Alan Johnson

The news of Alan Johnson's release from captivity is obviously very welcome. However the BBC's blanket coverage, while understandable, was horrible and made my toes curl. The BBC rather revealed their discomfort at their own excesses by the embarrassed mention of the five British hostages in Iraq at the end of the Johnson piece. This was probably the first that most people had heard of them since the day they were seized.

When you think about it, isn't it just wrong that Alan Johnson got a slot on the BBC news and on the front of the website, pretty much every day for the last four months, while the other hostages were all but forgotten? It rather nicely encapsulates the problem with the BBC, or even the public sector as a whole.

It's run for the benefit of its staff, rather than for the public who pay for it. 

Comments

[Will Blake]

People look after their own, whether family or tribe. You notice it more with people who work for the media for the obvious reason that they control the media. It's unfair but then, what isn't?

[Bishop Hill]

If someone working in a shop decided to sell things to their friends on the cheap (looking after their own) they would be fired. Why should BBC staff be able to use assets they don't own to look after theirs?

It's not so much that its unfair (life isn't) as rather immoral. The BBC takes money by force and uses it to look after its own.

[chris strange]

You notice they also went into full on "we love Hamas" mode a well.

[Bishop Hill]

Looking after their own again, perhaps. ;-)

[Ellee]

I read a press release from an MEP saying Alan Johnson should be honoured for the dignity he showed throughout and after his ordeal. That is totally ludicrous, he had so many supporters, compared to those forogetten hostages in Iraq, as well as the rest of the world.