• 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

No excuse. They were warned, and took no action
Could we have a source to support the claim the BBC were warned prior to broadcast?

If the claim is after broadcast could we have a time and source?

Also what were they warned about?

You make claims that are either factually incorrect e.g. the BBC did the editing or not supported by your sources. So It is essential you provide your sources so we can see if your claims are an accurate representation.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
No, not remotely believable.
But even in the unlikely event that any of this is true, there is no escaping the fact that the BBC were warned about the edit, and they dismissed the warning. It is the elephant in the room that people here ate ignoring.
If you think this is about raising standards at the BBC you are being naive. It's only one attack in a war on the Trump not approved media.
 
Could we have a source to support the claim the BBC were warned prior to broadcast?

If the claim is after broadcast could we have a time and source?

Also what were they warned about?

You make claims that are either factually incorrect e.g. the BBC did the editing or not supported by your sources. So It is essential you provide your sources so we can see if your claims are an accurate representation.

Who do you think Prescott sent his memo to? The doorman? The janitor perhaps? Maybe the gardener?
 

Who do you think Prescott sent his memo to? The doorman? The janitor perhaps? Maybe the gardener?
Thank you.

The memo highlighting the edit, was sent in summer 2025, the speech was made in January 6 2021. The program was broadcast October 28 2024. We are not sure when exactly the memo was received, but it was leaked at the end of October, meaning the BBC had it for around 3 months before it was leaked.

Certainly a recurrent criticism of the BBC is it is slow in decision making, but this was a non-urgent issue, a memo commenting on an event four years ago, on an external production broadcast a year earlier about which no complaints were received contemporaneously. A memo which would require substantial structural and philosophical alterations within the BBC.

Similarly with the 'Gaza' documentary. This was a bought in documentary, not a BBC production, the criticism seems to relate to a child narrator who appeared and was related (the son of) someone who was previously a junior member of the Gazan government (a deputy ministry of agriculture), this is a senior civil servant rather than a political position, The father Ayman Alyazouri, is an environmental scientist with a PhD* who has worked internationally prior to taking up a position in the Gazan government. He is not a terrorist, no evidence has been provided he is even a member of Hamas. No factual errors were identified. The sole criticism is that this should have been declared as a 'conflict of interest'.

* PhD in Environmental Analytical Chemistry (Soil Remediation) from the University of Huddersfield; 'Analytical chemistry and phytoextraction of hexavalent chromium with Portulaca oleracea.'

 
Last edited:
Your points don't stand up to scrutiny - it's YouGov, not an on-line self-selection poll

Yes it is. It's an internet based poll.

Don't let the Gov in the name fool you in to thinking it's some kind of official government organisation.

Founder Nadhim Zahawi is Iraqi-born British former politician who served in various ministerial positions under prime ministers Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.
The other founder Stephan Shakespeare is the former owner of the websites ConservativeHome (now owned by Lord Ashcroft)
 
Last edited:
US President Donald Trump has said he has an "obligation" to sue the BBC over the way a section of his speech was edited in a Panorama documentary.

Speaking to Fox News, he said his 6 January 2021 speech had been "butchered" and the way it was presented had "defrauded" viewers.

"They actually changed my January 6 speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and they made it sound radical."

 
Trump would undoubtedly lose a lawsuit. But that’s not the point, he doesn't want it to go to court.
The point is to bully the publicly funded BBC into offering a significant settlement like he's done to other media companies. It’s a politically charged counter-attack tactic Trump uses fairly regularly to force the media to only report good things about him.
 
Trump would undoubtedly lose a lawsuit. But that’s not the point, he doesn't want it to go to court.
The point is to bully the publicly funded BBC into offering a significant settlement like he's done to other media companies. It’s a politically charged counter-attack tactic Trump uses fairly regularly to force the media to only report good things about him.
I think the problem is that people like Farage is going to try to make hay about where the money for either legal costs or settlement comes from and complain whichever one BBC chooses.
 
Any large media organisation not owned by a right wing billionaire is a danger to those who wish to continue to pursue their propaganda agenda.

The BBC is the largest and most widespread of these. Conservative voices have been trying to silence it for decades.

I do hope they don't succeed. I like having a news organisation that's not owned by a rich person with an agenda.
 
Any large media organisation not owned by a right wing billionaire is a danger to those who wish to continue to pursue their propaganda agenda.

The BBC is the largest and most widespread of these. Conservative voices have been trying to silence it for decades.

I do hope they don't succeed. I like having a news organisation that's not owned by a rich person with an agenda.
Who can I stream from? A bunch of bastards who wield influence far beyone my single vote.
 
Who can I stream from? A bunch of bastards who wield influence far beyone my single vote.

Just as long as you watch only approved news media, curated by those in the pay of people who earn in a single day more than your family earns in a lifetime (cos they're special...)

Just don't get your news from any of those non-approved sources, that makes revisionist history very hard to stick to, you know.

Just work, pay taxes and die. That's what poor people are for. Poor people being defined as anyone with a net worth of less than a couple of hundred million dollars.
 

Back
Top Bottom