Why has the BBC spent at least £330,000 concealing the Balen Report? The Balen Report was commissioned by the former BBC Director of News, Richard Sambrook, following allegations of anti-Israel bias. That sum of £330,000 represents the licence fees from 2,276 TV licence payers in the UK - a lot of money from a lot of hard-pressed tax payers in these cash-strapped times.
We now know the BBC has spent at least £330,000 concealing the Balen Report, but the BBC still refuses to publish the contents of the report concerning allegations of anti-Israel bias by the BBC. What has the BBC got to hide that is in this report? Surely, if the Balen Report concludes that the BBC has not been biased against Israel, then it would want that to be known by the public – the BBC's source of licence payer's income.
The Times of Israelhttp://www.timesofisrael.com/bbc-spends ... en-report/Quote:
The British Broadcasting Corporation has spent almost £333,000 in legal costs associated with its efforts to conceal the Balen Report, a 2004 internal inquiry into the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict whose contents were never released to the public.
The BBC was recently forced to reveal the legal fees as a result of a Freedom of Information request from conservative news site The Commentator, which reported on Sunday that the total amount was £332,780.47, more than $500,000.
The Commentator:http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1 ... en_report_Quote:
Britons are required by law to own licences in order to use televisions. This raises £3.6billion in funding for the state broadcaster. Despite this public funding, the BBC does not have to comply with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with regard to actual information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature.
We are frequently given the message in the UK regarding Big Brother legislation that 'if we have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear'. So what has the BBC to hide in this case of the Balen Report?
Login
FAQ
Search
