Posted on 04/25/2005 5:29:31 AM PDT by Republican Red
THE BBC, AGAIN [Andrew Stuttaford]
Britain’s state broadcaster is, yet again, showing its true colours:
”The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging general election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader. The Tories have made an official protest after the hecklers, who were given the microphones by producers, were caught at a party event in the North West last week. Guy Black, the party's head of communications, wrote in a letter to Helen Boaden, the BBC's director of news, that the hecklers began shouting slogans that were "distracting and clearly hostile to the Conservative Party". These included "Michael Howard is a liar", "You can't trust the Tories" and "You can only trust Tony Blair". Mr Black's strongly-worded letter accused the BBC of staging the event "to generate a false news story and dramatise coverage. . . intended to embarrass or ridicule the leader of the Conservative Party". The letter said that BBC staff were guilty of "serious misconduct". At least one of the hecklers was seen again at a Tory event in the North East, Mr Black added. Last night, the BBC claimed that the exercise was part of a "completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling" and said that other parties' meetings were being "observed". However, The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.”
Painfully predictable stuff, made even more painful that taxpayers are picking up the tab.
It’s worth remembering that displays of such bias are, relatively speaking, much more important in the UK than in the US. Free speech restrictions in Britain (they make McCain-Feingold-Bush look like a hymn of praise to the First Amendment) mean that there are fewer sources of alternative information out there for voters, and the BBC has, therefore, a disproportionate influence.
"Free speech restrictions in Britain (they make McCain-Feingold-Bush look like a hymn of praise to the First Amendment) mean that there are fewer sources of alternative information out there for voters"
I'm slightly interested in what specifically is meant by 'free speech restrictions'.
Nothing more to say on the other stuff, this has been posted at least 4 times already...
What restrictions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.