On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:15, Nick Reynolds-FM&T <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't write other people's posts on the blog I only write my own.
Okay, just so we're clear (and as a minor educational exercise in behind-the-scenes-on-the-Internet-Blog) - a post from, say, Erik Huggers (like the one today) - was that written by Erik, and then sent over to you (or Paul) for tidying up/formatting/etc., or do you guys write the bulk of it based upon information Erik sends over? One can never quite be sure how much a byline implies. > I have to accept what my colleagues write in good faith, although if I think > there are inaccuracies or things which are unclear then I will obviously ask > for clarification. The blog is striving to be accurate and impartial. That's > particularly difficult to do when you are talking about yourself but that's > the aim. > > I have to be pragmatic. There may be things which people cannot talk about > for good reason (e.g. confidentiality, or damaging a relationship with a > partner). My aim is to get them to say something. If they say something, even > if its not perfect, then that may spark a useful conversation and the next > time they speak, it may be an improvement on what was said previously. This is a given - as I said, I don't doubt your intentions at all. I think you've been fed misleading information, and you're not in a position to either necessarily *know* that it's misleading, nor in some circumstances do anything about it (especially when some of the posts come from well above the paygrades of anybody here :) And, it's part of your job to defend the BBC in these circles unless you have a bloody good reason to think they're in the wrong. Indeed, I think most people here would defend the BBC to the hilt in general terms, myself included. However, in this case, the BBC - the organisation, and the message it conveyed - was misleading to the public. I don't think that's your fault, and I don't think you could have necessarily done anything about it, nor even known it to be the case. I *do* think the corporation, again collectively, could have handled things a lot better and ensured this didn't arise, but they didn't. That's the reason for my disappointment, and nothing I've seen since has swayed me from this view (and, as it goes, I might be stubborn, but I'm stubborn based on available evidence - I know when I a gut feeling is just that). M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
