Suchergebnisse

The 2004 report of the Hutton Inquiry created today's BBC. It cost the corporation its Chairman and Director General and seemed to many to usher in an age of self-doubt and caution. It was also the end of the most extraordinary experiment in news management Britain has ever seen ? the decade of Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's spin doctor, charged with delivering what Peter Mandelson described as New Labour's mission to ?create the truth'. But Lord Hutton condemned the BBC and its journalism without hearing a single word from the man who put the ?sexed up' dossier story on the air: Today editor

Abstract
Journalism and the media have a direct impact for both good and ill on the health of the public discourse, yet practitioners and the academy are as divided as were late medieval barber surgeons from those who studied the relationship between practice and the health of patients. There are both valid and invalid reasons for this – the valid reasons derive from the simple fact journalists and scholars have different roles in the public sphere; and the invalid reasons derive from stubbornness bordering on arrogance on both sides of the divide. Few practitioners see the academy as relevant to them; few accept the need to listen to, understand and perhaps act on informed critique. Few scholars are either prepared to make their work timely and relevant to current issues or to abandon the intimidating formats and incomprehensible language that alienates practitioners. Yet there are numerous examples, including the Public Journalism movement in the United States, the Reuters Institute in Oxford and even the BBC's review system that demonstrate how practitioners and scholars can be persuaded to inhabit – even briefly – the same universe.

This study examines the decision-making process leading to President Barack Obama's decision to order a troop surge in Afghanistan in December 2009. I analyze the decision-making process according to the precepts of the bureaucratic politics model and conclude that the bureaucratic politics model provides a compelling and descriptively accurate account of the Afghanistan surge decision-making process. Actors' policy preferences were influenced by consideration of bureaucratic role and position within government, significant examples of political activity occurred throughout the strategy review, and the ultimate decision was a political compromise. Adapted from the source document.

BBC's earliest interpretations of impartiality were very simple. They did not require any elaboration so long as the public discourse appeared bipolar: There was the government on the one hand and the opposition on the other; there was capital, there was labor. But by the turn
of this century, the BBC found itself in a position in which it became extremely difficult for its editors to apply and practice impartiality as before. Dramatic changes and transformations within the British society and the world at large prompted the BBC to come up with new defining values
for impartiality. This article traces how the BBC developed its own standards and practices of impartiality in news and current affairs in the decades since its establishment in 1922.

This article examines the role of former National Security Advisor (NSA) James Jones in the Obama administration. I argue that Jones served as an administrator and failed to achieve a close advisory relationship with the president and ceded many aspects of coordination and management of the foreign policy‐making process to Deputy NSA Tom Donilon and other actors within the administration. The article then concludes with a discussion of the continued importance and influence of presidential management style on the role, power, and influence of the NSA in U.S. foreign policy making.