This story over at the Mail today
has the unfortunate effect of not being direct enough with its readers about what they should be outraged about. Sure, they know they should be angry: it's about the BBC, for goodness' sake. So they know the BBC has done something wrong. But what have they done wrong - attempting to show the programme in the first place, or not showing it?
Bonus points for slagging off NuLabour as well as the BBC, and implying they have a joint agenda with Auntie. Maybe they don't have an agenda at all, which is why they can drop things? But then, it might just be Labour's fault entirely:
No wait, it's the BBC:
Ron gets voted down for this:
while this provocative comment
draws a furious response
which appears to be saying: "I hate the principle of the BBC and therefore everything they do, regardless of whether I find those decisions positive or negative". Which is ideal for this kind of story, where it's not obvious whether you're meant to be outraged by the BBC or the ballet company. This is the problem the Mail encounters when it's that little bit too subtle for the commenting chumps.
But here is an occasion where the Mail and its friends have won. The BBC has dropped something controversial for fear of having just this kind of story being trotted out by the usual suspects, you can't help feeling. And yet even that isn't good enough to escape the condemnation.