[untitled]
7 comments
Is this the same BBC that covers up child molesters?
Everyone rushed to criticise the BBC on this, all silent about the war crimes. Ofcom seems to be doing the same; nothing to say about the BBC publishing IDF statements on every incident in the war as if it were credible.
Seems like the kind of thing risk management should have asked about. The story needed telling, but when who tells the story becomes a story in itself, you're in the dictum "no news about journalists themselves is good news"
I think there's a possibility in a modern broadcaster, where you "pitch" expensive ideas, this one would have been both expensive and demanding contacts into a murky community. He had the connections, for sure. Maybe for a commissioning editor that took care of one kind of risk?
I think there's a possibility in a modern broadcaster, where you "pitch" expensive ideas, this one would have been both expensive and demanding contacts into a murky community. He had the connections, for sure. Maybe for a commissioning editor that took care of one kind of risk?
Important to note here is that the ruling found that there was no inappropriate influence on the content by any third party.
The documentary was impartial and remains a vital account of the genocide. The victims in Gaza deserve to have their voice heard.
Link to the documentary: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dX1rbFzRrXU
The documentary was impartial and remains a vital account of the genocide. The victims in Gaza deserve to have their voice heard.
Link to the documentary: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dX1rbFzRrXU
[deleted]