Here are two short excerpts from my interview with Richard Sambrook last night. Richard is Director of Global News & the World Service. In the first snippet (2 mins) I ask him about the BBC's refusal to discuss the point's raised in Robin Aitken's book CAN WE TRUST THE BBC?
At the time of the Hutton Inquiry, Richard Sambrook was Head of News at the BBC. In this clip (2 mins 20)I ask him about his role at the time and the fallout for the BBC.
If you'd like to see the full interview (40 mins), click HERE. Richards' blog, Sacred Facts, is HERE.
9 comments:
I think that the beeb should sort something out in terms of a spot for Robin and his claims.
The BBC is a lot better (fairer, in particular) at covering itself than any other broadcasting organisation that I can think of and in that vein, getting Robin on to make and defend his claims is entirely appropriate, I think.
It is wholly inadequate for Richard Sambrook to dismiss Robin Aitken’s book with the glib phrase “I don’t agree with it” when he hasn’t even read it. Aitken has made a detailed and trenchant analysis which demands a detailed and considered response. Last night, Sambrook just perfectly illustrated the problem once again.
I watched the interview last night on 18DS. Was very amusing. Did I imagine the bit where Sambrook said that he did not resign re the Gilligan / Hutton controversy because "somebody called me from the government and told me I didnt have to resign".
Surely gold-dust to the BBC-haters / baiters.
Sambrook also seemed evasive on the Aitken book - it came across that it had received no BBC coverage because the beeb does not like it.
btw I adore 18DS. I remember when the BBC used to play the National Anthem at the end of programming - vn touch for you to do so!
I think we should wait til after the May elections before we can proclaim BBC as being better or fairer. The last time Labour got slaughtered in the local elections the BBC and its aparachiks spent the entire night telling everyone what a great night Labour was having in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
As to Richard Sambrook, he's got awfully old and bald and fat. He's turned into just the sort of person who should be purged from the newsroom - a strategy he would have approved and encouraged 20 years ago. He must be otherwise unemployable or else he wouldn't still be there.
Actually lawrence boyce, he said "we dont agree with him", and he prefaced his remarks by saying "i anticipated that one (question)".
So what Sambrook actually said on air was:
1. Robin Aitken's book is newsworthy.
2. The BBC have an opinion on it to which they do not subscribe.
So the publically funded BBC which is required by its Charter to "do all we can to treat controversial subjects with "due accuracy and impartiality"", presumes that this is compatible with holding corporate opinions on any matter whatsoever other than "public policy on broadcasting", and entitles it to censor those with whom it disagrees even if their opinions are newsworthy.
Of course we all know what the BBC believes on a variety of issues because they constantly give the game away by consistently censoring, filtering, and going to inordinate lengths to 'expose' those individuals and organisations which they regard as in opposition to their utopian world-view (call it marxist for brevity and accuracy).
It strikes me that Richard Sambrook is a decent bloke, but his failure to notice that the BBC is made by Guardian readers for Guardian readers shows that the BBC is doomed. It is no more capable of reforming itself than Ceauşescu. We create their wealth [if brains were dynamite most would not have enough to rearrange a toupee] and in return they despise us and give us their sermons about correct thought.
Who regulates the BBC? Where can someone lodge a complaint?
Dave, I think the lesson of Aitken’s book is that it’s pretty futile to complain. I don’t pay the licence. I watch Channel 4 and 18 Doughty Street off the web, and DVD’s for entertainment.
I cannot get the piece to load for a second look, but I recall Sambrook saying that he "didn't agree" with Aitken's libellus.
He did not appear concerned in the slightest that criticism from an informed source was deliberately being ignored.
So that's all right then. After all the BBC knows best doesn't it?
Somebody mentioned Ceaucescu. He was totally confused right up until he was riddled with bullets, as to why anyone could even think ill of him.
Perhaps it will take the abolition of the licence fee before these loonies understand what they have done.
Well done Iain, for having him on.
Post a Comment