This is a stunning story. We are used to seeing a media hell bent on pursuing their agenda no matter the cost to journalism standards. Code of ethics ha! Running Abu Gharib on the front page of the New York Slimes every day for 44 days is more subtle as is ignoring the Oil-for-food scandal (the largest scandal in human history) but running false stories knowingly, KNOWINGLY, as the Times did this week in the case of the soldier alleging she was raped in Iraq (and she had never been to Iraq), lat year's fauxtography scandal, the staged AP photos,- each incident moves the line in the sand. Lying deceiving the American people has become a daily occurrence.
The latest ought to be the nail in the coffin of a corrupt, dishonest, malevolent power without accountability. It ought to be,but it won't
BBC pays £200,000 to 'cover up report on anti-Israel bias'
by PAUL REVOIR hat tip Zall
The BBC has been accused of "shameful hypocrisy" over its decision to spend £200,000 blocking a freedom of information request about its reporting in the Middle East.
The corporation, which has itself made extensive use of FOI requests in its journalism, is refusing to release papers about an internal inquiry into whether its reporting has been biased towards "palestine".
BBC chiefs have been accused of wasting thousands of pounds of licence fee payers money trying to cover-up the findings of the so called Balen Report into its journalism in the region, despite the fact that the corporation is funded by the British public.
The corporation is fighting a landmark High Court action, which starts next week, in a bid to prevent the public finding out what is in the review, which is believed to be critical of the BBC's coverage in the region.
BBC bosses have faced repeated claims that is coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been skewed by a pro-"palestianian" bias.
The corporation famously came under fire after middle-east correspondent Barbara Plett revealed that she had cried at the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004.
That bloodthirsty bitch.
The BBC's decision to carry on pursuing the case, despite the fact than the Information Tribunal said it should make the report public, has sparked fury as it flies in the face of claims by BBC chiefs that it is trying to make the corporation more open and transparent.
Politicians have branded the BBC's decision to carry on spending money, hiring the one of the country's top public law barrister in the process, as "absolutely indefensible".