• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread BBC news reporting

Pixel42 said:
The BBC is not a monolith, it's composed of individuals who sometimes make errors of judgement. This latest one doesn't mean the whole organisation has suddenly descended to the level of Fox News, it's actually still one of the more reliable news sources. The mistakes are rarely deliberately intended to deceive, and are usually acknowledged and corrected when identified.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that is pure ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. The blatant "progressive" bias of the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation) has been painfully obvious for years and is now well documented, as is the long-running systematic failure of the BBC's leadership to deal with the problem. The corporation's director general and the CEO of its news division don't resign over quickly corrected isolated errors.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
It illustrates Pixel42's point that the BBC is not a monolith which does X "while all the time KNOWING" Y. If there was anyone complicit in covering up crimes committed by Jimmy Saville, they should be in the dock for it. Saying "the BBC" knew is just not true.
Click to expand...
People should have been in the dock for the wrongful imprisonment of the Guildford Five.... Were they? Ever?
People should have been in the dock for the wrongful imprisonment of the Birmingham Six.... Were they? Ever?
People should have been in the dock for the wrongful imprisonment of the Maguire Seven.... Were they? Ever?
People should be in the dock for the Post Office scandal.... Will they be? Ever?

There is plenty of evidence to show that the BBC knew what Savile was doing, and missed multiple opportunities to put a stop to it because of a "culture of fear" The same culture that led them to miss Stuart Hall's offending as well.

Here, from the BBC themselves, about 9 years ago, when their reporting was more fair and balanced

www.bbc.com

Savile and Hall: BBC 'missed chances to stop attacks'

The BBC missed opportunities to stop "monstrous" abuse by DJ Jimmy Savile and broadcaster Stuart Hall because of a "culture of fear", an inquiry says.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

Jack by the hedge said:
The top people who resigned over this obviously didn't review Panorama before broadcast as that's not their job. They carried the can because the buck stops with them.
Click to expand...
No, that is incorrect. Michael Prescott, the independent advisor, wrote to the BBC Board numerous times to warn them about their bias in transgender issues, and their Gaza reporting, and specifically, about Panorama program. If you believe that Davie (Director General) and Turness (CEO of News) didn't know about it, then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Firstly, that is a fair bit of whataboutism you're indulging in, but to address your comment, I am well aware of the limitations on profit based media. But none of those media get funding from a compulsory license fee levied on the public.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, nothing compulsory about it at all. You're required to get a licence if you watch live broadcast (over the air or streamed) TV in the UK, which is not the same thing.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Not sure how not getting as far as actually standing for office for the Reform Party qualifies as "stood as a Democrat," in fact it strikes me as a very similar level of untruth as the one the BBC has just been pilloried for.

Dave
Click to expand...
He stood initially as a Democrat... that is an undeniable fact, and serves to illustrate the point I was making - that just because someone once had political affiliations with one party, doesn't mean they still do. Ever heard of Jane Kennedy? Jamie Green? ......... Winston Churchill!!?
 
zooterkin said:
Nonsense, nothing compulsory about it at all. You're required to get a licence if you watch live broadcast (over the air or streamed) TV in the UK, which is not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Bwhahahaha! You contradicted yourself in the space of eight words!

If you want to watch the BBC, you MUST have a licence. How archaic!
 
smartcooky said:
He stood initially as a Democrat... that is an undeniable fact, and serves to illustrate the point I was making - that just because someone once had political affiliations with one party, doesn't mean they still do. Ever heard of Jane Kennedy? Jamie Green? ......... Winston Churchill!!?
Click to expand...
What year was that, then?
smartcooky said:
Bwhahahaha! You contradicted yourself in the space of eight words!
Click to expand...

Try reading it again, and pay attention to the 'if'. It is not compulsory to watch live TV.
smartcooky said:
If you want to watch the BBC, you MUST have a licence. How archaic!
Click to expand...
If you want to watch Sky, you need to pay a subscription. How archaic!
 
Last edited:
I think we all should just accept that (a) because Donald Trump is an unprincipled narcissist who will espouse any political stance that he feels will increase his personal authority, therefore no long-standing political views may ever be attributed to anyone else, ever, and (b) the word 'compulsory' doesn't involve actually having to do anything, so we can move on to the important business of proving black is white.

Dave
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It illustrates Pixel42's point that the BBC is not a monolith which does X "while all the time KNOWING" Y. If there was anyone complicit in covering up crimes committed by Jimmy Saville, they should be in the dock for it. Saying "the BBC" knew is just not true.

The top people who resigned over this obviously didn't review Panorama before broadcast as that's not their job. They carried the can because the buck stops with them.
Click to expand...
Wasn't Maggie the Milk Thief one of Saville's biggest fans. He was a staunch right winger for definite.

PS is this whole latest furore over a report where segments of TACOs incitement to treason speech were spliced together for brevity's sake and gave an accurate representation of the tenor of said speech? Because that's what it seems to me just catching the edges of it.
 
Last edited:
The edit juxtaposed his "we're going to walk down to the Capitol" bit (about cheering on their senators) with his later "And we fight. We fight like hell" bit (about battling against corrupt elections he fantasizes about). Both from the same speech, but far separated in the original.
 
What was that BBC editor thinking? Surely he/she knew it would be spotted? There was also no need for the edit. Idiot.
 
Nessie said:
What was that BBC editor thinking? Surely he/she knew it would be spotted? There was also no need for the edit. Idiot.
Click to expand...

I gather the two quotes were 50 minutes apart in the speech. They obviously weren't going to play the whole thing. The stupid, clumsy thing was editing them together making it seem like Trump might have told the crowd to go to the Capitol and fight.

I think it's extremely unlikely they set out to deceive thinking nobody would notice. More likely they stupidly convinced themselves it was fair as Trump did say both things in the same speech just before the Capitol riot. A failure to put themselves in the mind of those who insist Trump didn't want to provoke the riot, rather than the side which believes he did intend it.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
We ditched ours 26 years ago. Aussies ditched theirs almost 50 years ago. Yeah, quaint alright.
Click to expand...
I remembered having this conversation previously and with our shiny new Search I find nearly a decade ago, with another New Zealander (the since-banned cullennz.) I said it was quaint, and that what would do for it was its becoming irrelevant as people just don't sit down and watch TV any more. Odd to think it's still a thing. It's soon going to be like trying to fund the internet by taxing landline phones.

Another such conversation was with another member enraged by the blatant right-wing bias of BBC News. Funny old world.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
PS is this whole latest furore over a report where segments of TACOs incitement to treason speech were spliced together for brevity's sake and gave an accurate representation of the tenor of said speech? Because that's what it seems to me just catching the edges of it.
Click to expand...
What it looks like to me is that there was a piece of reporting that was so egregiously biased that heads have to roll, and was so damaging to Trump's reputation that he is threatening to sue for a billion Dollars, but neither he nor anyone else outside the BBC noticed for a year after it was broadcast.
 
jt512 said:
Sorry, but that is pure ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. The blatant "progressive" bias of the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation) has been painfully obvious for years and is now well documented, as is the long-running systematic failure of the BBC's leadership to deal with the problem. The corporation's director general and the CEO of its news division don't resign over quickly corrected isolated errors.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Telegraph. That famously neutral publication.
 
smartcooky said:
You'll get no argument from about the vileness of The Fat Orange Turd, but it does not matter whether he was in the UK or not. Damage to reputation (such as iit is) does not become invalid when you cross a border.
Of course, he is a property owner in the UK, though I am unsure as to whether that forms any part of a valid legal argument.
Click to expand...
Then, by that all-encompassing standard, hundreds of millions of non-Brits can sue any/all of the right wing trash rags for racial and/or religious vilification, going back decades. For extortionate amounts of cash each, based on Trump’s most recent threat to the Beeb. And if you scoff at them, remember that they have far more solid grounds for action than he does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom