The BBC has removed dozens of FOI Act disclosures relating to the TV licence from its website.
The move comes as the Corporation faces unprecedented media and public scrutiny over the way it conducts itself both on and off air.
The last month saw the Daily Telegraph mount a relentless attack on TV Licensing - attention the BBC could no doubt do without, which raises the real possibility that the BBC have censored their website as a result. Can the timing of their online cannibalism be coincidental?
Quite simply people are asking too many questions about TV Licensing. The BBC are afraid of providing too many answers because they know it will undermine the effectiveness of the entire licensing system (based on phantom detection methods and deceitful mailshots).
The below screenshots show the TV licence section of the BBC FOI web pages on 11th November 2008 (containing 164 disclosures) and 21st December 2008 (containing 16 disclosures). The slimmed down content is very evident.
The move comes as the Corporation faces unprecedented media and public scrutiny over the way it conducts itself both on and off air.
The last month saw the Daily Telegraph mount a relentless attack on TV Licensing - attention the BBC could no doubt do without, which raises the real possibility that the BBC have censored their website as a result. Can the timing of their online cannibalism be coincidental?
Quite simply people are asking too many questions about TV Licensing. The BBC are afraid of providing too many answers because they know it will undermine the effectiveness of the entire licensing system (based on phantom detection methods and deceitful mailshots).
The below screenshots show the TV licence section of the BBC FOI web pages on 11th November 2008 (containing 164 disclosures) and 21st December 2008 (containing 16 disclosures). The slimmed down content is very evident.
21st December 2008: Now you don't, as 90% of the entries vanish.
(Edit: Alex Singleton at the Telegraph has been following our story. Read our follow up article here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment