Despite a promise to update their website every night until April 29th with videos of the various pre-election Party political broadcasts. It seems that the BBC decided to skip the BNP broadcast on Monday 21st. Instead they have skipped from the Conservative broadcast on Friday to Tuesday's dire little offering from the Left List.
If this is an oversight, then I am sure that the BBC are rushing to correct it, if it is not, then it is not only deliberate political censorship, but it is also a breach of the BBC's charter which requires them to to maintain a stance of political neutrality, especially during election time.
It seems that, although they were obliged to broadcast it, the same does not apply to their website, or does it?
If this sort of censorship was occurring in Belarus or Zimbabwe, the BBC themselves would be rightly outraged (or at least pretend to be) however, they appear happy to use Mugabe style tactics in respect of a political party they do not like.
For those wishing to view the broadcast it is available both here and on the BNP Website.
If there are any developments I may post further on this matter later in the day.
UPDATE
Well, it is now after 03:00 pm and the BNP broadcast has still not been added to the list of party political broadcasts. Although the BNP broadcast is on the BBC website, (somewhere) by not including it on the list, it is almost impossible to find. Does anyone doubt that this is deliberate?
If anyone wants to complain, here is a link to the BBC complaints page, or cut and paste the following into your browser:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml
by Sarah Maid of Albion
THE BBC IS JUST A TOOL OF THIS GOVERNMENT PUSHING OUT STATE INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED FOR CONTINUED BRAINWASHING OF THE MASSES.
ReplyDeleteTHOUSANDS OF POUNDS IS SPENT BY THE BEEB KEEPING THEIR SECRET AGENDA JUST THAT, PAID BY US TO BUY OFF ANY REAL CRTICS!
HOW TO UPSET THE BBC E-MAIL ASKING THEM TO RELEASE THE BALAN REPORT!!
ANTI BNP IS JUST ANTI BRITISH.
BBC mounts court fight to
keep 'critical' report secret
By Chris Hastings and Beth Jones
Last Updated: 12:16am BST 15/10/2006
The BBC has spent thousands of pounds of licence payers' money trying to block the release of a report which is believed to be highly critical of its Middle East coverage.
The corporation is mounting a landmark High Court action to prevent the release of The Balen Report under the Freedom of Information Act, despite the fact that BBC reporters often use the Act to pursue their journalism.
The action will increase suspicions that the report, which is believed to run to 20,000 words, includes evidence of anti-Israeli bias in news programming.
advertisement
The court case will have far reaching implications for the future working of the Act and the BBC. If the corporation loses, it will have to release thousands of pages of other documents that have been held back.
Like all public bodies, the BBC is obliged to release information about itself under the Act. However, along with Channel 4, Britain's other public service broadcaster, it is allowed to hold back material that deals with the production of its art, entertainment and journalism.
The High Court action is the latest stage of a lengthy and expensive battle by Steven Sugar, a lawyer, to get access to the document, which was compiled by Malcolm Balen, a senior editorial adviser, in 2004.
Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for the workings of the Act, agreed with the BBC that the document, which examines hundreds of hours of its radio and television broadcasts, could be held back. However, Mr Sugar appealed and, after a two-day hearing at which the BBC was represented by two barristers, the Information Tribunal found in his favour.
Mr Sugar said: "This is a serious report about a serious issue and has been compiled with public money. I lodged the request because I was concerned that the BBC's reporting of the second intifada was seriously unbalanced against Israel, but I think there are other issues at stake now in the light of the BBC's reaction."
The BBC's coverage of the Middle East has been frequently condemned for a perceived anti-Israeli bias.
In 2004, for example, Barbara Plett, a Middle East correspondent, was criticised for revealing in an episode of Radio 4's From Our Own Correspondent that she had been moved to tears by the plight of the dying Yasser Arafat. MPs said it proved that the corporation was incapable of presenting a balanced account of issues in the Middle East.
Figures released by the Information Commissioner's Office show that there have been 105 complaints about the BBC's attitude to the Act since it came into force in January 2005. Only four of these have been dismissed and the rest are being examined. The BBC has lodged at least 25 complaints about the way other organisations have dealt with its requests.
The BBC declined to say how much it was spending on the High Court action. "We will be appealing the decision of the Information Tribunal," a spokesman said. "This case has wider implications relating to the way the Act applies to public broadcasters."
LATEST FIGURE EST IS £250.000 OF OUR MONEY!
Wow! You are absolutely right, I have just been to the site and although every other one is there, the BNP's isn't.
ReplyDeleteThat is an apalling example of political censorship, which should not happen in a democracy. The BBC is funded by the tax-payer, including BNP supporters.
I am not a BNP voter mself, but I still finf that shocking, and rather frightening.
The complaint form returns a 'thank you, we aim to respond within ten working days' by which time it will be too late.
ReplyDeleteIs anyone at BNPHQ making a stink about this ?
I felt an email to the Minister for Culture Media and Sport was also worth a shot. Unfortunately their response says THEY aim to get back to you within 20 working days.
ReplyDeleteHow typical, as you say, by the time either respond it will be too late (how convenient!)
ReplyDeleteI don't personally have any contacts at the BNP, so I don't know if they are even aware of this, unless they have read this blog.
In the BBC Have Your Say section there is: London Mayoral election: Your views, where I have queried the absence of the BNP broadcast from the London Election Broadcasts page. I wonder if or when the BBC will publish this comment.
ReplyDeleteCensorship? Yes, here in Wigan too. Here's a copy of an email I just sent to the main BNP site:
ReplyDelete" Sirs
We need maximum publicity.
Please go to the link below, read it, read the advert that our local papers refused to publish. We are right in the middle of the local election campaign. We have seven candidates competing for election. Are you able to work out what in this advert is so outrageous that publication is refused?
Here is why this culture is almost dead - those of us with a spark of life left in us are being smothered in the name of ... whatever.
The advert was created mostly by the very angry man (a retired general practitioner - hardly Nazi material) who posts as Lanky Patriot, which might explain a little of the occasional incoherence. I am the partner on that weblog, who posts there and elsewhere as Sir Henry Morgan (the name at the bottom of the advert may surprise you), and had a little input into the ad. People like us are just battering ourselves up against a brick wall.
Here is the post containing the ad (click on it for the full size). If you can make something of our difficulties (National Press?), please help yourself.
http://wiganbnp.blogspot.com/2008/04/attack-on-free-speech.html
We have already paid them a little over £1,000 to run the ad as two full pages, one each in two of their publications. No doubt we'll get our money back, but we would rather have run the ads.
Help (publicity) gratefully received.
And if you could track down any political (or Common Purpose) connections with the editor of The Wigan Observer, Wigan Reporter, Wigan Evening Post we would be most grateful.
Compare this to the relative integrity of the Hampstead and Highgate Times (Times?). I am not sure, but I believe that paper and the Wigan papers are from the same publishing group (Johnston Press ?). If that is so, then this must be a purely local decision, hence request for info on political etc. connections to the editor.
Henry Morgan