The bbc, again.

Spiderman said:
At least they always have both sides of the political divide on their panels. Many of their presenters used to work for the BBC maybe they know more than we do!
I doubt in the present climate they would doctor any info, Tatchell accepted it
Click to expand...


GB news can be as biased as it wants. As can Sky, as can CNN, as can Fox. The point is we are not threatened with court if we don't pay for them.

The BBC defends its funding model on the grounds of its claims to impartiality. That is a falsehood now beyond dispute. If the BBC does not expect me to pay for it (and I still do!), then it can make up whatever claims it wants. But until then, I expect it to act to a higher standard. Which it blatantly is not doing.
 
‘Error of judgement’ is again coined to mislead and make light. They can’t help themselves. It was an intentional act of dishonestly to deceive and try to influence an election.

The more you think about it the more shocking it is. It’s also just one example of hundreds if not thousands of times the BBC has tried to distort facts against Trump. Remember the Russian Hoax campaign initiated by many dishonest democrats and their bent intelligence cronies? The BBC cheered this fabrication on every night for what seemed like months and when it was shown as a hoax they didn’t even have the grace to apologise.

There needs to be a root and branch review of their reporting in relation to Trump and the Middle East to examine just how rotten they really are.
 
I have been busy most of the day, so haven’t read all the comments but can imagine them. No point in responding individually, even if I had the time.

The story is moving fast. First the apology, for the error of judgement. Now Trump’s threat to sue for a $1 billion! How predictable!

How should the BBC respond? Will they get political pressure from a government trying to avoid upsetting a narcissist while he remains the POTUS? Who, with the DG gone, will lead them? Will the politically compromised Board have the guts to stand up to him.

I listened to Radio 4 today, who covered the story all day. I was particularly impressed by two interviews..

Ed Davey was forthright in his defence of the BBC and said he is approaching all the other party leaders to ask them to join him in writing to Trump to request him to stop trying to interfere in British politics. Which by describing the BBC as fake news and encouraging people to watch GBNews he is doing. Ed Davey just won my vote.

Chris Patten, ex Chairman of the Tory Party, last Governor of Hong Kong and previously the Chairman of the BBC Trust, the forerunner of the Board, was equally forthright in his support for the BBC. He made me smile when he described Trump’s attitude, suggesting that it was rather ridiculous to label the BBC as purveyors of fake news when he is the most obvious of liars.

So I hope that the BBC simply send Trump a copy of their explanation, and apology for what now accept was an error of judgement. Nothing else.

If Trump decides to then sue that would be excellent news. From any reasonable perspective he would have zero chance of winning. Where could he sue where enough people watched it to matter? Proving defamation is incredibly hard at any time. With this near to impossible. Proving an impact on the electorate looks a lost cause. He won!

Making this into a fight between Trump and the BBC is the best result possible for the BBC. It would immediately divert attention from the Panorama issue. In any popularity contest in the UK between Trump and the BBC there would only ever be one winner. So him suing the BBC would galvinise support for them. Bring it on! With Farage being quite so far up Trump’s posterior that you would know it was him because of his Oxford shoes, it would doubtless damage him too. Win win. This would be a big test of the BBC Board, and of the government.

I also watched James O’Brien’s take on this tonight. It’s interesting, not only because it’s so obviously true, but also because he inserts a number of other clips from “that speech”. Clips which put those used in the Panorama documentary into greater context. If you really want to get to grips with this then do watch it.

 
Xong Kudu said:
‘Error of judgement’ is again coined to mislead and make light. They can’t help themselves. It was an intentional act of dishonestly to deceive and try to influence an election.

The more you think about it the more shocking it is. It’s also just one example of hundreds if not thousands of times the BBC has tried to distort facts against Trump. Remember the Russian Hoax campaign initiated by many dishonest democrats and their bent intelligence cronies? The BBC cheered this fabrication on every night for what seemed like months and when it was shown as a hoax they didn’t even have the grace to apologise.

There needs to be a root and branch review of their reporting in relation to Trump and the Middle East to examine just how rotten they really are.
Click to expand...


This. Especially the first paragraph. What happened was a very deliberate attempt to promote a false political narrative. This goes way beyond somebody showing a bit too much leg before the 9.00pm watershed or pushing the boundaries of public outrage.

It was essentially the deliberate telling of a lie.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I have been busy most of the day, so haven’t read all the comments but can imagine them. No point in responding individually, even if I had the time.

The story is moving fast. First the apology, for the error of judgement. Now Trump’s threat to sue for a $1 billion! How predictable!

How should the BBC respond? Will they get political pressure from a government trying to avoid upsetting a narcissist while he remains the POTUS? Who, with the DG gone, will lead them? Will the politically compromised Board have the guts to stand up to him.

I listened to Radio 4 today, who covered the story all day. I was particularly impressed by two interviews..

Ed Davey was forthright in his defence of the BBC and said he is approaching all the other party leaders to ask them to join him in writing to Trump to request him to stop trying to interfere in British politics. Which by describing the BBC as fake news and encouraging people to watch GBNews he is doing. Ed Davey just won my vote.

Chris Patten, ex Chairman of the Tory Party, last Governor of Hong Kong and previously the Chairman of the BBC Trust, the forerunner of the Board, was equally forthright in his support for the BBC. He made me smile when he described Trump’s attitude, suggesting that it was rather ridiculous to label the BBC as purveyors of fake news when he is the most obvious of liars.

So I hope that the BBC simply send Trump a copy of their explanation, and apology for what now accept was an error of judgement. Nothing else.

If Trump decides to then sue that would be excellent news. From any reasonable perspective he would have zero chance of winning. Where could he sue where enough people watched it to matter? Proving defamation is incredibly hard at any time. With this near to impossible. Proving an impact on the electorate looks a lost cause. He won!

Making this into a fight between Trump and the BBC is the best result possible for the BBC. It would immediately divert attention from the Panorama issue. In any popularity contest in the UK between Trump and the BBC there would only ever be one winner. So him suing the BBC would galvinise support for them. Bring it on! With Farage being quite so far up Trump’s posterior that you would know it was him because of his Oxford shoes, it would doubtless damage him too. Win win. This would be a big test of the BBC Board, and of the government.

I also watched James O’Brien’s take on this tonight. It’s interesting, not only because it’s so obviously true, but also because he inserts a number of other clips from “that speech”. Clips which put those used in the Panorama documentary into greater context. If you really want to get to grips with this then do watch it.

Click to expand...
You still cannot isolate your TDS from this action by the bbc can you ?
James O’Brien is a total c*** of the highest order so if you don’t mind I won’t be taking anything he says as sensible. !
 
Xong Kudu said:
‘Error of judgement’ is again coined to mislead and make light. They can’t help themselves. It was an intentional act of dishonestly to deceive and try to influence an election.

The more you think about it the more shocking it is. It’s also just one example of hundreds if not thousands of times the BBC has tried to distort facts against Trump. Remember the Russian Hoax campaign initiated by many dishonest democrats and their bent intelligence cronies? The BBC cheered this fabrication on every night for what seemed like months and when it was shown as a hoax they didn’t even have the grace to apologise.

There needs to be a root and branch review of their reporting in relation to Trump and the Middle East to examine just how rotten they really are.
Click to expand...
You are another who has swallowed too much Trump bs for your own good.

For the record. It wasn’t a hoax. People were prosecuted and jailed. Mueller did not “exonerate Trump”! He was unable to indict, due to Barr ruling that a sitting POTUS is immune. Trump refused to answer questions in order to construct some plausible deniability but Russian interference in the 2016 election is an established fact.
 
cryrst said:
You still cannot isolate your TDS from this action by the bbc can you ?
James O’Brien is a total c*** of the highest order so if you don’t mind I won’t be taking anything he says as sensible. !
Click to expand...
And as for Ed Davey, ffs. He doesn’t even know the difference between a man and a woman. He is an absolute clown. Its of no surprise he has your vote tbh.
 
cryrst said:
You still cannot isolate your TDS from this action by the bbc can you ?
James O’Brien is a total c*** of the highest order so if you don’t mind I won’t be taking anything he says as sensible. !
Click to expand...
You can regard James O’Brian however you like but you cannot deny the evidence he presents. It’s there on screen. Argue with his conclusions if you wish, and can. Although I fail to see how anybody with more than half a brain could.

You won’t see the evidence unless you watch it. Only your prejudice can stop that.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
You are another who has swallowed too much Trump bs for your own good.

For the record. It wasn’t a hoax. People were prosecuted and jailed. Mueller did not “exonerate Trump”! He was unable to indict, due to Barr ruling that a sitting POTUS is immune. Trump refused to answer questions in order to construct some plausible deniability but Russian interference in the 2016 election is an established fact.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, over the years, you have swallowed too much BBC bs for your own good
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
You can regard James O’Brian however you like but you cannot deny the evidence he presents. It’s there on screen. Argue with his conclusions if you wish, and can. Although I fail to see how anybody with more than half a brain could.

You won’t see the evidence unless you watch it. Only your prejudice can stop that.
Click to expand...
So was Trumps speech, look how that has turned out. Bit rude your brain comment wasn’t it?
 
Spiderman said:
And as for Ed Davey, ffs. He doesn’t even know the difference between a man and a woman. He is an absolute clown. Its of no surprise he has your vote tbh.
Click to expand...
He made much more sense on this today than any of the Tory spokespeople, other than Patten who was very measured and sensible. Just because he takes a different view to you on one subject doesn’t mean you ought dismiss him on others.

Davey was impressive. He was outspoken about Trump and didn’t mince his words. Which I thoroughly approve of. We need to state the obvious and not pretend it isn’t.
 
Spiderman said:
So was Trumps speech, look how that has turned out. Bit rude your brain comment wasn’t it?
Click to expand...
A lot of what O’Brien puts up comes from that speech. Clips that could have been used by the BBC but weren’t. Some immediately following the “good congressmen and women” bit that it is claimed should have been included, rather than the “fight, fight” piece. Clips than go on to qualify what he said by also saying, some are better than others etc.

Watch it!

Yes it was rude. So too is a lot of that directed at me. Not by you but by others here.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
A lot of what O’Brien puts up comes from that speech. Clips that could have been used by the BBC but weren’t. Some immediately following the “good congressmen and women” bit that it is claimed should have been included, rather than the “fight, fight” piece. Clips than go on to qualify what he said by also saying, some are better than others etc.

Watch it!

Yes it was rude. So too is a lot of that directed at me. Not by you but by others here.
Click to expand...
That'll be a good legal defence - they could have distorted this speech even more but they didn't. It's as good as "they were right to do it because Trump is a bad man".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top