CH
No I completely agree with you. The BBC, quite rightly, is against too much interference by the Government to maintain its impartiality. Therefore it should equally maintain its impartiality in its coverage of today's royal charter. Changing the ident to suggest destruction blurred that impartiality line.
My issue was that the ident at first glance looks like a statement the BBC are making on their own future, as there is no real separation between the normal ident/announcement and the '2' explosion going into TV static, which I thought it was a bit ethically unsound.
I fully agree with those who say the BBC is in a dangerous position and needs to be saved from a government on track to virtually destroy it. I just felt this was uncharacteristic of the BBC. It sort of reminds me of those ITV sponsorships from the 90s like on This Morning where there was no real separation between the sponsor and the titles.
Looks like I'm the only one who thinks this though so I'll happily defer. I know there are more pressing issues!
I fully agree with those who say the BBC is in a dangerous position and needs to be saved from a government on track to virtually destroy it. I just felt this was uncharacteristic of the BBC. It sort of reminds me of those ITV sponsorships from the 90s like on This Morning where there was no real separation between the sponsor and the titles.
Looks like I'm the only one who thinks this though so I'll happily defer. I know there are more pressing issues!
No I completely agree with you. The BBC, quite rightly, is against too much interference by the Government to maintain its impartiality. Therefore it should equally maintain its impartiality in its coverage of today's royal charter. Changing the ident to suggest destruction blurred that impartiality line.

