Talk:BBC admits sending hecklers into Conservative campaign meeting
Pro-Conservative Bias 
The article seems a little heavy on the pro-Conservative bias, giving little space to the other side of the conversation. Some of the remarks from this Guardian article where the producer of the show defends the incident should be included for balance. --Axon 13:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- According to Mr. Black's letter of protest to the broadcaster, Sally Freestone, the UK Special Events assignments editor, was said to be "aghast" at the BBC's behaviour.
Who is Sally Freestone, which organisation is she UK Special Events assignments editor for, and why should we care that she is "aghast"? --Axon
Conservative bias 
I have to agree with Axon, this article seems to be heavily slanted towards the tory party. I was listening to the BBC yesterday (25th April) and a representative of the programme gave a very reasoned and reasonable defence of the programme. The theory of the programme was that it was a study of public reaction to election campaigns, including the way that parties now handle public meetings and the heckling that traditionally take place at them. He made the point that the heckling organised by the BBC took place at meetings of the Tory party, New Labour and Liberal democrat parties. It would be unthinkable in the current environment for the BBC not to have been balanced in this way. I got the impression from the broadcast that Michael Howard was probably the only party leader to be hecled, whether this was by design or chance, who knows. The BBC representative made interesting comments about the current planning of "public" meetings by all the major parties, in that wherever possible they are populated by selected party supporters, whose activities in response to reporters and hecklers appears to be well co-ordinated. It seems to me that the response of the Tory party to this programme is going to do little or nothing for the public perception of them. There does not seem to be a suggestion that these "hecklers" were specially trained in any way, just asked to heckle, so one has to assume that Mr Howard is not as competent as one might hope at handling hecklers.
- It would be interesting to optain a link to that interview. I know the BBC creates streams for a lot of it's radio programmes so it would be great if you could dig it out. --Axon 17:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can Wikinews do this too? 
Sending hecklers into a political meeting is OK, as long as you send them in for all the major parties?
Please read those words again - "the heckling organised by the BBC".
Can Wikinews do this too? This kind of behavior is "very reasoned and reasonable"?
How about if I get some friends and send them into some local campaign meetings so I can file a story with "original reporting"?
This is not a Conservative vs Labour story.
This is a story about mainstream media deciding it was a slow news day, or that they didn't like the news, so they went out and made some of their own news.
I would be really surprised if any regular contributors to Wikinews would endorse this kind of nonsense, but if this is ethical behavior on the part of the BBC, please let me know, so I can win the upcoming Original Reporting contest using these same techniques! — DV 06:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hi David. I think it's irrelevant as to whether this was right or wrong. Obviously, there is another side to this incident and we should present both sides in a balanced and neutral fashion rather than trying to make some point about journalism and accepting as gospel what is being written by Tory spin doctors. Perhaps you got caught up in the fervor of moment, but the original article as you write it was very POV and unbalanced in favor of the Conservative and against the BBC.
- Also, as the original author of this piece could you elaborate on some of the points raised in the comments above? In particular, could you elaborate on the enigmatic and context-less quote from Sally Freestone. Ta :) --Axon 10:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)