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

  • From: Jeremy Compton <j.compton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 14:42:24 +1200

I just checked out the video clip on BBC Monitoring from 2012 and l thought 
that it was rather good.

It provides quite a good synopsis of the organisation and what they do :)


Yes, this is the english equivalent of the US governments version of it as John 
has mentioned :)


> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 23:12:59 +0100
> From: douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [cryptome] Cryptome is Back: BBC Monitoring Service.
> 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...
> Dougie.

Other related posts: