?
They had a story based on the word of one victim willing to go public and nothing else. No corroborating evidence, no witnesses, no physical evidence. And a police investigation into the exact same behaviour that had also found no evidence.
The BBC was criticised by Hutton for running a story without proof. Here they are being criticised for demanding that proof (the forged letter from the police that one victim said she had) and not airing the report when that evidence could not be produced. The editor gave them a week to get it. They didn't. So he cancelled the report.
That is not "suppressing" evidence.
Very good post, at last a bit of reality
In any discussion of TV news market share, ALL the news channels are almost totally irrelevant.
The overwhelming majority of TV news viewing is viewing of the main bulletins on the "main" terrestrial channels - primarily BBC1 and ITV1.
Unless anybody else manages to run "general mainstream" channels with anything like BBC1 / ITV1's viewing share then the current situation re TV news viewing shares will remain broadly the same.
I think the BBC beats ITV in news viewing share primarily because people prefer BBC news though BBC1's higher overall viewing share is also of some (limited) advantage.
Sky obviously does have some general entertainment channels but this is not Sky's prime area of focus. Sky could invest much more in this area but chooses not to presumably as it wouldn't be profitable to do so (I know they are investing a bit more but it's not remotely in the league of BBC1 / ITV1). Of course at the moment Sky doesn't put news on the likes of Sky 1 but in theory that could change though it's completely hypothetical to the issue anyway because of the previous point.
i can understand why he calls them that - it is explained in the article.
however, he is somewhat harsh on Lord Patten. it seems obvious that the issue is that he has "gone native".
again, i don't think "suppressing" is quite the right word, but the concept that the BBC had the necessary material to begin an internal investigation then, rather than now, is correct.
if they had done that then, rather than now, it would have caused the Police to re-open matters sooner rather than later. so in that sense, it is progress on the case that was suppressed, rather than evidence.
I don't think he's being dispassionate here.
I almost agree you there!:)