The BBC are reporting as headline news that John Major's evidence at the Leveson Inquiry contradicts Rupert Murdoch's; the implication being that Rupert Murdoch lied. This is part of the BBC's build up to David Cameron's giving of evidence, the narrative has been set.
Meanwhile the BBC are not reporting with anything like the same enthusiasm that Ed Miliband's evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, as well as much other information, contradicts Gordon Brown's evidence; the clear implication being that Gordon Brown lied, indeed apparently perjured himself at the Inquiry.
Why the difference in the treatment of these two almost identical stories?
Meanwhile the BBC are not reporting with anything like the same enthusiasm that Ed Miliband's evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, as well as much other information, contradicts Gordon Brown's evidence; the clear implication being that Gordon Brown lied, indeed apparently perjured himself at the Inquiry.
Why the difference in the treatment of these two almost identical stories?
No comments:
Post a Comment