Let's analyse paragraph 3.
@Channel4News didn't cover CA/VL/AIQ as technology story. They covered it for what it was. A story affecting politics in this country, not a tech story in another country. ➡️
@Channel4News didn't cover CA/VL/AIQ as technology story. They covered it for what it was. A story affecting politics in this country, not a tech story in another country. ➡️
My recollection is that BBC1 news programmes ran their meagre coverage of the CA story about 20 minutes into the Six O'Clock bulletin maybe a day or two after the first Channel 4 story. Furthermore it was purely a tech story and focussed more on Facebook than CA. ➡️
It certainly wasn't analysed at anything like the level of detail it deserved.
Why was that? It was plainly a story that had ramifications for the legitimacy of the EU referendum and indeed the erosion of electoral safeguards in the UK. ➡️
Why was that? It was plainly a story that had ramifications for the legitimacy of the EU referendum and indeed the erosion of electoral safeguards in the UK. ➡️
But the BBC were nowhere to be found in that plane of the story.
Did they just hope it would turn out to be a 'storm in a teacup'? Is that why prominent BBC News & Current Affairs 'personalities' such as Marr colluded with guests to undermine @carolecadwalla ? ⏹️
Did they just hope it would turn out to be a 'storm in a teacup'? Is that why prominent BBC News & Current Affairs 'personalities' such as Marr colluded with guests to undermine @carolecadwalla ? ⏹️
Postscript: Stephenson blathers about how Panorama couldn't do a programme that didn't meet the highest standards of proof in Para. 7 of his statement. ➡️
Curiously that doesn't explain why @BBCNewsnight gave Nix (CA) the chance to get his defence in even before main thrust of C4 of #CAUncovered was broadcast. One could be forgiven for thinking that BBC was trying to spike the C4/ITN story before it gained traction. ➡️
Only two main reasons why a news organisation would take that approach: Straightforward 'professional' jealousy (difficult to see where professionalism exists) or the story didn't conform to BBC's 'preferred' narrative (from wherever that might originate). ➡️
Neither of those options are good for the BBC, just as its coverage of Savile wasn't helpful to the BBC's reputation as a disinterested, unbiased reporter of news. Stephenson's press release rings hollow and the BBC has questions to answer. ⏹️
PPS: As I'm a slightly older bear now, my memory sometimes takes a little while to fire up. IIRC, the @BBCNewsnight broadcast the Nix interview on the same day as the @Channel4News story. However, it was recorded BEFORE the Channel 4 broadcast when the content wasn't known.
