How can the BBC, still a public body funded by us, expect the public to believe their sincerity when they issue a report which has been so heavily redacted. If what has been said could have legal consequences then it should not have been in the report. This vast amount of black pen just gives the impression that they are covering something up.
I may be wrong but Chris Patten gives me the creeps. Whenever something goes wrong with the BBC then Lord Patten is somewhere to be seen. He had been leading this public company every time they have been held to account for bias in their reporting. I seem to remember that Chris Patten was once a Conservative MP but his actions and beliefs always appear to be socialist in nature.
The public are tired of being denied the truth. Redaction is the modern term for concealing the truth. Public reports should not be redacted. If they want to conceal the truth don't write it in the first place!
2 comments:
Bryboy
Sorry can't agree. If it is a public report, then let the public see it, after all we are all grown up now. What could possibly so upsetting for us not to see.
Or is it the usual BBC cover-up....Hmmmm.
Hello NBC, I must have worded something badly because we are basically in agreement. Why publish a report and then redact all the juicy bits. It is almost a demonstration of power Soviet style!
Post a Comment