Andrew Gilligan, the "journalist" most immediately responsible for the BBC scandal, is out of a job. Gotta break out my nanotechnology violin ;-)
UPDATE: Journalist and blogger Jeff Jarvis minces no words (see also here). And Belmont Club wonders why the BBC continued to stick to its guns after it had become evident that the British govenment was prepared to fight to the death. His conclusion, in a way, is even more damning than anything said by the BBC's worst detractors. Stephen Pollard comes to a similar conclusion.
And once again: if the Biased Bolshevik Commissars were plying their trade on a free market and there were an audience for their views, I would support their right to say what they have to say even as I would fight tooth and nail for the opposite point of view. What I abominate is an organization funded by a bloated regressive tax (currently about US$180/year) --- compulsory on every TV owner in Britain on pains of imprisonment --- churning out anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-Arab, and generally transoc (transnational oligarchic collectivist) propaganda while hiding behind a shield of 'objectivity' all the time. (Not to mention the damage done by the even more partisan BBC Arabic language service.)
And don't get me wrong: if the BBC staff were replaced overnight by that of Fox News or the Wall Street Journal, it would but be a matter of time before you would have a similar problem from a different political angle. Unaccountable organizations with ideological monocultures, who only recruit people like themselves, unfailingly will start becoming incapable of believing any fact that contradicts their preconceptions.
Comments