Monday, 29 November 2010

BBC, the Caeser's Wife

The Portuguese have a saying, reporting to the Roman times, that “Caeser’s wife mustn’t only be faithful, she must also appear to be faithful”.

Pardon the Portuguese for having translated “séria” into “faithful”, as it could have many other interpretations,

 I chose this one, because, as you know, I’m perverse.

This saying is to tell all of us, that appearances do matter, and credibility is made up of many things for one to appear credible.

It’s easy to pretend that one is credible, when one is, and one can always pretend credibility when one is not.

What one cannot do is not to give a care about the image one projects and then, demand that others perceive otherwise than the message sent.

This saying is applicable to the British Media.

If the tabloids one would hesitate between slavery and freedmen, there are some "serious" media which one would also hesitate where to rank it.

Their Roman citizenship is unquestionable, the problem resides to classify some between being just citizens, or a if the title of Senator is the adequate.

Will not refer names, but if we had to name royalty in this “society” I think BBC would stand out as the ruler, for its credibility, its status, its highly commendable work in WWII.

After all it was the voice of a Nation in its noblest of moments.

This was received by a reader, from BBC, after having complained:  

"Thanks for contacting the BBC regarding ‘East Midlands Today’

I’m sorry to read from your email that you were unhappy with some of the content which featured in this programme. I understand you felt the McCann family were given a platform to voice their opinions while Goncalo Amaral wasn’t there to offer a response

It is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes.  

The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. 

Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting

Account also needs to be taken of the way a subject is covered over a period of time; perfect balance is difficult to achieve on every single occasion while overall it is a more achievable goal. 

We’re guided by the feedback that we receive and to that end I'd like to assure you that I've registered your complaint on our audience log. 

This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers. 

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content. 

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us." 

BBC, may I remind you that we’re still waiting like for you to release for public use the footage of the “Amaral F-word slander”, as you most certainly do not wish to denigrate Gonçalo Amaral, nor side with the McCanns by promoting their version of what happened to their daughter, all in the sake of confirming your confidentiality the impartiality of the BBC's reporting.

We fully understand that in an isolated occurrence it’s sometimes difficult to achieve perfect balance, however, unless you know something we don’t, which is likely, it’s not understandable where the difficulty resides in this particular one, so please do allow the testing of all views rigorously and fairly.

Thank you, and will remain patiently waiting.

It's up to you how long and how many times you wish to be reminded of this.


  1. Caesar's wife was a legitimate spouse. The BBC has lost all credibility through their one sided reporting of this whole thing. I for one, doubt everything that is now reported by them about everything. Although, yes, there is indeed heavy snow fall round here!!

  2. The BBC has proved to be about a reporters's performance, nothing to do with facts. Simon Hare was not honest and used his 15 minutes for his own ends and obviously had no intention of portraying the Madeleine Foundation as they really are. The balanced view ended up in the cuttings bin.

    We HAVE to pay a license fee to the BBC! Then they abuse our money by giving us this bias!

    The BBC are treating their revenue stream very badly and as we pay them are we entitled to ask for redress?

    BBC needs to make another programme to balance their biased reporting...I would be prepared to pay a subscription on top of my license fee to finance it.

  3. Ah, the good old days of WW2's BBC...a beacon of hope for all those under the nazy boot and not only! In Salazar's Portugal it was the only source of uncensored or spinned news.
    Today's BBC...pff...
    The dear late Fernando Pessa would not recognize "his" BBC, he would be deeply disgusted and disappointed! A good thing he's no longer here to see the decadence.

  4. BBC is the example how politicians, rich moguls, and the remainder powerful have yet to understand this phenomenon that is the internet. It doesn't make "official" news yet, but is avoiding them doing things as easily as they did.

  5. The use of Mercury, messenger of the Roman gods, for this post is just brilliant!

  6. Was the behaviour of the British Media, what damage more the image and he credibility of the Mccann's. Their shameful support just raise doubts and open the eyes of the public to see what was not written in their articles, what they are so hardly preventing the public to see and know.
    In a global world, "a buterfly that shakes is wings in Pekin could make a building to fall in New York". That means, the British papers that so kindly played a desinformation in UK soil, forgot the internet and the serious source of accurate information that Internet is. Blogs and Sites can travel in seconds from one laptop into trillions of others, around the world.
    The public was not anymore, a pile of closed ears and mouths with 90% of analphabets. The public did not think at one voice. The British Media and the Mccann's still living on the fifteen century and trying hard to have a public "thinking in one voice". The actual BBC has an agenda far away from the WW2.
    If at the beginning of the Maddie case I was thinking that was the audience and the number of papers sold per day, what move the Media, including the british Media... Now,related with some British Media, I revised my mind. And I revised my mind also in the subject of the crime involving Madeleine. I don't understant why a fortuit domestic accident could be treated as a State case, and why the parents got a so shameful support of the British papers, for so long. Something more serious should be behind. Something involving People with power in the British society. Cannot be only a great sympathy with parents, what move all that papers.
    For me, are groing the evidences that lead the crime to a case of extended Paedophilia involving people connected with different and powerful positions in UK. The editors are playing a dirty game to prevent a child to achieve justice and to try to desinform the British public. Imagine the Scandall, if a ring of Paedos was discovered behind madeleine case. Will be more disastrous then Casa Pia in portugal.
    Unfortunnatly, the most relevant cases of paedophilia in our time, have politic, Media, showbusiness, economy and religion involved. Belgium, the Catholic church and Casa Pia were only few examples of that. If something like that was revelead in UK, will be a huge scandall and alot of heads will rol off from powerful places.
    Was it just a coincidence that Madeleine case and the Case in jersey Island, FADE after the dogs went in and important evidences were find? Hard to believe, but I'm also perverted and not a buyer of the British desinformed papers.
    Why Mr. Brown, a very active guy and one of the latest Prime Ministers that lost his position in one of the most strong countrys in Europe, did not got a offer of a job in European community or in the United Nations? I believe, will be not hard to find something that he can do there. Answer me MR. Mitchell.

  7. I suspect we all got the same response to our complaints.It did not address the specific issue which I complained about; which was the programme outline, describing Goncalo Amaral as a "discredited detective". They studiously avoided any reference to these 2 important words.Discredited by the mcCanns maybe, but by who else?

  8. One thing we can feel pleased about is when the McCanns come to trial then will not be able to claim the media gave them unfair press so they will not get a fair trial.

    The opposite is true, they have been given a stage to act out their version of events as poor, grieving parents of an 'abducted' child.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.