Summary: BBC under pressure from critics of its reporters and taxpayers who fund it only to be blocked access to content that they paid for

A YEAR ago we wrote a post/rant that had the title "Maggie Shills [sic] Does Not Know That Zombies Are a Windows Problem". This was due to repeated behaviour and typical deception from the BBC. It did not report the facts.

Yesterday we complained that the BBC carried yet more Microsoft propaganda, but Maggie Shiels surprised with today's followup article, which says:

Botnets are usually armies of hijacked Windows PCs that send spam or malware.

Right. Or as Pamela Jones put it over at Groklaw: "Are there any computers in these botnets that are not Windows computers? If not, then is it a cyberspace problem or a Windows problem? I wish them well, but let's be clear. There is another solution. Clean out your Windows problem by installing GNU/Linux or Mac OSX."

So the BBC previously parroted Microsoft's publicity stunts over something that will make no practical difference given its relative scale (Microsoft versus just one Windows botnet). Moreover, it's something that was Microsoft's fault to begin with.

Dana Blankenhorn has also just published the following criticism of the BBC (see older posts about this fiasco [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]).

The response was to try and tie the BBC’s existing strengths in broadcasting tightly to its Web site. Politically the idea was to make them one and the same. The BBC needed a friend here, and it found one in Microsoft.

Microsoft was willing to do whatever the BBC wanted, support whatever draconian DRM regime was called for, in exchange for proprietary advantage. Its iPlayer gave the agency control over who could see what, reducing the inherent subsidy in Americans visiting the BBC News Web site.

One result is that the BBC is now locking out open source, verifying “rights” to view content by verifying the player. They have gone so far down the proprietary road that the interests of specific American companies — Microsoft and Adobe — are now the interests of the BBC.

It’s crazy if you think about it. Tieing British citizens to American technology companies, when there is solid British-based competition from Matt and his bosses, right there in London.

But open source could not have enforced rules on users as the proprietary companies could. Open source could not have the politicians’ backs as Microsoft might.

Well, that's why the BBC shoots its own foot [1, 2]. It cannot expect to be seen as deserving respect or trust. ⬆