Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
Scotland
Quite. It's like when shops or pubs make a mistake with your change - how many times have you been given too much?
The bbc, again.
- Topic starter Eagleman13
- Start date
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
England
Do they really make more mistakes or is the truth that they make more content which is constantly scrutinised by those who have a commercial interest in its demise and that they are held to a higher standard than others?
It’s very difficult for any objective, unbiased observer to find positive things to say about bad people. Do you expect them to lie?
The BBC are not anti semitic in any way. Nor are they pro Hamas, they report the plight of the innocents in Gaza, which is very different. Nor are they pro trans or DEI. They just aren’t negative either. No apologies needed on an institutional level. Individual mistakes perhaps.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
Can we agree a truce on this for the night? The news about Becky has removed any appetite for argument and Palace kick off in 20 minutes.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
Quite obviously!
The mistake wasn’t noticed, by anyone, until it was pointed out. Even then there was a difference of opinion about whether it really mattered, but,on balance, the Board decided it did because it failed to meet the BBC’s own high standards. There was no intent to mislead or harm anyone. They were reporting things that Trump said, 2 out of a huge number of things he said, on the subject. They could have put any number of them together, but all ought to have been marked as separate from each other. That was the accident. Either by an over enthusiastic journalist or, more likely, just overlooked in the cutting room at the editing stage.
Eagleman13
Member
- Location
- On The Road To Hell & Alicante
- Country
Bermuda
Chip, Chip, chip away . . . Another event lost to the bbc, this time by TNT, the Commonwealth Games . . .
www.bbc.co.uk
BBC replaced by TNT Sports as Commonwealth Games live broadcaster
The subscription channel takes over from the BBC which had been the principal partner since 1954 and provided free-to-air coverage.
www.bbc.co.uk
Common Sense Club
Member
- Country
-
England
As I have said before, there was no fade between the various sections of the speech, which is normal practice when editing parts of an event. Either it was deliberate or a junior (YTS) member of staff was given the task. The jury can decide that.
cryrst
Member
- Location
- The garden of England
- Country
-
England
So you are certain; others just think they’re certain. Go on explain why you are correct again then. I’ve got my coco 🤦
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
The mistake has been acknowledged and an apology made. It did not though alter the message of the programme. Nor did it harm Trump in the USA. No one saw it there. He won the election. If it ever gets put to a jury they will indeed decide. I think the chances of that being necessary is slim to nothing. I think the Judge would dismiss it. Don’t you?
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
My capacity to think is perfectly intact. That’s what I think, but if you read what I said I acknowledge that others disagree. We can all be certain of something, only to be surprised to learn we were wrong. Just as others can be surprised to learn I was right.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
Great if you're prepared to have your opinion decided by the BBC's editing of facts. It's up to you to decide how much of their news reporting you believe now they've been exposed.
It makes SPOTY even more absurd.Chip, Chip, chip away . . . Another event lost to the bbc, this time by TNT, the Commonwealth Games . . .
BBC replaced by TNT Sports as Commonwealth Games live broadcaster
The subscription channel takes over from the BBC which had been the principal partner since 1954 and provided free-to-air coverage.
I actually sympathise with BBC about sports shows. It's hugely expensive because of the rights and the BBC does not have a dedicated Sports channel. So they have made a strategic decision to withdraw from showing most sports.
Bu they insist on keeping SPOTY when most of the sports are shown on rival channels. SPOTY is expensive to put on largely because the BBC is putting up several hundred people in hotels , transport etc. The BBC wont say how much it costs but it's rumoured to be millions.
It's an oddity, it's like Tesco's putting on an awards shows for Sainsbury's and Waitrose.
They need to hand it over to Sky.
How do you know no one in the US saw it? It may not have been on mainstream channels but the US do have the internet, you know! When we had a property there, we had BBC news as one of the tv channels. I don’t think you should be so confident that no one saw it
This will be one of the key arguments.
Don't forget that people stream clips from shows all the time on Social media. Did anyone show that clip and if so how many viewed it?
If BBC have to prove no one in the US saw it! Mmmm
I think it will be more like Trump having to prove it was seen.
Common Sense Club
Member
- Country
-
England
Reminds me of the rumoured case of a prison officer who was disciplined for making a comment about a wife visiting her husband in jail. She couldn’t speak any English and he spoke out of earshot of the woman, but apparently because she may have heard it and could have been offended by it, then he was reprimanded. The same principle applies: because somebody in the US could have seen the programme etc….
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
The claim is that the programme was available in America via Britbox (1 m + US subscribers) and via a Canadian streaming service available in America. There are also those with VPNs so although the exact figure is unknown it's highly unlikely no one saw it.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
My opinion isn’t decided by anyone except myself. Not by you or anyone at the BBC, whose own behaviour is subject to much more control than either of us, or any other organisation that I am aware of. As as consequence I trust their reporting to be both fair and accurate much more readily than I do others.
That’s not to suggest that individuals cannot make mistakes or that there can be differences of opinion about how relevant a mistake is, and therefore how it is handled.
To suggest they have been “exposed” just confirms a biased viewpoint from that side of politics who constantly denigrate, and refuse to see the immense value to our country, of one of our greatest achievements.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
A remarkably evangelical approach.
No comments about the rubbish this fantastic broadcaster is offering over Christmas?
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
No news outlet can be held legally responsible for what any individual decides to view via an unregulated third party over the internet. Anyone posting a clip is responsible for that themselves.
It’s different for regulated, licensed streaming services. Apparently there was such a licence holder for the Panorama documentary, based in Canada, but they have said no one in the USA who they relicense to, used it.
So it wasn’t legally seen there.