> you get a feeling that it was commissioned by the sugar lobby
But as it is a BBC site, you also know that isn't the case.
But as it is a BBC site, you also know that isn't the case.
The author of this piece is a freelance journalist[1] who has written numerous obvious submarines[2]. Do you know how much a freelance journalist costs? Basically: nuthin! I could have put someone like that on my credit card when I was in grad school.
> PR people fear bloggers for the same reason readers like them. And that means there may be a struggle ahead. As this new kind of writing draws readers away from traditional media, we should be prepared for whatever PR mutates into to compensate. When I think how hard PR firms work to score press hits in the traditional media, I can't imagine they'll work any less hard to feed stories to bloggers, if they can figure out how.
And today we have "influencers", native content marketing and Medium (etc) blogs that are way less authentic than what PG wrote about in this post.
For those unaware, the BBC is primarily funded by UK public funds (not quite a tax, but a "TV Licence") and as such is prohibited from - amongst other things - 1) selling advertisements and 2) supporting any one political party more than any other. There are of course exceptions (especially wrt to international + online content + commercial arms of the BBC) but an article sponsored by the sugar lobby displayed by a non-commerical arm of the BBC as a UK public service would clearly be prohibited by the BBC charter.
The current atmosphere of Brexit has pushed the BBC under more scrutiny due to accusations of pushing articles that disporportionaly support the government line, rather than opposition.
Never trust journalists, never trust the media.
I recommend watching a few USA new programs or even reading a few UK daily papers to see what "mouthpeice for the Tories" really are.
Just because the BBC may not agree with everyone all the time, it does not mean it is biased.
It's clearly visible in the political coverage of BBC News, which is ran by @bbclaurak. She's a conservative firebrand, the Sarah Sanders of the UK. Only she's running what is supported to be a neutral news organization.
Further, I don't know - you just have to watch the way they cover subjects that you understand and see how they totally bend the facts to favor which ever corporate interest they've been told to support. This is particularly the cases with coverage of climate change (their position seems to be that the solution is plastic straws and letting consumers decided to buy 'green electricity') and the hostility to Jeremy Corbyn.
The problem with the BBC is that it has been under attack by Sky TV (the premium commercial TV provider then owned by Murdoch) for two decades. A weak or compromised BBC is good business for them and a BBC under the control of the government is great a win-win for those in power..?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Fairhead,_Baroness_Fairhe..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten
Surely the BBC has a tough line to walk; differing perspectives on the left and the right mean that both sides likely will view its content differently (and sometimes conclude it was biased). Despite this, it has to broadcast some content, since that's (literally) its mandate.
Perhaps the best solution is to have continued scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum, and independent regulator to manage complaints... which is what we already have (and what you're helping achieve!)?
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=left+wing+BBC [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+BBC [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
They should just me made to report the facts with the correct weight. The problem is that they include things like flat earthers, homeopaths etc into the conversation in a way which legitimizes them.
What they should be doing is requiring their news content to be fact based. So fact check politicians. Don't give the basket cases a platform (and fact check them if they slip in).