A group of well thought out articles which helps to expose the hidden agenda of all mainstream organisations who do not like negative publicity. The fact that in itself it can show the openness of an organization and show how it wants to portray their ability to take negativeness and make it a strength is missed by most.
They are all about the three year stats that is all they will be there for and not think longer term.
Long live articles like yours as it exposes the natures wrongs.
Thank you for your thoughts ,,, msm is still the way ahead, although now we are hamstrung - particularly in the UK - by draconian laws and barriers which silence us, it really is a publish-and-be-damned world today in the media ... but it is more than negativity at the BBC, there is a definite air of arrogance there and a cover-up mentality not found in newspapers and tv ...
Yes, but there's a big problem. Jim'll Fix It was the one "decent" thing on the telly (after 23.5 minutes of Dr Who) on a Saturday night of my childhood years. He certainly was an entertainer. Jim also volunteered at a hospital, ran loadsa marathons to raise money for charity, wore tracksuits and was allowed to smoke cigars on TV (how "cool" was that), and kids appeared to be in love with him. How many complaints did Mary Whitehouse's National Viewers and Listeners Association lodge with the BBC via newspaper letters columns about Saville raping girls? I don't recall anything like that. She did complain about Dr Who frightening kids, despite the fact Dr Who never even touched kids. If you'd have gone to PC John Bull, you'd be the one charged (if anyone was charged) - with wasting police time. Like Hitler, Saville had supporters in his lifetime and he controlled the media via threats of legal action for libel. You have to accept that this is not a one-off problem of the past. It is something that the legal system and the "celebrity" obsession repeatedly produces. His supporters were those he in turn supported, the BBC producers of his shows, the journalists who he gave promotional interviews to, etc. They may have known, but they didn't publish evidence to expose him.
Absolutely ... that is really what I was saying, the rot is there and the BBC should be taken to task. The BBCs obstinacy over so many things, including that statue, is not only elitest, pompous, middle of the road and as strong as a polluted breeze, it's credibility is on the ropes.
A group of well thought out articles which helps to expose the hidden agenda of all mainstream organisations who do not like negative publicity. The fact that in itself it can show the openness of an organization and show how it wants to portray their ability to take negativeness and make it a strength is missed by most.
They are all about the three year stats that is all they will be there for and not think longer term.
Long live articles like yours as it exposes the natures wrongs.
Thank you for your thoughts ,,, msm is still the way ahead, although now we are hamstrung - particularly in the UK - by draconian laws and barriers which silence us, it really is a publish-and-be-damned world today in the media ... but it is more than negativity at the BBC, there is a definite air of arrogance there and a cover-up mentality not found in newspapers and tv ...
Yes, but there's a big problem. Jim'll Fix It was the one "decent" thing on the telly (after 23.5 minutes of Dr Who) on a Saturday night of my childhood years. He certainly was an entertainer. Jim also volunteered at a hospital, ran loadsa marathons to raise money for charity, wore tracksuits and was allowed to smoke cigars on TV (how "cool" was that), and kids appeared to be in love with him. How many complaints did Mary Whitehouse's National Viewers and Listeners Association lodge with the BBC via newspaper letters columns about Saville raping girls? I don't recall anything like that. She did complain about Dr Who frightening kids, despite the fact Dr Who never even touched kids. If you'd have gone to PC John Bull, you'd be the one charged (if anyone was charged) - with wasting police time. Like Hitler, Saville had supporters in his lifetime and he controlled the media via threats of legal action for libel. You have to accept that this is not a one-off problem of the past. It is something that the legal system and the "celebrity" obsession repeatedly produces. His supporters were those he in turn supported, the BBC producers of his shows, the journalists who he gave promotional interviews to, etc. They may have known, but they didn't publish evidence to expose him.
Absolutely ... that is really what I was saying, the rot is there and the BBC should be taken to task. The BBCs obstinacy over so many things, including that statue, is not only elitest, pompous, middle of the road and as strong as a polluted breeze, it's credibility is on the ropes.