Beeb To Rerun Liar's Appearance

The BBC's current compulsion to exacerbate matters when given the opportunity to exonerate itself continues. It emerged this week that tonight's episode of Would I Lie To You? featuring Kelvin MacKenzie is a repeat. The programme was first transmitted in 2009. Given what has long been known about MacKenzie, & clearly reiterated via the Hillsborough Independent Panel report, you would think that the BBC will shelve that particular repeat & air another one, wouldn't you? Well, they won't.
Seven Streets highlights the state of corporate dysfunction at the corporation (http://www.sevenstreets.com/talk-and-opinion/kelvin-mackenzie-would-i-lie-to-you/ ):
" SevenStreets scribe, Johnny Meadowcroft complained -- rightly in our opinion -- that it was disrespectful and wholly inappropriate to air the programme, while proceedings were continuing, and old wounds are still raw.
" 'We understand you're unhappy Kelvin MacKenzie will be on the programme as you feel he's an inappropriate choice of guest.
" 'This is a repeat of an episode first broadcast when Kelvin MacKenzie appeared as one of the panellists. We have taken extra care to check that there are no references to Hillsborough during the programme or to the Sun's reporting or the city of Liverpool in the light of the recent Hillsborough report.
" 'We'd also like to assure you we've registered your complaint on our audience log.' "
So the BBC is happy to repeat a programme which features an individual who participated in the largest cover-up in British legal history. Moreover, the corporation seems to think that the absence of any references to Hillsborough makes MacKenzie's appearance acceptable. Additionally, it is unconcerned that MacKenzie's actions may go before the Director of Public Prosecutions at a future stage.
Let's remind ourselves of the liar's cowardice when faced with the sort of investigative TV journalism which was once the BBC's preserve (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_meOwyOZxDE ).
While we're on the subject of lies ( & its eager practitioners), it was grimly amusing to see Roy Greenslade round on a tweet from Rupert Murdoch a couple of weeks back in which the discredited mogul sneeringly referred to phone-hacking victims as "scumbags" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/14/rupert-murdoch-phone-hacking-scumbags ). Greenslade addressed Murdoch directly in the final few paragraphs of a post on his blog (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/oct/15/rupert-murdoch-news-corporation ):
"Well, humble man, I guess it takes one to know one. Good luck with the News Corp AGM when scumbag investors ask pertinent questions about your company and then vote against you and your board.
"Not that it will unseat you, of course. You have the voting shares tied up. It's great to live in a free market when it's tilted in one's favour, isn't it?
"But this kind of insult could yet rebound. We're all scumbags now. So I call on all the scumbags of the world -- celebrities, readers, movie-watchers, satellite TV payers, investors, journalists -- to unite and throw off the shackles of the great media mogul. Boycott all that he owns."
Stirring stuff, to be sure, & no one of sound mind would demur from Greenslade's sentiments. However, it's a pity that Greenslade didn't take a similarly astringent view of Murdoch's surviving UK rag the day after the publication of the report by the Hillsborough Independent Panel (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/sep/13/hillsborough-disaster-sun ). Isn't it?