The Murdochs and British politics

Last night, Sky News reported that The Sun will be supporting the Conservative Party at the forthcoming general election. The Sun's political editor said that Labour have failed the country and are letting people down.

My blog on 31 August criticised Rupert Murdoch and his family, especially James Murdoch's MacTaggart Lecture. Rupert Murdoch was a frequent guest of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and current PM Gordon Brown has refused to divulge his own contacts with Murdoch. Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's press secretary, wrote in his diaries that TB said he didn't fear them [the press] coming at him about me, but about the relationship with Murdoch. And he didn't fancy a sustained set of questions about whether Murdoch lobbied him. ('The Blair Years' p.287)

Lance Price, one-time director of communications for the Labour party, wrote I have never met Mr Murdoch, but at times when I worked at Downing Street he seemed like the 24th member of the cabinet. His voice was rarely heard (but, then, the same could have been said of many of the other 23) but his presence was always felt.

After a careful investigation Ofom concluded in June 2009 that Sky has an effective monopoly, which it was using to unfairly pressure other independent media companies such as Virgin. Ofcom believes there is a need for remedial action. The decision was put out for further discussion - the 3 month period recently ended.

As Polly Toynbee noted: Ofcom's boldness drew an amazed intake of breath from industry players and observers. This is the first time a regulator has seriously challenged Murdoch's market power. Those who stood to gain – BT Vision, Virgin Media, Top Up TV and others — were delighted their protests were so bravely answered. .....The battle is on, since historically Murdoch's empire has stooped to manipulating regulators and avoiding taxes. How has he done that? By leaning hard on politicians, who – knowing only too well his dominant voice in newspapers – are frightened for their lives.

A few days after Ofcom's determination that Sky was acting in an anti-competitive & quasi-monopolistic way David Cameron committed his party to clipping Ofcom's wings ... As Toynbee put it: All Tory and Labour leaders canoodle with the Murdoch apparat with a social desperation that demeans them and their office. This political corruption is rather more alarming than duck islands.

Is there any merit in Sky/News Corporation's fightback against Ofcom's conclusion that it has been abusing its position? Sky says that if Ofcom succeeds in imposing wholesale prices which do not fully reflect the risks and costs in their business, the effect is a tax on Sky to subsidise BT and Virgin Media.. but - talking of tax - it's well known that News Corporation has made use of every discredited trick in the book to avoid paying tax. And Sky's competitors believe they have a strong case.

Was there any merit in James Murdoch's MacTaggart lecture? A modicum, yes: Ofcom's micro-management of broadcasters is on occasion hard to justify, or just plain wrong. And, yes, the BBC is far from perfect, as readers of this blog well know.

Recently politicians of left and right have been lining up to criticise the BBC Trust, for example Ben Bradshaw's sudden realization that it's wrong for the BBC Trust to be both cheerleader and regulator. In an October 2007 consultation about a revised Complaints Framework, the Trust said (page 67) it "would like to publish as many submissions as possible in order to be as open and transparent as possible." Pity it didn't stick to the promise. No responses from individuals were published.

In my submission to the Trust's consultation on children's services (see blog 16 August 2008) I said explicitly that the Trust acts in cahoots with BBC management, because the way that the consultation had been structured was clearly not at all independently minded. The Trust's consultation, for that reason, was risible.

The fact that Newsround & BBC children's TV generally is in such a parlous state is substantially a result of management's ideologically motivated meddling, not helped by BBC Trust's typically craven attitude towards management (see blog 10 May 2009)

However many the BBC's faults - and there are many - this country needs no lectures from the would-be monopolist Murdoch clan. Robust plurality and diversity should be the way forward. Judging from recent opinion polls there will likely be a Conservative government by next summer. Conservatives would be unwise to make the same mistake as Labour by grovelling to the Murdochs and further debasing UK politics. The omens, however, do not look good.
-----
Valuing respect and diversity (part 3) to follow in a few days

Valuing respect and diversity (part 2)

The BBC doesn't only discriminate on grounds of disability. Experienced newsreaders, such as Moira Stuart have been edged out, and recently one of the judges on Strictly Come Dancing, Arlene Phillips (66), was sacked, to be replaced with someone less than half her age, and without an in-depth understanding of the subject. In contrast, the judge who was sacked, Arlene Phillips is a choreographer with loads of experience.

Following its hubristic decision to schedule Strictly against The X Factor, BBC Director-general Mark Thompson hurriedly announced that a more mature female news presenter should be recruited. There's suspicion, in some circles, that his action is desperate 'news management' to counteract the BBC's discomfiture over the Strictly debacle. Incidentally the issue of "BBC employment discrimination" was dealt with by Newsround Blog almost exactly three years ago, on 29 September 2006.

Part 2 of my "BBC employment discrimination" blog on 30 September 2006 pointed out that: In the early days of BBC tv, some children's presenters, like Annette Mills and Johnny Morris were much older than the current presenters. In fact, Annette Mills was over 50 when she started presenting Muffin the Mule on 20 October 1946, and Johnny Morris was still presenting a BBC children's programme when he was nearly 70 years old.

But look at CBBC today. How many of its presenters, if any, are over 30 years old? A clear example of age discrimination. Why is Ed Petrie no longer presenting CBBC? Perhaps, at the age of 31, BBC management considers he is too old for the job.

It appears that age discrimination has also returned to Newsround's feedback pages. Last week I told the communications regulator, Ofcom: The discriminatory policy seemed to have been abandoned early in 2008, but I have reason to suspect that, once again, a similar policy is in operation, acting to limit published responses from 15 year-olds.

Valuing respect and diversity (part 1)

My last blog showed the shabby way deafblind charity Sense was treated by Newsround. On Wednesday I asked Owenna Griffiths, Newsround's editor, about this and am awaiting her reply. It was a great pity as the BBC claims to celebrate diversity.

Recently there have been a lot of questions about how much the BBC really does value diversity. Certainly BBC reporter Gary O'Donoghue knew better than to trust his employer. Gary must have been very upset when, because he is blind, he was passed over to present his scoop on the BBC's flagship 10 O'clock news.

For some reason best known to Newsround's editor, an item about deafblind kids was severely curtailed yesterday. It was originally due to go out on Friday at 5pm, but that was cancelled and a short piece went out yesterday morning.

Sonali: Now to helping kids who are both deaf and blind. As you can imagine it can be difficult to communicate with people, but now a new gadget is making that a lot easier. Leah's got the story.

An interview with Liz Ball from the deafblind charity Sense wasn't screened in Leah's report. Unfortunately Leah concentrated too much on the technology side of things, and not enough with helping to raise deafblind awareness.

A week before, on 15 September 2009, Newsround was telling viewers that they could be prevented from appearing on the programme -

Sonali: Hello there, I'm Sonali. First up to why you could be stopped from having your say on telly. The Government is looking at the rules on when kids can appear on TV shows like Newsround. Right now all we need is your parents' permission, but it might not be as easy as that in the future. Leah's been finding out more.

One of the kids interviewed said "I think that children should be allowed to express their opinions just as much as adults, because they don't know what we're feeling." Another said "I don't think it's very fair because adults always have their say but kids never get a chance."

Leah ended her report telling us that "the Government are still deciding exactly how the law should be changed, and BBC bosses are working with them to make sure you still have your say on TV."

If they're so keen to let kids have a say, perhaps those very same BBC bosses could let us know why:

1) .... in the face of enormous opposition, so many kids' message boards were shut down last year;

2) .... messages from older kids have been secretly filtered out from Newsround's feedback;

3) .... in 2007 the BBC broke its promise for Newsround to participate in Takeover Day, and why they continue to shun the event;

4) .... in recent times there has been no Newsround TV coverage about the UK Youth Parliament.

The UK Youth Parliament is due to convene for the first time ever in the House of Commons chamber late next month.

Takeover Day, this year is on 6th November. If the BBC were to fully participate then kids would have a chance to run Newsround and have a real say in what news is reported, and the way it is presented.

A number of stories have been in the news recently concerning the topic of gender issues, including a sports story and headlines in The Sun about problems for a couple of schoolkids.

Those stories weren't covered by Newsround, but sometimes the programme does include stories which break gender stereotyping.

Yesterday, for example, we saw some builders dancing in tutus, and on Monday Ricky reported on Cuddington & Sandiway Junior Football Club (U12s) who, this season, are wearing pink strip.

Ricky: ".. your eyes aren't deceiving you, these guys play in pink, a colour that's normally reserved for - well as old fashioned as it might sound - (whispered) for girls."

The team coach idea came up with the idea to raise money for Cancer Research

Three years ago, on IDAHO Day (17 May) I blogged:

Why has Newsround failed to report on homophobic bullying and efforts to stamp it out? Why didn't it report the Football Association's work to combat homophobia in the sport or Spurs' initiative to stop homophobic chanting? Why was there no mention of civil partnerships? Why is all LGBT news filtered out? Why is "gay" a four letter word on CBBC message boards? ..

In summer 2007 some LGBT-related messages were allowed on the boards, although this tolerance didn't last. In October 2007 Newsround's website put up this story. Then we went for nearly two more years with not a single LGBT-related item on Newsround.

Last Sunday's edition contained something of a surprise. There was a short report about a celebrity bid to adopt a child from another country. This time, though, it wasn't about Madonna or Brad & Angelina. What was surprising about this particular story was that .... well here is the way it was reported at 14.55 on the CBBC Channel :-

Gavin: "Sir Elton John says he and his partner, David Furnish, want to adopt a toddler from Ukraine. (short film clip) The singer met the 14 month old boy called Lev when he performed at an orphanage."

There have been a few great stories on Newsround recently as well as loads of the usual stuff like sports stories and freaky weather.

One of the most powerful and moving stories came last Thursday. It was about George Higginson, who died after a traffic accident. He was only 10 years old but had told his parents that he wanted to be an organ donor after watching a TV show. A few weeks later a truck collided with his bike and George tragically died the following day. Here is Ricky's report.

Last Friday's Newsround at 5pm began with a story about controversy over a school's lamb called Marcus. Some weeks ago kids in the school council voted to kill the sheep and use the money made to buy other animals. Lydd Primary School's headteacher, Andrea Charman, seemed determined to have Marcus butchered. I imagine quite a lot of Newsround's viewers were upset when, on Monday, the programme reported that Marcus was no more. (Published) feedback to Newsround is almost 90% against killing the lamb.

The Independent quotes Ms Charman: "When we started the farm in spring 2009, the aim was to educate the children in all aspects of farming life and everything that implies."

Newsround really ought to follow up the story and ask the headteacher:

1) Why wasn't the school allowed to see how Marcus was killed?

2) Why didn't the school take up Paul O'Grady's offer to buy Marcus? After all the school could have made a lot more money that way.

More Newsround stories shortly. Watch this space.

Alan Turing (continued)

Susan Watts updated her blog with more about Turing's nephew and nieces thoughts about Alan's life and work.

The Government issued an apology to Alan Turing last night. ... Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can’t put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction. ...

Thanks go to John Graham-Cumming for all the work he put into the petition. BBC News reported the apology and interviewed Dr Sue Black who, like John, is concerned to save Bletchley Park.

Alan Turing (continued)

No sign yet of any Newsround report about Alan Turing, but on Thursday Newsnight included an interesting report by Susan Watts.

The importance of Alan Turing cannot be overstated. I wrote about him in one of my earliest blogs.

So why is he such a significant figure?

Well, he was gay. Now, that fact alone doesn't make him better than anyone else. But importantly, it doesn't make him worse than anyone else either. That message is fundamental to understanding what this blog is all about. Because there are still loads of people in the real world - including people working at the BBC - who think it's not OK to be gay. And there are those, like Jonathan Ross and Chris Moyles, who think it's cool to laugh at, or make fun of gay people.

Yes, Alan Mathison Turing was gay. But unlike many others at the time, he was gay and not ashamed of it. In addition Turing was honest - these days a rare quality in public life.

Alan Turing arrived at Bletchley Park on 4 September 1939, just as Bletchley's population was swelling due to Operation Pied Piper.

In 1941 Turing and three of his colleagues sent a letter to Churchill (pdf) explaining what had already been achieved but at the same time requesting more staff and resources to help with codebreaking. Churchill recognised the importance of their work. He responded with a memo: ACTION THIS DAY - Make sure they have all they want on extreme priority and report to me that this had been done.

It is reckoned that the deciphering work carried out at Bletchley Park helped shorten the war by about two years.
------
Excerpt from Breaking the Code

Alan Turing

Yesterday Newsround reported the 70th anniversary of Operation Pied Piper - the evacuation of children from town and cities in preparation for the outbreak of World War II. I wonder if Newsround, or in fact any BBC Children's TV programme, would ever consider a report about the wartime work done by Alan Turing at Bletchley Park.


Despite being a mathematical genius, whose codebreaking skills greatly helped Britain win the war, I believe the BBC would still prefer to keep its children's audience in the dark about Turing in order to avoid mentioning the homophobic bigotry which led Alan Turing to take his own life in 1954.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong, and perhaps see a Newsround press pack report by someone supporting the recent campaign to universally recognise the importance of his work, and in so doing acknowledge the injustice and prejudice against LGBT people which continues to this day.

Journalistic ethics (part 2)

My last blog began with a reference to Jeremy Paxman, who gave the annual MacTaggart Lecture in 2007.

This year's MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh International Television Festival was given by James Murdoch. Nine years previously, in an Alternative MacTaggart Lecture on media globalisation James had argued that there will eventually be four major language groups - Mandarin Chinese, English, Spanish and Hindi. In 2000 he had said: The last decade of media industry navel-gazing seems to me to have been dominated by two major themes. The first one is that the era of "Big Media" - consolidated, multi-national, multi-service corporate powerhouses - has ushered in a rash of exploitative, lowest common-denominator content that is destroying the cultures in which it is disseminated. The second is that the Internet has changed everything, resulting in new vs. old paranoiac fantasies about every traditional media firm suffering the same fate as Time Warner, that of being gobbled up.

Murdoch's views about the Internet have become a major concern in media circles. In Friday's lecture James went further, saying that Britain has outdated thinking when it comes to broadcasting and the media - we have, as he put it in a trite and well-worn phrase, analogue attitudes in a digital age. His speech was seen as a direct attack on the BBC and its dominant position in the UK, as well as on the media regulator Ofcom. The lecture was the headline item in BBC2's Newsnight programme that evening. It is fairly obvious that Murdoch sees the BBC as potentially thwarting News Corp's UK ambitions to charge for online content.

Murdoch's lecture ended with a rhetorical flourish: people value honest, fearless, and above all independent news coverage that challenges the consensus. There is an inescapable conclusion that we must reach if we are to have a better society. The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.

The trouble with Murdoch's thesis is that it is totally false, as is comprehensively demonstrated by the abject failure of journalism in the United States to stand up to, and scrutinise, big business. Financially powerful corporate interests, for example drug companies and health insurers, by dint of influence on major media players and politicians, have effectively stifled debate on meaningful health care reform. And it's not as if the Murdochs aren't aware of this fact, as Fox is one of the biggest and most pliable outlets when it comes to corporate influence peddling.



This blog is primarily concerned with the failure of the BBC to keep to its own principles on diversity and inclusiveness in the Newsround children's daily news programme. On 28 October 2008 I mentioned last year's California Proposition 8 debate. I said: This is a golden opportunity to acquaint Newsround viewers with the debate, and it might go some way to make up for the dearth of coverage of LGBT issues on BBC children's TV. A few days later an American commentator who works for NBC, Keith Olbermann, delivered a striking and heartfelt polemic against the bigotry represented by Proposition 8:



How could a person expressing such noble views be nobbled by big business? The answer is the ownership of media companies by big corporations such as News Corp and General Electric. One of Olbermann's favoured bugbears was a Fox commentator called Bill O'Reilly and associated journalistic malpractice by the Fox news channel. O'Reilly was, by the way, one of the instigators of the kerfuffle (blog 25 June 2008) about the Heinz Deli Mayo advert in the UK.

Fox News and their O'Reilly fought back by attacking NBC's owners General Electric - over its supposed business involvements in Iran. Olbermann's withering criticism was obviously hurting them. The collateral damage became too much for GE, so Olbermann was effectively muzzled by a deal between Rupert Murdoch at Fox and GE, exposed later by Brian Stelter from the New York Times. What's the betting that Rupert himself was the instigator of O'Reilly's fight-back tactics? But that's a minor issue; what this shows is how a seasoned and otherwise principled commentator was nobbled in the free market USA.

Journalistic ethics (part 1)

Two years ago Jeremy Paxman told a meeting at the Edinburgh International Television Festival that blogs don't operate by conventional journalistic rules, such as accuracy (see blog 'Checking facts' on 31 August 2007). It seems that the BBC's journalists are sometimes guilty of that problem. Certainly Newsround on Friday was at best confusing, and at worst deliberately misleading.

Newsround Friday CBBC Channel 3.55pm -

Sonali: Hi there, I'm Sonali and this is Newsround. First up we're talking school uniform - apparently it can cost your parents around £700 a year. Supermarkets and other shops might have cut price deals on the stuff you need, but some schools only sell their uniforms and kit through particular shops. Leah's been checking out the story.

Next we heard Richard Kemp from the Local Government Association, who told Leah that parents had to spend up to £170 to send each person back to secondary school. Richard wanted to see more choice of outlets for school uniforms.

However the story was reported in a different way at 5pm on BBC One -

Sonali: Hi there. First up today we're talking school uniform. It might make life easier for you not to have to think about what to wear every day, but it can be a right old dent in your parents wallet. That's why, today, there are calls for the cost of uniforms to come down. Leah's been investigating.

Leah's report which followed dealt with school uniform and sports kit costs. Leah said "Shirts, skirts, and trousers - just a few of the things you need to get kitted out for the new term. Add to that sports gear and shoes, and the price can really stack up. It's reckoned that parents have to spend around £700 a year making sure you have everything you need for primary school. And when you start secondary, that goes up to around £1200 ...."


In fact the Government Report - Cost of Schooling 2007, published earlier this year, has a detailed breakdown on page 34, and it turns out that uniform and sports kit accounted for about 30% of the cost of schooling. Newsround didn't explain that the £700 (actually £683.79) also included school trips, class materials, stationery items, swimming lessons, school fund, school lunch, travel, school photos, charity contributions and the cost of other activities/items.

We are entitled to expect reasonable ethical standards of the BBC. So was Newsround negligent, or did they mislead their audience simply to hype the story? I might get in touch with the new editor of Newsround, Owenna Griffiths, to ask if there is another plausible explanation.

Equality Bill: possible opt-out for broadcasters

My blog on 7 June 2009 dealt with the BBC's duplicitous attitude to diversity, and their request to be excluded from proposed duties in the new equality legislation. I was sufficiently concerned to write to the DCMS at the beginning of May. Following receipt of the DCMS response dated 7 August 2009 (shown below) I wrote early this week to ask solely for release of the originating requests for opt-outs, and have not yet heard back.

Response from DCMS on 7 August 2009

Thank you for your request for information regarding the Equality Bill, which was received on 1 May 2009.

Your request read: “I understand that the DCMS has received requests from the BBC and Channel 4 to be exempted from certain duties in the new Equality Bill. Please could you send me copies of correspondence in connection with these requests?”

Please note that your request has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Act deals with requests for information and a request for copies of correspondence would not usually qualify as a request for information. However, we have decided to treat your request as a request for information contained in correspondence between the BBC, Channel 4 and the Department relating to requests from those broadcasters to be exempted from certain duties in the Equality Bill and have dealt with your request accordingly. Under the Act, you have the right to:

Know whether we hold the information you require

Be provided with that information (subject to any exemptions under the Act which might apply)

We contacted you on 2 June 2009 and explained that the Department holds certain information that falls within the scope of your request. It was considered at that stage, on a preliminary view, that all the information we hold may have been exempt from disclosure under section 35(formulation of government policy) and section 42(legal/professional privilege) of the Act. We explained to you that when these exemptions apply, we need to carry out a public interest test to consider whether the balance of the public interest lies in favour of maintaining the exemption or in favour of releasing the information.

On further deliberation we have now concluded that section 42 of the Act does not apply and we confirm our view that section 35(1)(a) and of the Act is engaged in relation to the information we hold that is relevant to your request. In addition, we have concluded that s.41 of the Act also applies to some of that information.

Section 35(1) (a) (formulation of government policy) applies to the information that the department holds in connection with the Equality Bill that falls within the parameters of your request.

The factors we considered in carrying out the public interest test are as follows:-

Section 35

Public Interest Considerations in favour of disclosure

1. Greater transparency makes the Government more accountable to the electorate and increases trust.

2. The public interest in being able to assess the quality of advice being given to Ministers and subsequent decision making

3. The topic in question is likely to be of considerable pubic interest.

Public Interest Considerations in favour of maintaining the exemptions

1. Good government depends on good decision making and government should have time and space to explore options and to “hammer out” policy safe from the threat of “lurid headlines”. The issue of the broadcasters and how the Equality Bill will affect them has already attracted media interest and disclosure of the options and issues under consideration may well result in the type of media interest which is likely to impair good decision making.

2. In relation to the Equality Bill, the government is working with a number of third parties/stakeholders in order to ensure that the development of policy is based on the best possible advice from the industry involved. Advice should be full and frank and should be broad based and there may be a deterrent effect on external experts or stakeholders who might be reluctant to provide advice or express their views because of the risk of disclosure whilst such advice and views are being discussed and developed. The views being expressed relate to ongoing policy development and therefore it would be damaging to disclose the discussions before decisions are taken and policy is formulated. In respect of this process, organisations making their representations need to be able to give their opinions in a free and frank manner. The premature release of the information requested may mean, in the future, that external experts or stakeholders may not feel that they can be as open. There is a risk therefore, that future decision making and policy formulation would be damaged or inhibited.

3. Ministers and officials need to be able to conduct rigorous and candid risk assessments of their policies and programmes including considerations of the pros and cons without there being premature disclosure which might affect full and objective considerations of all options. Any publication could hinder the frank discussions and rigorous considerations of expert advice required.

In the light of the above, the Department’s view is that the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Accordingly, we consider that the information you have requested should not be disclosed.

Section 41

In addition we have also concluded that Section 41 (Information provided in confidence) of the Act applies to some of the information that the Department holds that is relevant to your request.

This exemption has been applied because the information in question was supplied on a confidential basis. The Department owes a duty of confidence in relation to this information. The exemption in section 41 is an absolute exemption and, accordingly, because it applies to some of the information you have requested, it requires us to withhold that information from you.

This exemption under s.41 applies to some of the information in addition to the exemption under s.35 of the Act as set out above.

Further Advice
If you are dissatisfied with any aspect of our response to your request for information and/or wish to appeal against information being withheld from you, please send full details within two calendar months of the date of this letter to:

FOI Central Team,
Public Engagement and Recognition Unit
Department for Culture Media and Sport,
2-4 Cockspur Street, London,
SW1Y 5DH

You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. Please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning his investigation.

Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your request and do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

Kind regards

Richard Dawkins believes bigotry against gay people is still alive and kicking and we only need to look at, say, the murder of Michael Causer, the subsequent trial and lack of media coverage to see that Dawkins is right. (see blog 24 Feb 2009)

Unfortunately it is hardly surprising to see that this bigotry exists. The LGBT minority, alone, is treated with disdain by the BBC. My blog on 16 August 2009 demonstrated that the Corporation has no qualms about using 'poof' on a family entertainment programme. Yet BBC children's TV maintains a de facto ban on words such as lesbian and gay - in fact CBBC is much less inclusive of LGBT representation now than it was 15 years ago.

Dawkins suggests that an apology to Turing would not be needed in fifty years' time, but it seems his timescale might be optimistic.

Campaign to win official apology for Alan Turing

Yesterday Richard Dawkins wrote:

I have signed the petition, although in general I am not impressed with apologies being issued for the sins of past generations. I think that attempts to make all modern white people feel guilty for the slave trade are ridiculous, and apologies to all modern black people are even more ridiculous. But Alan Turing lived pretty recently. Many of his colleagues at Bletchley Park are still alive, and Turing himself might still be alive if he hadn't committed suicide. He was of roughly the same generation as my parents, both of whom are still very much alive. Moreover, although the law on homosexuality in Britain was changed in 1967, the bigotry that gave rise to it is still alive and kicking, and it still has the force of law in much of the Islamic world. An official government apology to Turing would send a signal to the world, which needs to be sent. An official apology for slavery would not send a useful signal, because nobody, not even the most bigoted Christian, is nowadays in favour of slavery. I agree that in, say, another 50 years, an official apology would no longer be appropriate. But it is still appropriate today.

Also see my blogs on 13 June 2007 and 23 June 2007

Language and offence (part 3)

Supposedly there's a big conversation going on within the BBC, coordinated by their diversity unit, to examine editorial policy and portrayal issues in relation to sexual orientation.

In 2007 Ofcom looked at the words 'nigger' and 'poof' as used by Big Brother contestants, and the differing ways these words were treated by Big Brother and Channel 4. In 2008 Channels 4 and 5 jointly published guidance which makes plain (in section 4A) that 'poof' is unacceptable in normal circumstances, and can cause serious offence regardless of intention.

Possibly as a result of Ofcom's contorted reasoning in the 2007 Big Brother decision, the BBC continues to allow use of the word 'poof' thus promoting it as an acceptable epithet. As part of its reasoning Ofcom had cited the name of the resident band on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, to demonstrate that the word 'poof' could be acceptable.

Last Thursday the panel on As Seen On TV hosted by Steve Jones (8pm, BBC One) had to identify a mystery guest. Eventually Melanie Sykes succeeded in sussing who it was:-

Melanie: Do you work with a very outspoken chat show host?
Mystery Guest: Yes
Melanie: He is one of the singers of 4 Poofs and a Piano from the Jonathan Ross show!
Steve Jones: Thingy, could you please reveal your identity?
Mystery Guest: Hi, I'm Stephen de Martin, but I'm best known as one of the 4 Poofs and a Piano. {video clip of band singing - FNwJR 6 Feb 2009}
Steve Jones: Fantastic. One poof, no piano, sounds like Elton John unplugged

And as soon as Steve Jones finished reading that line - at that very instant - we saw a close-up of Christopher Biggins, laughing along with the "joke"

After a sustained campaign by Newsround Blog to get the programme to give out the correct schedules, today they got it right. Well done Newsround!

Yesterday I told the BBC, once again, about the scheduled time for the start of Newsround on BBC One. So hopefully, today, Newsround will get it right (see blogs on 3rd and 5th August)

Newsround's website has today put up a press pack report about the UK Youth Parliament meeting which took place in Kent the weekend before last (see blog 28 July 2009). Would also be nice to have seen an earlier report on the programme itself, especially as it looks like there are quite a lot more TV press pack reports now than of late. Talking of late, they're still giving out the wrong start time for the BBC One edition of Newsround (previous blog).

The BBC One edition of Newsround has recently been re-scheduled to begin at 5pm but for some reason presenters of the 3.55pm edition on the CBBC channel still keep giving out the old start time of 5.05pm.

I mentioned the discrepancy in an email on Friday, but the same mistake was repeated today. Anyone could miss the first news story if they switch on at 5.05pm. And that wasn't the only thing they got wrong today, because the third news story on the 5pm edition was:

Two pieces of music written by one of the world's most famous composers, Mozart, have been performed for the first time. They've just been discovered, but were written by Mozart more than 250 years ago, when he was only about eight years old.

The problem is that Mozart was born in 1756, so the music was written less than 250 years ago. (see also blog on 21 May 2009)