Is World Service's editorial policy different to BBC's?

Caporegime
Joined
29 Aug 2007
Posts
28,763
Location
Auckland
I was listening to the almost constant reporting on the BBC World Service about the terrible things happening in Haiti this morning and they were talking to several American Haitians living in Florida.

The commentator's thrust was regarding faith and whether events have shaken it, done nothing or strengthened it amongst Haitians. The woman he asked this question of said, "I was raised not to question God. Who am I to do that, question God's will?" There was then a pause (this was pre-recorded, remember, so seemed very ... intentional) and he moved on to another segment of the problems. To my mind, this was supposed to suggest acceptance and - well - agreement is too strong a word but that was the feeling I took from the piece. It scared me.

It struck me as a bit odd that there was a clear 'nod' to the listener that a point had been felt to have been made.

I know the BBC is supposed to be as impartial as it can be and not put its weight behind a viewpoint but does this also extend to the World Service radio station?

And no, this isn't a 'God sucks!' vs 'No, he's awesome!' bun fight. I'm genuinely curious if anyone knows the answer. My Google search was rubbish, to be frank.
 
You're getting that from the presenter pausing?

And who's to say that "a point" hadn't been made? The aim of the piece was, presumably, to demonstrate what some particular Haitian people were thinking - if that's the popular reaction then it's absolutely right that that's what gets reported.
 
Back
Top Bottom