Berlin

Sadly, Mair, you now know differently!!!!

Btw Daphne are you always so rude to posters who disagree with you?

I thought Gransnet was a polite forum!

I have a fair bit of anecdotal knowledge of BBC recruitment practices (nepotism) actually daphne. Their agenda is also pretty much in the open now:

Andrew Marr:

The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”.

All this “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.

They have opnly declared they want to employ more ethnic minorities and employing foreign reporters fits with this.
They even employed Malala Yousafzi when she was an eleven year old schoolgirl and unknown (shoehorned into the role by her controlling ambitious father).

Why don't you just admit you know sod all about the BBC's recruitment policies or practices?

(From a former Reuters employee)

Is it?

All human perception is biased.

BTW Monica I am glad we can at least agreee that the BBC is biased!

"many of the nationals in the countries they report from can provide far better reports on the situation in their country than outsiders jetting in for a couple of weeks and then moving on to the next hot spot."

Yes you have already given us your views on the superiority of foreign reporters, however reiterating this claim does not equate to evidence.

I have listened to many of these reports and have not found them to be uniquely insightful, or in any way superior to those of good roving reporters, as well as frequently being delivered in heavily accented restricted off shore English. This could be a problem for the hard of hearing.

I do not believe that the BBC chooses them for superior skills, but likes to employ them because it satisfies their internationalist objectives and they are probably cheaper to boot.

I believe the best reporting jobs in the BBC should go to the best reporters they can recruit and many of the nationals in the countries they report from can provide far better reports on the situation in their country than outsiders jetting in for a couple of weeks and then moving on to the next hot spot.

The task of any good reporting agency is to get the best reports they can use by the right use of in-house reporters, British nationals on the BBC pay roll, foreign nationals on the pay roll and free lance reporters and I expect any competent news agency to be able to do that a lot better left to themselves than when government, quango (now there is a word we do not hear nowadays), select committee, Board of enquiry etc etc, start meddling by telling the news agency to recruit in a way that does anything other than put quality of reporting at the top of the agenda.

As for bias, show me a person or organisation anywhere in the world that says it is unbiassed and I will say I am looking at a liar. No-one and no organisation is unbiassed, but this does not mean that an organisation cannot see and allow for bias in others.

This discussion is in danger of becoming one of those discussions about how many angels can dance on a pinhead arguements as we both split hairs more and more finely (to majorly mix my metaphors) so I am drawing a line under my communications on this subject with this post.

Monica, since it was you who made the claim of foreign journo exceptionalism it is down to you to substantiate it, not me to prove otherwise.

I did not suggest that good journalism was limited to Europeans, but I do take the view that as the BBC is funded by British license fee payers, then their highly sought after foreign reporting roles should be in the main going to British citizens, not providing work for foreigners. There is no shortage of good people in this country, including people who speak almost every language in the world.

You seem to think that organisations like the BBC, ITN, Sky News, Al Jazeera are both centres of excellence and incredibly naive in being unable to tell whether any journalist they use has any bias or know how to interprete the reports they use.

I am afraid you are wrong, that is not my view but nor do I consider these organisations unbiased as you naively seem to do. Nor do I think any journalist is entirely unbiased, but in general, I have more confidence in the report of a journo who is not intimately and personally involved in a war zone than one who is. There will always be some bias, but it is likely to be less for the former.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Good journalism is not limited to Europeans journalists only - and what about any bias they may have in their reports?

You seem to think that organisations like the BBC, ITN, Sky News, Al Jazeera are both centres of excellence and incredibly naive in being unable to tell whether any journalist they use has any bias or know how to interprete the reports they use.

Good journalists, in most countries, do their best to be unbiassed in their reports.

It's clear from news reports however that the BBC are employing fewer British journos than in the past. It is quite a claim that the foreign journos are "usually extremely good". Do you have any evidence for this?

Of course they are mother tongue speakers of the local language, a plus, but as locals, they are also more likely to have a partisan perspective and not to put forward an unbiased account.

Mair The scenario you describe of a mix of in-house reporters, in London or on-station, 'stringers' local freelance journalists under contract to individual broadcast media or freelanceing, and foreign freelancers is how news media has always operated. They operated like that in WW2, Iraq and in many other theatres of war

The local journalists are usually extremely good and because they speak the language, know the country and culture and have the contacts to send back far better reports than an incomer with a translator.

The journalists that were beheaded by ISIS were freelancers going out for good stories and selling them to news media.

Such is the nature of the world, all the things, good and bad. that are happening in completely different ways in countries with widely differing cultures a one size fits all (news media employ their own staff and use no other) would never work, has never work. Different horses for different courses has always been the rule

No evidence other than the general direction of the BBCs political agenda.
That was why I cautiously introduced my statement with the words "I suspect.."

We do know how very generously BBC people pay themselves though too.

Do you have any evidence for that, Mair?

The BBC has always syndicated news.

^I have read several times that reporters just dont go into wartorn countries and areas like they used to.
Often newspaper reports are merely written in London using reports from local people on the ground. Which is not the same thing at all...

Not that I blams reporters. I think that over the years, so many of their number have been lost, that they dont go now.^

I suspect this is less down to unwilling reporters an far more about newspapers not having the money.

In the case of the BBC I suspect it may be more for ideological reasons. They prefer to pay foreign journos on the ground than support British reporters to go in, and of course it does save money to pay the inflated salaries of BBC big guns.

They still do- 3 of my neighbours are border guards and they do the train runs- recently they have been drafted 10 days at a time to work on the other side of the country on the trains from Italy.

Oh yes, I remember the days when you had your passport checked on the train by armed police. Quite scary at night as a teenager travelling round Europe. They used to march people off whose papers or tickets weren't in order.

Looks like he crossed in the Vosges area where there are also 100s of miles of woods and countryroads- and then boarded a train in France. There are border guards in all trains coming from Italiy (due to migrants arriving in Sicily and then up), but not all trains out of FRance into Italy- but it is easy to walk or cycle from one country to the other then get on the national train network.

Exactly Anya - this is obviously a little border crossing on a tiny country road- there are 100s around here too- and also miles upon miles of countryside, woods and fields. Schengen or no Schengen- it would be absolutely impossible to man the whole border!? Been for a walk with the dogs this afternoon, possibly crossed the border many times without knowing... there isn't a white line marked, a fence or a wall!

The actual border post is manned for 3 hours at random every day/night- and there are also regular patrols n minor roads.
The best way to cross ingognito would be to be on a mountain bike - as there are 1000s of miles of xcountry routes in the woods. Those who think the whole borders in Europe can be manned 24/7 really have not got a clue of the geography and reality out there.

it does seem he's exposed how insecure borders are and how difficult security is. Can you imagine every little road into or out of a country having a crossing guard?

Impossible,

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4064256/Stupid-dangerous-Masked-man-parading-SIS-flag-films-walking-straight-German-border-taunts-officials-non-existent-security-checks.html#comments

It stinks. Its just not right and its not fair.

Because there are very powerful politicians and extremely rich business people in the USA who are in favour.

Why does the US seem to think its OK?

Agreed. I also think it's the kind of issue which contributes to anti-US (and West) resentment amongst radical Muslims. The US has up to now always resisted UN moves to condemn Israel and has used its veto. Israel has withdrawn its diplomatic representatives from Senegal and New Zealand for supporting the condemnation. Your DH is quite right, Jane10. I know a number of Jews who utterly condemn what Netanyahu is doing. He doesn't want a two state solution for Palestine.