Quote:
|
Originally Posted by August
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NEON DEON
I can’t fault the BBC for wanting to present themselves as being objective.
The news has to be objective.
Since it must report in an objective manner it must also present in an objective manner.
Wearing of religious symbols on TV while reporting on a story of religious significance, does not project objectivity. Therefore presenters of the news must keep an appearance that displays neutrality at all times.
A reporter covering a war does not present as objective if he is doing so with a peace symbol on his helmet no more than he would present as objective reporting it with a skull and cross bones on his helmet.
If you don’t report objectively, it is not news it is an editorial.
|
The problem is banning the symbol does not eliminate the potential bias, it just camoflages it. I'd rather see newspeople and other public officials wear their religious, business and social accoutrements so i know where they are coming from.
Personally if it were up to me every politician would wear be required by law to wear their sponsors logos on their clothing and vehicles. I don't care if it made them look like nascar drivers, at least we know who they are beholding too. |
The BBC wants to present as credible to viewers when reporting the news.
They can not do that while wearing religious symbols. That should be obvious because of the action the BBC took. We are talking about the news here. Not TV talk shows, sit coms, dramas, or variety shows.
JUST THE NEWS.
Lets look at lighter news like sports. If the sportscaster on TV is wearing a Jets uniform and says the jets are a shoe in to win the Super Bowl, the only way I am going to believe him is if I am a jets fan. He has lost his credibility.