Followed by:
Apparently missing that the first comment was tongue-in-cheek, the Mail rushed into action with a 'bash-the-BBC, Christianity-under-attack' classic:
At time of writing, however, the Mail's article has disappeared, quietly deleted from the Mail's website as it realised Vine's comment may not have been entirely serious.
Why?
Well, the Express published the story in Wednesday's paper, on page five:
BBC presenter Jeremy Vine sparked a row yesterday after claiming he had to ask bosses for “special permission” to play a Christian hymn on his show – for fear of upsetting other religions...
It is understood permission had to be given by BBC bosses in case playing a Christian hymn was seen as promoting one religion over another.
But skip to the end of the Mark Reynolds' story and there's this:
Last night a BBC spokeswoman said the presenter had not been serious on Twitter. She said: “Jeremy tweeted a light-hearted remark to highlight the fact he doesn’t normally play hymns in the show. Of course he did not need approval to play the hymn.”
How Reynolds 'understood' why permission had to be given when it didn't isn't entirely clear. And why would he need permission, if they are 'keen' to find the nation's favourite?
The Mail's website has not printed the BBC's comment, or clarified why their article was deleted. But their version of the story has already spread across the internet.
Posts
Unsurprising to read the the "reason" for needing to ask permission - "for fear of upsetting other religions", has been completely made up, and just happens to fit with the paper's agenda.
ReplyDeleteI don't see a problem with having to get permission to play a hymn, after all it's not really within Radio 2's format or playlist
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile over at the Maldives, things get reported much more tongue in cheek.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15027163
'A Maldives government official told the BBC the Telegraph should not publish such "nonsense" under its brand name when it could be mistaken for news.'
Not publishing nonsense as news.
Ah, the very idea.
But a neat precedent.
Naughty Mail. But others are not driven snow too?
These days high horses seem to be mounted on shaky pedestals alllll the time.
Who gets offended, and when, being more down to the tribal affiliations abounding.