Well are you going to face up to the consequences of your mistakes (for eg your credibility?) or are you going to act like like, er, the BBC and not admit that they have any?

Other than admit his mistake – which Dale did 7 hours before Lulu posted – what consequences does she imagine should follow?

And if she failed to notice the post immediately before hers – what consequences should follow her mistake?

Only those who wish to appear infallible need fear it.

I lay no claim to the Papacy.

Biased BBC, Example 2: This morning I woke up early and listened to more than an hour of the BBC World Service. In that time, I heard a report on the Iraqi intelligence failure that quoted two Bush opponents and no supporters, an interview with George Soros, who is spending millions to drive Bush from office, an interview with Robert McNamara, who recently helped with a movie that, thought the BBC interviewer, showed parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, a report on the GDP growth in the fourth quarter that suggested that 4 percent growth in the fourth quarter was disappointing, and a sneering reference to Bush’s intent to find out the facts about any intelligence failure. I know the speaker was sneering because in this article, the BBC uses the old trick of sneer quotes to discredit Bush in the headline. The president is not searching for facts, but for “facts”. And the BBC is not a news organization, but a “news organization”, in my opinion

In none of these segments did the BBC quote anyone with a favorable opinion of President Bush. In fact, there was not a favorable sentence about Bush in the entire time I listened. I don’t know what rules journalists usually follow in Britain, but, in the United States, most think that telling both sides of a story is essential.

The BBC omitted, perhaps from ignorance, perhaps from bias, some essential information on one of the people they quoted at length on the WMD intelligence controversy, Senator Bob Graham of Florida. It is true, as they said, that he has been a chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee. It is also true, as they did not say, that he is a Democrat and had been running against President Bush, until he left the race.
- 7:02 AM, 31 January 2004 [link]

Thank God you’re a blogger and not someone any of the rest of might might ever need to rely upon eg an ITN or for that matter, BBC journalist.

Save your integrity.

Jeremy Dear of the National Union of Journalists claimed the Government was trying
to intimidate the broadcaster and produce “a Pravda-style BBC.

Channel 4 have a habit of broadcasting these preposterous propaganda bullshit fests – see also Dispatches: Killing Zone.

ITV, on the other hand, rarely broadcasts anything that’s worth being outraged about, as it’s full of wall to wall dross.

Even the footage was sanitised to spare our fresh, innocent eyes from the nasty-wasty aspects of the war-war.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069054/posts

“Dyke and BBC chairman Gavyn Davies, the broadcaster’s two top officials, quit and the BBC apologized to the government after the report was issued.

Staff have expressed strong support for Dyke, and hundreds rallied outside BBC offices around the country when he announced his resignation.

More than four thousand BBC workers’ names were listed in tiny print in a full-page Daily Telegraph ad backing Dyke Saturday, and the ad said more names would have been listed if there was more space.

“Greg Dyke stood for brave, independent and rigorous BBC journalism that was fearless in its search for truth,” the ad said. “We are dismayed by Greg’s departure but we are determined to maintain his achievements and his vision for an independent organization that serves the public above all else.”

BBC employees, anchors, reporters and contributors paid for the ad personally, it said.

Some journalists have warned Hutton’s conclusions could impede tough investigative reporting. “

The BBC, a government funded a cult, not a news organization.