Please describe your concerns with this comment. If you simply wish to respond to the comment please use the Comment Box on the story itself:
The Sweeney programme was a clearly biased piece of PR for Rosanne Guille, Charles Maitland, and, principally, John Sweeney himself, all people with well-known axes to grind against the Barclays. Sweeney boasts in the programme that he was sued for criminal libel by the Barclays, lost, and had to apologize, that he trespassed, and that he has been called a liar and a bully. And he probably is a liar — after all, truth is a defence against libel, and one who does not lie does not usually have to apologize for libel. Having watched the infamous video clip of him yelling like a deranged lunatic I am of the opinion that he is, indeed, a bully, too. I'm not sure why Sweeney feels these are things to boast about. We've all had our less-than-glorious moments, but a serious, dignified, self-respecting journalist would feel embarrassed about them, not boast about them. Perhaps Mr Sweeney thinks that being a liar, a bully and having been found guilty of serious wrongdoing by a court are badges of honour. He certainly comes across as though he does. If this is the case, he has shown himself (again?) to be something of a clown, and Sark politicians (Maitland, Guille and co.) have shown a poor sense of judgement in whom they associate with and who they choose as their mouthpiece. Perhaps they would have been wise to watch Sweeney's other work and the sorts of witnesses he usually interviews to back up his stories — petty criminals, drug addicts, people who are clearly not credible — before associating with him. The fact that they could not find a better mouthpiece is telling. So far, however, that is all fair dos. Everyone is entitled to behave as they wish, off camera or on it, to promote their point of view, and to be judged by their audience. Sweeney is a reporter (having seen his other reporting, I choose my word carefully and refrain from using the word journalist), and it is his prerogative to use his media outlet to promote his personal point of view and his agenda. However it is arguably questionable whether pursuing his own private vendetta (and consequently engaging in clearly biased reporting) at the British taxpayers' expense is appropriate and compatible with the BBC's charter. But neither phenomenon is all that surprising coming from today's BBC. What is more questionable is for Charles Maitland to say that he felt the programme was “well balanced”. The programme clearly was not balanced. It was clearly one-sided. This surely was clear to everyone, whether sharing the programme's point of view or not. And Mr Maitland is bright enough to be able to tell that too, this we can be sure of. Had he said he was pleased with the programme, I would have believed him. But when he says he felt the programme was “well balanced“, I have to question his honesty. I am also not persuaded that the way Guernsey Press has reported this story has been balanced. Credit to you for having quoted a “Sark resident who declined to be named” who pointed out the obviously biased nature of Sweeney's reporting and presented a point of view contrary to the thrust of the GP article. But this point of view was presented too parenthetically, briefly, and tucked into a little corner at the end to balance the story out. The front page, the title, and the article's leader all make this article lopsided — if not quite fully one-sided as the Panorama story itself. I suppose that's probably the way you intended it to be. But by having done so, you have lent Sweeney a badge of credibility which in my opinion he does not deserve.