Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
England
I was more a Dick Emery kind of guy.
The bbc, again.
- Topic starter Eagleman13
- Start date
I was more a Dick Emery kind of guy.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
Scotland
Awaiting comments about being awful.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
Better check your search history. Murky water indeed.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
As you are usually the more reasonable of the right wing cohort here this is both surprising and disappointing. TDS being a piece of nonsense you would not normally buy in to.
The BBC have acknowledged a poor edit. Nothing else. The programme wasn’t about Trump’s speech. It was an analysis of his supporters. The clips from his speech were merely an 11 second section of an hour long programme used to show what they were responding to.
Trump hasn’t been libelled at all. He did say those things. Putting them together in that way was misleading and, in hindsight, an error which has been apologised for. There was no malice involved because he wasn’t the subject of the programme.
The fact that the lawyers are suggesting VPNs could have been used shows how weak the case is. No broadcaster can be held responsible for the illegal viewing of their content. Just imagine what a can of worms that would open. The licence holder for the USA has already stated that no one actually broadcast the programme in the USA and in any case the US version was shorter and those clips were not included.
So nobody could have legally watched anything that didn’t actually cause any harm anyway. He won the election! He has also been enriching himself.
You might this will damage the BBC’s reputation but I don’t. Trump is extremely unpopular here and the BBC standing up to his bullying will do them nothing but good.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
If you can't see any difference between
"I would never suggest this is cobblers"
And
"I would suggest this is cobblers"
Then fair enough.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
If you seriously think that’s a valid analogy then fair enough!
I don’t and I don’t suppose any Court would either.
Trump thinks everything is, or ought to be, about him. The Panorama programme wasn’t. It used clips from a speech he gave as evidence about something else. If the programme went on to say that the rioters responded directly to his urging then there might be more of a case to answer. It should have made it clear the two clips weren’t contemporaneous, but they were said. The audience heard both. The audience were the subject of the documentary. They heard him say similar things many times. Were they misled, or him defamed? Or did they make up their minds on the hours of his other rhetoric and not two clips totalling 11 seconds together? Was the overall programme misleading?
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
So you're seriously going to maintain that editing doesn't change meaning - even though this is is obviously the perfect storm in that it's the sacred BBC against the Demon Trump that's going some.
If the BBC had used CGI to show him firing a gun into the crowd you'd be supporting them on the grounds that it's something he might dream about.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
You seem to be forgetting that Americans in Britain and elsewhere would have watched that programme who then would have voted in the election.
The government has announced it's BBC funding green paper. As it's the Mail I will summarise it for those who can't bear to read that paper.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Public Consultation on BBC Funding: Options
1. Everyone pays more
2. Middle class pay more
3. Err that's it.
So the government has announced that the licence tax will stay even though payers are falling year on year.
As consultations go this is a classic Sir Humphrey / Hobson's Choice* . Even the BBC can see that the Licence Tax is a failing tool and that the number of refuseniks will continue to grow. But no Labour aren't even prepared to consider a compulsory alternative let along should they even be compulsion.
Instead they are saying the Licence stays but with a top up either from subscription or advertising.
Some consultation. How about asking the public if they want to pay? They might be surprised with the response. So this is a real downer for people like me who want compulsion scrapped.
So this Green paper satisfies no one and we haven't even got to the solution yet.
*Appearing to offer a choice when there is no choice.
Free BBC if you live on Benefits St - paid for by the middle-class
Favourites such as Strictly Come Dancing and The Traitors could be placed behind a paywall and advertising introduced for the first time in the corporation's 100-year history.
Public Consultation on BBC Funding: Options
1. Everyone pays more
2. Middle class pay more
3. Err that's it.
So the government has announced that the licence tax will stay even though payers are falling year on year.
As consultations go this is a classic Sir Humphrey / Hobson's Choice* . Even the BBC can see that the Licence Tax is a failing tool and that the number of refuseniks will continue to grow. But no Labour aren't even prepared to consider a compulsory alternative let along should they even be compulsion.
Instead they are saying the Licence stays but with a top up either from subscription or advertising.
Some consultation. How about asking the public if they want to pay? They might be surprised with the response. So this is a real downer for people like me who want compulsion scrapped.
So this Green paper satisfies no one and we haven't even got to the solution yet.
*Appearing to offer a choice when there is no choice.
Are you surprised? I’m notThe government has announced it's BBC funding green paper. As it's the Mail I will summarise it for those who can't bear to read that paper.
Free BBC if you live on Benefits St - paid for by the middle-class
Favourites such as Strictly Come Dancing and The Traitors could be placed behind a paywall and advertising introduced for the first time in the corporation's 100-year history.
Public Consultation on BBC Funding: Options
1. Everyone pays more
2. Middle class pay more
3. Err that's it.
So the government has announced that the licence tax will stay even though payers are falling year on year.
As consultations go this is a classic Sir Humphrey / Hobson's Choice* . Even the BBC can see that the Licence Tax is a failing tool and that the number of refuseniks will continue to grow. But no Labour aren't even prepared to consider a compulsory alternative let along should they even be compulsion.
Instead they are saying the Licence stays but with a top up either from subscription or advertising.
Some consultation. How about asking the public if they want to pay? They might be surprised with the response. So this is a real downer for people like me who want compulsion scrapped.
So this Green paper satisfies no one and we haven't even got to the solution yet.
*Appearing to offer a choice when there is no choice.
Your 3rd paragraph is somewhat bizarre. Did he say those things in the manner that the programme suggested? Why were those 2 clips put together in the first place? Only one logical reason but your logic seems to have been lost in your BBC love in and hatred of Trump. No malice involved 😂 err OK
Common Sense Club
Member
- Country
-
England
I’m afraid I’ve lost track of what the minutiae are in this debate; did the BBC manipulate the Panorama article to paint Trump in a bad light? Does it matter if the article wasn’t aired in the USA? Has Trump suffered personal grief? Was the editing deliberate manipulation or was it an AI issue? etc., etc.
So, let’s switch it around.
Let us imagine that a British prime minister has a super injunction protecting the reporting of something about them. And now let’s assume that a US TV broadcaster shows a programme in North America that discusses whatever is protected by the super injunction. How does the British Prime Minister respond?
Do they pursue the TV channel even though the programme wasn’t aired outside North America? Is it valid that British citizens could have watched the programme whilst on holiday there and therefore been influenced by it? Has the Prime Minister suffered personal stress as a result of the broadcast?
I am trying to ascertain whether something broadcast abroad is relevant to another country’s population and what the follow up action should be, if any.
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
Banning a news channel!? Talk about autocratic. And absolutely forbidden under their constitution.
Common Sense Club
Member
- Country
-
England
I don't know about what their constitution says but I would imagine that it only relates to American citizens and American businesses; the BBC is British and therefore the US administration can ban who they like from overseas.
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
No it hasn't. There is a huge gap between innocent/negligent misrepresentation (e.g. incompetent editing designed to fit the limited time slot) and deliberate falsehood.
(I am not saying it is one or the other. I am saying it has not been proven).
Trump does technically have a legal right to sue. But no serving leader of a democratic state should, in my view, descend to that level. I didn't like it when Mrs Macron did it (although she was actually defamed) and I don't like it now Trump is doing it. It is not statesman like weeping fake tears in public for hurty words and then seeking to personally profit from that ersatz pain. I suppose that is populist politics in a nutshell.
You appear to have taken a side based on who you like rather than what is right and wrong. Thus, did not Florida elect him in? Accordingly, what damage flowed directly from the broadcast in Florida? He suffered none. This is a man with unlimited power and wealth as well as narcissistic personality disorder seeking to eliminate any aspect of the Fourth Estate who does not gush with endless praise about his magnificence.
kevlee
Member
- Country
-
England
Abolish the license fee, dismantle the BBC as a public broadcaster created by charter etc and sell the assets / rights on the open market. The bidders will be either Zuckerberg, Musk or Google, or some anonymous secretive organization who will broadcast whatever they decide is "the news".
No right of reply, no board of governors.
I'm astonished that X is publishing videos that claim the Bondi beach shootings were staged by the Israeli's and the shooters were planted by them. If Musk bought the BBC there would be no boundaries.
No right of reply, no board of governors.
I'm astonished that X is publishing videos that claim the Bondi beach shootings were staged by the Israeli's and the shooters were planted by them. If Musk bought the BBC there would be no boundaries.
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
You have gone off topic. What you say is not analogous.
In answer, the super injunction would be very difficult to secure in the first place. And would probably be lifted as soon as half the country had watched the programme on YouTube.
The example is that book about spy memoires (name??) where the injunction was lifted after it was published in Australia.
If you are suggesting that Panorama has now been widely published in the USA, it would not be appropriate for Trump to claim damage for something he was at least partly responsible for. Had he shut up and put up (as any Leader of the Free World should have done) it would be nothing more than an internal issue in the UK that would now be chip wrap.
puncheon_judy
Member
- Country
-
England
The BBC have really handed Trump a smoking gun on this one but it is so unlikely he can win the case. It will be very hard for him to prove actual reputational harm, and that there was any malice behind it. It couldn't have been too harmful at the time of release - he still won the election weeks later. He's flexing to prevent other media outlets from thinking they can besmirch his name without repercussions, and the BBC deserve to have their knuckles wrapped for this one.
Stitching sync together in journalism is an incredibly common process but to do it about a re-electing President in such a damning way is a complete dereliction of duty and quite frankly dangerous.
I've been in enough edit suites where an editor has put something together in the absence of a producer or vice versa, and the team are none the wiser - not to provide excuses for the BBC, this is inexcusable, but it is a common thing to happen at all media companies. I was on one project where an editor had used a sound effect off a Christopher Nolan film without telling anyone and we got landed with a bill of tens of thousands once the tv show went to air.
There is no real way of truly safeguarding against this, if an employee/freelancer is stupid enough to do it then it would be very difficult for a producer to recognise what has happened without being told. Short of going through every original transcript and comparing it against each individual archive clip used in the show before it TXs.
However the BBC is held at a higher standard to other broadcasters, as it should be with its unique funding and 'Reithian values'. It is going to take a while to wash the skidmarks out of their undies.
Stitching sync together in journalism is an incredibly common process but to do it about a re-electing President in such a damning way is a complete dereliction of duty and quite frankly dangerous.
I've been in enough edit suites where an editor has put something together in the absence of a producer or vice versa, and the team are none the wiser - not to provide excuses for the BBC, this is inexcusable, but it is a common thing to happen at all media companies. I was on one project where an editor had used a sound effect off a Christopher Nolan film without telling anyone and we got landed with a bill of tens of thousands once the tv show went to air.
There is no real way of truly safeguarding against this, if an employee/freelancer is stupid enough to do it then it would be very difficult for a producer to recognise what has happened without being told. Short of going through every original transcript and comparing it against each individual archive clip used in the show before it TXs.
However the BBC is held at a higher standard to other broadcasters, as it should be with its unique funding and 'Reithian values'. It is going to take a while to wash the skidmarks out of their undies.