The way this same story has been spun by the BBC worries me.
You'd think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was 'unlawful'.
The Beeb did go with 'unlawful' in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness.
'Unlawlful' now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quotation from a campaign group.
Nowhere in the article does the BBC succinctly say a tribunal held that GCHQ breached human rights law. It simply says the agency is now complaint (without saying that it was not for seven years).
To me at least, it seems the BBC is becoming less of a public-service broadcaster and more of a state one.
I'm going to _try_ to stop reading BBC News instead.
It won't be easy because I've been using it for years. I like the site's navigation and readability but the content is often lacking given their resources.
They did something similar with the Prince Andrew story, reporting his "emphatic" denials before mentioning the allegations.
Clearly, he is innocent until proven guilty. However, the Beeb regularly seems eager to jump to the defense of the powerful rather than scrutinise.
I'm veering way off-topic now but this morning they had a big, brash, bullshit "breaking news" banner for a piece about a tennis player's wedding date.
That may be of interest to the public but it's not in the public interest. Too often the BBC conflates the two as meaning the same thing.
It quite literally says they contravened articles 8 or 10 of the ECHR but now comply.
With a quick read up on the ECHR it seems that the judgements made are binding but, since according to the judgement they are now compliant, it doesn't seem like any action will be taken.
Again this is from a view of complete ignorance of the law, but censure seems like the most appropriate word in this case.
It looks like the article was rewritten to focus more what what is happening now than what happened in the past. It doesn't look particularly like underhandedness to me
You'd think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was 'unlawful'.
The Beeb did go with 'unlawful' in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness.
'Unlawlful' now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quotation from a campaign group.
Nowhere in the article does the BBC succinctly say a tribunal held that GCHQ breached human rights law. It simply says the agency is now complaint (without saying that it was not for seven years).
To me at least, it seems the BBC is becoming less of a public-service broadcaster and more of a state one.
-- GCHQ censured over sharing of internet surveillance data with US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451