[cryptome] Re: Cryptome is Back: BBC Monitoring Service.

  • From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:01:35 +1200

Which clip is it? There is a youtube page that  appears to be quite up to date 
:) https://www.youtube.com/user/BBCNewsnight/videos     and less useful 

I am aware of BBC Monitoring service http://www.monitor.bbc.co.uk/ , which is 
pretty impressive.  There are databases at University that pull much news such 
as Factiva that pull heaps of news stories.  I think l have seen an article on 
the BBC Monitoring service before. Though this may have been a promotional 
video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gp7sFcbLUw 

They have their own youtube page 

Though l would be interested in the clip you are referring to.

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 00:20:35 +0100
From: capricorn8159@xxxxxxxxx
To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cryptome] Re: Cryptome is Back: BBC Monitoring Service.

    well that information Frankly does not surprise me one iota. oh and
    on the question of the BBC being impartial. I question whether they
    even know what the word means.  

    and obviously they serve the governments hidden(?) agenda
    beautifully because there have I think been a number of occasions
    whereby  if everything was played directly by the book the BBC
    should have been stripped of its charter.

    On 27/06/2014 23:12, doug wrote:



      Dear Colleagues,

      Ah! How nice it is to see Cryptome back on line...it seems like an
      age where I have been living in the dark...not knowing what is
      happening in that world of ours which is so full of openness,
      democracy and the pursuit of happiness and human rights, that it
      is coming out of my ears!  All that catching up to do too.   I see
      I shall have to cut back my contributions to
      cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx...;-) .

      see url: http://www.monitor.bbc.co.uk/


      There was a programme on BBC last night called "Newsnight" which
      had an article on BBC Monitoring at Caversham.  Apparently, the
      BBC, which is a state owned organisation created by Royal Charter
      and funded by every television owner in the UK whose television is
      capable of receiving live television, by paying an annual licence
      fee of almost £150, is collecting "open source" information on
      behalf of clients who request information or ask certain types of
      questions.  For this they are charged a fee.  However, if the
      information is classified as secret or confidential, it is not
      made available to the BBC as a whole, or, more importantly, to the
      license payer.   BBC monitoring has been around for a long time
      and provides a valuable service gathering data, collating it and
      sorting and sifting it, but why is it, that I as a licence payer
      don't have access to it, and why is it that not all BBC
      journalists are allowed access to some of it.


      Apparently there is a small group of journalists, who do get told
      some of what is going on but they require security clearances, and
      can't divulge it to other BBC personnel.  The spokesperson used a
      number of different justifications for the practice, but like the
      BBC World Service being the tool of the Foreign Office, again paid
      for by the licence payer, does this practice not affect the
      independence of the BBC according to its Charter?  Not only that,
      but, according to a reporter who visited the property at
      Caversham, the CIA also has a floor there, which no one without a
      security clearance can visit. A historical anomaly....maybe...but
      where does that leave independent, unbiassed and open
      reporting...not that one would suggest that the C.I.A. is anything
      else but a law-abiding and democratic organisation, having all of
      our best interests at heart, even us foreigners who aren't covered
      by the U.S. Constitution...


      So much for the independence of the BBC, in terms of its
      reporting, once again it is the tax-payer wot foots the bill,
      subsidising stuff which would be better paid for elsewhere.


      Food for thought...










Other related posts: