Talk:BBC review

Merge from Creative future
I don't have any objections if you wish to merge the two articles, although personally I feel that 'Creative Future' is a better and more useful heading - as the term is used so often in the press nowadays. Most of the info about 'Creative Future' was taken from the BBC Press Office - but I don't believe a word of it.

Here is an excerpt from my blog:

BBC 'Creative Future' a creative 'con trick'

Mark Thompson announced his 'vision' of things to come on 25 April 2006. It is known as 'Creative Future' and it's a kind of umbrella term which seems to enable BBC management to do whatever they like. Damson88 10:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not up on the story but as of now the article Creative future seems about a biased as an article could be. Merge them: strip away the POV and there'll not be much left to merge.  As for what the title should be ... I say I'm not up on things but the title Creative Future?  This sounds about as biased as the the article itself (the one under that title).  There's been no objection in two months.  I'm merging the two articles.  The merge will consist of copying and pasting the quote: this is the only non-biased part of the article (though added, I'm sure, with baised intent; it's a quote though, so tells us more of the mastermind than of his dubious scheme).  As for Creative Future's being more useful: it's useless to me.  I don't live in the UK nor am I from there.  Half a dozen years down the track this'll all have blown over and my guess is that even the Brits & N. Irish will have forgotten about it.  BBC Review is more descriptive to me (no, not very but a whole lot more).  In a few years it may be more descriptive to those it effects. Jimp 13:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)