The bbc, again.

[Common Sense Club]

When editing completely changes the meaning conveyed it does not add either brevity or clarity.

Your Smart Ar*e attempt at humour therefore obviously fails. To any objective examination.

Whether what the BBC did is found to be valid must await examination by the appropriate authorities. Which won’t, of course, stop those who see everything they do negatively immediately deciding the answer.

When editing completely changes the meaning conveyed it does not add either brevity or clarity…which is what the BBC did, changed the meaning.
And so that you understand that I have fond memories of the BBC, I was in LA when the Chinese students protested in Beijing and didn’t believe that ABC were actually reporting what was happening as it wasn’t the BBC that I was watching.
But in my opinion there is no defence against what the Panorama programme produced; it was a deliberate attempt to influence the public with false reporting. It’s impartiality is seriously compromised.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The telegraph also reporting the same:

Access Restricted

It’s widely reported, as it should be.

Now it will be scrutinised and if they, or one of their programme makers, has failed to abide by their own high standards, I have no doubt there will be consequences.

At the bottom of this will be the question of whether what Trump was trying to do accurately reported, or not?

Not whether every word he uttered broadcasted in full.

 

[eaglesdare]

UK media regulator finds BBC in 'serious breach' of rules for documentary featuring son of Hamas terrorist

The United Kingdom's media regulator found the BBC in "serious breach" of rules after the broadcaster featured the son of a Hamas official as the narrator in a documentary.

www.foxnews.com

And again only a few weeks ago. Seems the left wing propaganda BBC just can't help themselves.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

When editing completely changes the meaning conveyed it does not add either brevity or clarity…which is what the BBC did, changed the meaning.
And so that you understand that I have fond memories of the BBC, I was in LA when the Chinese students protested in Beijing and didn’t believe that ABC were actually reporting what was happening as it wasn’t the BBC that I was watching.
But in my opinion there is no defence against what the Panorama programme produced; it was a deliberate attempt to influence the public with false reporting. It’s impartiality is seriously compromised.

Then we must be very grateful that you don’t work for Ofcom.

There’s no evidence, yet, of any such intent. The programme makers will first be asked to justify why the editing was done. Then those with experience in these matters will decide if it was justified, deliberate or an error of judgement.

That Trump was trying to deny the election result is beyond question. That he supported and encouraged the demonstrators to go to the Capitol also beyond question. How far he actually went in encouraging them to take direct action, or whether it was merely implied, is always likely to remain a matter of opinion.

Whatever is the outcome won’t satisfy everyone or settle the matter.

For me it doesn’t matter in the least. Trump is such an obvious danger to the world that every broadcaster should be taking him to task at every opportunity.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

UK media regulator finds BBC in 'serious breach' of rules for documentary featuring son of Hamas terrorist

The United Kingdom's media regulator found the BBC in "serious breach" of rules after the broadcaster featured the son of a Hamas official as the narrator in a documentary.

www.foxnews.com

And again only a few weeks ago. Seems the left wing propaganda BBC just can't help themselves.

A programme made for them, and not by them. One they pulled as soon as the rule breach was identified. A programme that despite that breach was able to show the conditions inside Gaza in a very useful way. When everything else was being controlled by Israeli censorship!

It was the BBC doing proper public service broadcasting. Not Israeli propaganda.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

1984 and Newspeak. It probably began with the earliest news prints, but with information being passed almost instantaneously these days, it doesn't take very long to expose the lies.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

A programme made for them, and not by them. One they pulled as soon as the rule breach was identified. A programme that despite that breach was able to show the conditions inside Gaza in a very useful way. When everything else was being controlled by Israeli censorship!

It was the BBC doing proper public service broadcasting. Not Israeli propaganda.

The BBC don't agree.

"The Ofcom ruling is in line with the findings of Peter Johnston's review, that there was a significant failing in the documentary in relation to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines on accuracy, which reflects Rule 2.2 of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code," a BBC spokesperson said in a statement in a report published by the outlet.

"We have apologized for this, and we accept Ofcom's decision in full. We will comply with the sanction as soon as the date and wording are finalized."

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

And where is TTK's response to these serious breaches by the BBC?

Surely he should be saying something. The public are obliged to fund this propaganda by law.

The government has to act.

 

[ASCPFC]

And where is TTK's response to these serious breaches by the BBC?

Surely he should be saying something. The public are obliged to fund this propaganda by law.

The government has to act.

Where are the sackings? I'm genuinely wondering would this constitute a crime. It's deliberate deception. I saw the reports and they'd made it entirely believable that Trump was urging violence. Anyone watching it would believe that. With Trump's history, what kind of lawsuit should the BBC expect? I suspect it's incoming right now - like a Shaheed drone to the Polish border.

 

[McAhuna]

It’s widely reported, as it should be.

Now it will be scrutinised and if they, or one of their programme makers, has failed to abide by their own high standards, I have no doubt there will be consequences.

At the bottom of this will be the question of whether what Trump was trying to do accurately reported, or not?

Not whether every word he uttered broadcasted in full.

Lol - 'their own high standards'

We are talking about the organisation that protected multiple paedophiles for decades, if you remember?

The only consequences were that almost everyone who is sentient hates them, doesn't trust them and never will again.

 

[McAhuna]

UK media regulator finds BBC in 'serious breach' of rules for documentary featuring son of Hamas terrorist

The United Kingdom's media regulator found the BBC in "serious breach" of rules after the broadcaster featured the son of a Hamas official as the narrator in a documentary.

www.foxnews.com

And again only a few weeks ago. Seems the left wing propaganda BBC just can't help themselves.

Are they really 'left-wing'? (Whatever that means nowadays)

They are insufferably obsequious to the Royals.
They generally cover up Israeli war crimes.
They epitomise the British establishment, they despise the working class (particularly if they are white).

True, they do pander to every woke bandwagon going. But 'wokeness' has more akin to mental illness than traditional left-wing politics IMO.

Whether right or left, I am sure most of us can agree they are truly awful and their time is up.

 

[ASCPFC]

If you read a full report, the report has findings that editorial bias had been raised several times by the BBC's own internal watchdog. And the findings were ignored until one of the committee resigned and brought this further. Apparently, Panorama even simply doubled down on the claims.
In other words, no one would have even known about this if one of their own staff hadn't decided enough was enough.
At the very least, The Panorama team has to be sacked immediately - without the ridiculous pay offs like they've given to their deviants before. But they will be paid off - that's certain. And it'll come out, and the BBC won't care. Nothing matters in the "Guardian Bubble" they live in - except for their crusade for moral justice. Which does not include telling the truth or outing paedos evidently.

 

[eaglesdare]

Are they really 'left-wing'? (Whatever that means nowadays)

They are insufferably obsequious to the Royals.
They generally cover up Israeli war crimes.
They epitomise the British establishment, they despise the working class (particularly if they are white).

True, they do pander to every woke bandwagon going. But 'wokeness' has more akin to mental illness than traditional left-wing politics IMO.

Whether right or left, I am sure most of us can agree they are truly awful and their time is up.

Calling their Israel coverage a "cover up" of war crimes is straight out of the Corbyn playbook.

The BBC bends over backwards to amplify every Gaza casualty stat from the Hamas run health ministries. The only war crimes it covers up are those against Israel.

But I guess thats a topic for the other Israel vs Hamas thread....

Barley a sniff from the genocide against Christians in africa also

Other than that I generally agree with your other points. But I do think left wing politics go hand in hand with wokeness these days.

 

[Common Sense Club]

Then we must be very grateful that you don’t work for Ofcom.

There’s no evidence, yet, of any such intent. The programme makers will first be asked to justify why the editing was done. Then those with experience in these matters will decide if it was justified, deliberate or an error of judgement.

That Trump was trying to deny the election result is beyond question. That he supported and encouraged the demonstrators to go to the Capitol also beyond question. How far he actually went in encouraging them to take direct action, or whether it was merely implied, is always likely to remain a matter of opinion.

Whatever is the outcome won’t satisfy everyone or settle the matter.

For me it doesn’t matter in the least. Trump is such an obvious danger to the world that every broadcaster should be taking him to task at every opportunity.

Strange, your opinion of Trump is the opposite of mine and your opinion of the BBC shenanigans is the opposite of mine. In fact I am not sure that your opinion matches with mine on anything that isn’t Palace related. Just as well we are debating it on this site…

 

[cryrst]

Then we must be very grateful that you don’t work for Ofcom.

There’s no evidence, yet, of any such intent. The programme makers will first be asked to justify why the editing was done. Then those with experience in these matters will decide if it was justified, deliberate or an error of judgement.

That Trump was trying to deny the election result is beyond question. That he supported and encouraged the demonstrators to go to the Capitol also beyond question. How far he actually went in encouraging them to take direct action, or whether it was merely implied, is always likely to remain a matter of opinion.

Whatever is the outcome won’t satisfy everyone or settle the matter.

For me it doesn’t matter in the least. Trump is such an obvious danger to the world that every broadcaster should be taking him to task at every opportunity.

So you will agree with the outcome and come back to apologise for trying to defend the indefensible!

 

[ASCPFC]

I edited the BBC licence fee letter to say that I'm exempt. I presume that's fine: I'm just keeping the process brief. Quid pro quo. Or not a quid in this case.
No one will resign if it affects their pension.

 

[Spiderman]

Rushing to judgement is never wise, so let’s see what the BBC, Ofcom and the Parliamentary Committee have to say.

Editing reports is hardly unusual. It’s done all the time to ensure both clarity and brevity. So the question won’t be was it edited but rather why and whether the story it presented was accurate.

BBC Trump 'Fight Like Hell' Scandal: Did Panorama Doctor the Speech?

The BBC faces a major trust crisis: Did Panorama illegally splice Trump's speech to change its meaning? Get the full internal memo details, expert legal liability analysis, and what this means for media truth.

www.lawyer-monthly.com

Well we know why don’t we? Of course it wasn’t accurate, it was doctored. But of course, the BBC is the bastion of impartiality which is revered around the world 😂

 

[Rudi Hedman]

Rushing to judgement is never wise, so let’s see what the BBC, Ofcom and the Parliamentary Committee have to say.

Editing reports is hardly unusual. It’s done all the time to ensure both clarity and brevity. So the question won’t be was it edited but rather why and whether the story it presented was accurate.

BBC Trump 'Fight Like Hell' Scandal: Did Panorama Doctor the Speech?

The BBC faces a major trust crisis: Did Panorama illegally splice Trump's speech to change its meaning? Get the full internal memo details, expert legal liability analysis, and what this means for media truth.

www.lawyer-monthly.com

Unbelievable

 

[Spiderman]

Unbelievable

Is it? Read who the poster was

 

[chris123]

Well we know why don’t we? Of course it wasn’t accurate, it was doctored. But of course, the BBC is the bastion of impartiality which is revered around the world 😂

To be fair we do have access to broadcasts across the globe with a regulator that is absent in many countries.