Jacko, I’m inclined to agree with you when you say
to front a Panorama whose primary focus was a military aircraft procurement, I would have though that some grasp of military aviation would have been a help
Indeed, I have several times tried to persuade the BBC at least to use advisers who know about aviation when they’re doing aviation stories. They rarely do, possibly because they figure that their top investigative reporters will find out enough about the subject in the course of their research. We know that doesn’t work - but I’ve come to the conclusion it’s probably a matter of pride. It’s also perhaps another result of the ‘dumbing down’ of programmes like Panorama - or maybe we should call it tabloidisation. Not that either phrase or word is particularly attractive.
But I still maintain that it’s better to have a tabloidised Panorama in peak time than not to have one at all. At least it is covering stories that we think are important - even if it does display a lack of aviation know-how in the process. I shall continue to try and persuade them to improve their output, but I don’t hold out much hope....
.
I disagree that
....the use of words like bribe is pretty emotive.
My OED defines ‘bribe’ as ‘money, etc, offered to procure action or decision in favour of giver’. Also, earlier in Corbin’s piece, Jeremy Carver, Board Member of Transparency International (
www.transparency.org), said
"Those payments, on the face of it, are straightforward bribes as defined by the Ant-Bribery Convention". (of the OECD).
That said, Corbin didn’t actually refer to bribes in her upsum. She said
"...the moral of the story is that if you're a British arms dealer, make sure you've got government cover written into the contract, then a kickback or two should be no problem."
which I think to be fair comment, at least partly because she had referred to ‘kickbacks’ on more than one occasion already.
Altogether, I believe Corbin’s piece moved an important story along.
airsound