The BBC is under pressure to describe the 'cuts' as 'savings'. Heaven knows what it is to do about 'budget increases said to be insufficient in real terms'
The Daily Mail ? and its High Priest Littlejohn ? have been banging away at the same theme for months now. Why should the BBC keep going on about "the cuts'' when one person's "cut" is another person's tax burden marginally lifted? Where's the fairness and balance in all that? If you only report the sharp end of pain and never reflect the more general gain, then the reporting stance comes across loaded. No wonder Cameron keeps talking about the British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation.
So what happens when, every once in a while (on its London news, for instance) the BBC refers to "the savings" instead? Enter Labour spin doctors complaining about bias. Heaven knows what they think of "efficiencies" and similar circumlocutions. But by joining the fray, they make the Mail's point for it. You can, perhaps, say that the Ministry of Defence's budget has been cut, if it's taken a walloping hit. But what if the NHS budget has actually been maintained (but not grown enough to meet all demands)? Is that a cut, or a saving, or a terminological minefield?
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/13/bbc-cuts-savings-daily-mail
Henry Kissinger Dennis Kucinich Nelson Mandela Paul Martin John McCain
No comments:
Post a Comment