The bbc, again.

[HKOwen]

When the Head of News appeared before the board she claimed they had done nothing wrong. The board of course disagreed and made it clear that if she could not see how serious this was then the board had lost confidence in her. I suspect the same applied to the DG. Anyway both felt compelled to resign (before they were sacked).

Big pay offs fat pensions

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Big pay offs fat pensions

Barrow loads of our money.

 

[Spindle]

Have you ever signed a NDA. I have and remain bound by them. It isn’t convenient but it is pragmatic to avoid long drawn out tribunal hearings. Executives always possess company information that would be valuable to a competitor. That’s why it’s done.

No but I've signed the OSA many times. That's a loyalty to the nation, not to some corporate pickle I've got myself involved with

 

[silvertop]

When the Head of News appeared before the board she claimed they had done nothing wrong. The board of course disagreed and made it clear that if she could not see how serious this was then the board had lost confidence in her. I suspect the same applied to the DG. Anyway both felt compelled to resign (before they were sacked).

It was collective responsibility. I suspect they didn't do a thing wrong save insufficient oversight and effective process.

Once again the 2 issues of error and defamation have become conflated.

The BBC erred. Their internal investigation concluded as such; they issued a public apology; and 2 very senior officers were given the jump or push option by way of contrition.

But they did not defame Trump for a whole number of reasons.

1. There was no malice, being a critical element to establishing defamation. No malice. No case.
2. Those who invaded the Capitol have pretty much said to a man that his speeches and messages drove them to it.
3. He may not have intended the consequence, but was reckless as to whether it would happen.
4. No financial damage flowed directly from the broadcast. The $10B he initially claimed was borderline fraud/embezzlement and has been withdrawn.
5. His claim is now reduced to one of loss of reputation and the value a court would place against that. Given the totality of his conduct, is there one?
6. It is the opinion of the objective average person who actually saw the broadcast that decides whether his "reputation" was damaged i.e. almost nobody.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It was collective responsibility. I suspect they didn't do a thing wrong save insufficient oversight and effective process.

Once again the 2 issues of error and defamation have become conflated.

The BBC erred. Their internal investigation concluded as such; they issued a public apology; and 2 very senior officers were given the jump or push option by way of contrition.

But they did not defame Trump for a whole number of reasons.

1. There was no malice, being a critical element to establishing defamation. No malice. No case.
2. Those who invaded the Capitol have pretty much said to a man that his speeches and messages drove them to it.
3. He may not have intended the consequence, but was reckless as to whether it would happen.
4. No financial damage flowed directly from the broadcast. The $10B he initially claimed was borderline fraud/embezzlement and has been withdrawn.
5. His claim is now reduced to one of loss of reputation and the value a court would place against that. Given the totality of his conduct, is there one?
6. It is the opinion of the objective average person who actually saw the broadcast that decides whether his "reputation" was damaged i.e. almost nobody.

The key to this though is how many other times have the BBC "edited" a story to fit a narrative? Leave Trump out of it and say this was GB News who'd done the same thing to Burnham - how much credence would the "honest mistake" claim receive?

 

[Spindle]

The key to this though is how many other times have the BBC "edited" a story to fit a narrative? Leave Trump out of it and say this was GB News who'd done the same thing to Burnham - how much credence would the "honest mistake" claim receive?

It's called mental gymnastics.

These ideological virtue signalling suicidal empathists haven't had the penny drop on how they are destroying our nation from within. When they do it'll be too late. Right now they are the ones who are really the most destructive because they are STILL clinging on and arguing for the ideology.

They haven't understood the paradox of integration whilst defending their important imported cultures and condemnation of ours. How do you square that circle in your head? How can you juggle such a conflict and still spout it as truth?

 

[silvertop]

The key to this though is how many other times have the BBC "edited" a story to fit a narrative? Leave Trump out of it and say this was GB News who'd done the same thing to Burnham - how much credence would the "honest mistake" claim receive?

First, they have not claimed "honest mistake". They admitted falling below journalistic standards, publicly apologized and forced 2 of their most senior officers to fall on their swords.

Second, if GB News had done this to Burnham we have in place Ofcom to oversee regulatory compliance, so it is not a great example. I suspect Ofcom would have fined the BBC and compelled them to issue an apology. That is, pretty much, what happened here. If only the US had an equivalent organisation...

Oh wait, they do. What did the FCC do in this case? If nothing, that may tell you something about how this c0ck up was treated in the USA (or perhaps how toothless the FCC is?).

Perhaps look at, say, Fox News broadcasts during Biden's administration. Aside from the fact that (I will guess) this sort of partiality and journalistic slight of hand was a daily occurrence, I would imagine they would cite both honest mistake and freedom of speech arguments. Also, the issue would fizzle away, probably because yesterday's breach was already overtaken by today's.

Third, and accordingly, your implicit suggestion of two tier treatment of breach is misplaced.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

First, they have not claimed "honest mistake". They admitted falling below journalistic standards, publicly apologized and forced 2 of their most senior officers to fall on their swords.

Second, if GB News had done this to Burnham we have in place Ofcom to oversee regulatory compliance, so it is not a great example. I suspect Ofcom would have fined the BBC and compelled them to issue an apology. That is, pretty much, what happened here. If only the US had an equivalent organisation...

Oh wait, they do. What did the FCC do in this case? If nothing, that may tell you something about how this c0ck up was treated in the USA (or perhaps how toothless the FCC is?).

Perhaps look at, say, Fox News broadcasts during Biden's administration. Aside from the fact that (I will guess) this sort of partiality and journalistic slight of hand was a daily occurrence, I would imagine they would cite both honest mistake and freedom of speech arguments. Also, the issue would fizzle away, probably because yesterday's breach was already overtaken by today's.

Third, and accordingly, your implicit suggestion of two tier treatment of breach is misplaced.

Honest mistake has been the refrain on here since it happened. Bias in media outlets is well known, and who knows, probably welcomed by those who choose either Fox or CNN on the grounds of confirmation bias, but the BBC is supposed to be above such populism.

 

[silvertop]

Honest mistake has been the refrain on here since it happened. Bias in media outlets is well known, and who knows, probably welcomed by those who choose either Fox or CNN on the grounds of confirmation bias, but the BBC is supposed to be above such populism.

On here, perhaps, but not from me or, more importantly, the BBC.

The BBC does have a left liberal bias. But if you actually listen to eg the Today Programme the gymnastic hoops they have to leap through to maintain impartiality are eye watering.

 

[georgenorman]

On here, perhaps, but not from me or, more importantly, the BBC.

The BBC does have a left liberal bias. But if you actually listen to eg the Today Programme the gymnastic hoops they have to leap through to maintain impartiality are eye watering.

Which is it, they have a left liberal bias or they maintain impartiality?