Or rather "not in the news"

sunseeker

I understand there are time limits on what can be reported on a short news programme, but I would rather have seen coverage of the march than some of the padding that is used in some news programmes

Precisely. The BBC found the time to report, and show an interview, regarding Luis Suarez (a footballer) biting another footballer on the shoulder during a game and that this is the third time he's done it, he needs psychological help, blah blah blah - how is that in the public interest? Does anyone really care? I would rather have heard the news regarding the protest march - then again, I doubt the government would want other people getting ideas ...

Just been to your link too, when. Hmm, anything that calls itself Revolution News immediately makes me wary. Revolutions are a notoriously vicious way of doing politics.

Because, hollyd, whether we like it or not, millions and millions of people are interested in what Suarez and other footballers do.

I'm not one of those millions, just btw, but I heard about that too without having a TV in the house and never listening to BBC radio news either.

In short, the anti-austerity march WAS "in the news".

This link explains a great deal about decisions which are taken by the BBC.

www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7978695/Mark-Thompson-BBC-chief-talks-to-No-10-about-selling-the-cuts.html

So there! nah nah na nah na!

That was meant to follow Bags' research.

Gosh Jingle, I'm overwhelmed by the sophistication of your political analysis.

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist it.

That comment also made me chuckle thatbags - it does highlight the inconsistency of what is considered newsworthy.

I do find it odd that the march wasn't mentioned at all given some of the drivel that is presented as news; it's understandable that people will end up reading what they will into the reasons for it.

Yes, I am wary of titles that bear the word 'Revolution' too, bags, but I had a good look at the article and compared it with others and this one provided more evidence in the form of tweets and pictures, and many comments from readers were contributed. I guess that, like me, many of the readers aren't revolutionaries either - just concerned people who wonder what's going on.

I'm sure they are thatbags - just the same as people were interested in the march and the reasons for it; it's why one is deemed as newsworthy and the other wasn't (I do think that things that are happening in our own country rate higher than one footballer biting another!).

Isn't this rather telling? (From MiceElf's link to the report about the BBC visit to Downing Street):

'Before yesterday’s meeting, senior Conservatives had been growing increasingly angry over the BBC’s reporting of cutbacks.
One Cabinet minister told The Daily Telegraph: "The reporting has been outrageous. They have been the only media outlet that we have consistently had problems with. Every announcement is met with a report about the effects of the cutbacks. It is virtually never explained that we have to make these cuts or the country will topple over the edge. The bias is pretty appalling at times."
The Government is understood to be alarmed at wasteful spending at the BBC and is expected to push for the licence fee to be frozen, or even reduced, when it is next up for review next year.
There are growing signs that the BBC is seeking to align itself more closely with the Coalition and admit previous mistakes.'

Does sound like the BBC is being made to shut up, or else.....

It wouldn't be the first time that governments have used the freezing or reduction of the licence fee to get the BBC to tow the line.

My point was that I think it's simply a plain fact that more people are interested in the biter Suarez story than in an anti-austerity march and that the BBC is fully aware of this. I don't agree that events in our own country are necessarily of more importance than events abroad. They might be, but they equally well might not be.

I'm going to read mice's link now.

I don't think the title 'Revolutionary' could be levelled at the Daily Telegraph, bags

The article mice linked to is from four years ago.

I liked this comment:
"Fortnum • 4 years ago
Editorial independence is not the same as a neutral viewpoint, which is what the BBC is supposed to provide."

xposts, when. Er... why?

Oh, sorry! I misread your post!! Yes, I agree. Tgraph could hardly be accused of being revolutionary.

....but doesn't the article illustrate how No 10 works?

Perhaps. Or how the BBC works. I'm puzzled why the government has any say in setting the licence fee. That suggests to me that the BBC cannot be independent of or neutral about government news let alone any other sort.

My point was that I think it's simply a plain fact that more people are interested in the biter Suarez story than in an anti-austerity march and that the BBC is fully aware of this. I don't agree that events in our own country are necessarily of more importance than events abroad. They might be, but they equally well might not be.

I disagree with your first point and your second point - I didn't say events in our country are of more importance than events abroad; I do, however, think they are more important than one adult biting another.

The austerity measures have been on going for some time now. Stands to reason Suraez biting another player in a World Cup match would get more temporary prominence.