3 ms·
I notice that your comment has been downvoted, so lest you think so, it is not me. I followed your links, and what I found is this: A media corporation refuses
by srean 16y ago
I notice that your comment has been downvoted, so lest you think so, it is not me. I followed your links, and what I found is this: A media corporation refuses to disclose a report on an internal investigation on how it conducts its affairs. Yes, it bothers me that a public service body is stonewalling about an internal report. But when I transfer the setup to US say, it is not what I would call, unheard of.
I am certainly willing to concede, that it is not transparent, but isnt calling them to possess a "well-known" anti-Israel bias exaggerated ?
- endtime 16y agoWell, I was trying to err on the side of caution with my sources, and I may have overdone it. There are more direct articles but from less reputable sources, like this one [1]. I don't know how to justify that something is well-known; Bing has 12 million hits for "bbc anti-israel" (without quotes), if that helps. BTW, the BBC is a public organization, not a private corporation. It's estimated that they spent 200,000 pounds to keep the report from being disclosed. I don't know why they'd spend that kind of money to hide a report that didn't reveal bias - though I'm open to alternative explanations. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451138/Report-BBCs-anti-Israel-bias-stay-secret.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451138/Report-BBCs-a...