The bbc, again.

[Spiderman]

if Keir wants to protect and save the BBC, he should put it to a Referendum. A bit like the Brexit vote that he also lost.

Jeez now you’ve done it 🤣

 

[eaglesdare]

Seems a good time to bring this video back up....Elon musk and BBC reporter.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Jeez now you’ve done it 🤣

Yep. A blue touch paper job if ever there was one.

 

[Spiderman]

Seems a good time to bring this video back up....Elon musk and BBC reporter.

Ah but it’s only Elon Musk,

 

[The Dolphin]

The outgoing Nice but Tim along with John Simpson just show why the BBC needs to change.
They are head in the sand ignorant about what the majority of license payers think.
They have some great people there for sure but their personal bias drip is tiring and unacceptable now.T
It needs change and soon.
if they were forced to survive in the big wide world right now they would be shocked as to how few would sign up voluntarily.
Change or die

 

[ASCPFC]

Now that the understandable joy at the BBC getting its arse kicked has faded, I wonder why we are not hearing about the actual person or persons who spliced this Trump footage together in the first place?

One thing I have not got about this all is why anybody might think they would get away with it? Because it was blatent. Clearly 'fake' news from the start. Did they think it would escape attention? Or was it perhaps done deliberately? Put out knowing it would bite the BBC on the arse at a later day? A tad tin-foily? Perhaps. But something ain't quite right.

Mhmmmm...seen some sources (from both Left and Right) I put some credence in talking about this current pile on against the BBC actually being more about its coverage of Gaza rather than Trump. With Trump just the cover story.

When you consider the BBC and our institutions, there are probably loads of incidences over a long period of time. What we see is probably just the tip of the iceberg. More will trickle out over the coming weeks. There will be people scrutinizing internal reports and watching programmes as we speak. And now journalists are onto it, the BBC will find it more difficult to conceal.

 

[Matov]

When you consider the BBC and our institutions, there are probably loads of incidences over a long period of time. What we see is probably just the tip of the iceberg. More will trickle out over the coming weeks. There will be people scrutinizing internal reports and watching programmes as we speak. And now journalists are onto it, the BBC will find it more difficult to conceal.

I get all of that, and am willing to concede I am perhaps seeing far more in shadows than actually exists but this 'error' goes way beyond the norm. Literally an edit involving splicing two parts together that are almost an hour apart with no attempt to even pretend otherwise. And in this age of media scrutiny, an absolute for being exposed. Glaringly so.

Somebody made a concious decision to do this. And somebody else passed it off. And I cannot imagine it involving either of the two people who resigned. Who did it? That is the question not being answered here. Or seemingly even asked.

 

[ASCPFC]

I get all of that, and am willing to concede I am perhaps seeing far more in shadows than actually exists but this 'error' goes way beyond the norm. Literally an edit involving splicing two parts together that are almost an hour apart with no attempt to even pretend otherwise. And in this age of media scrutiny, an absolute for being exposed. Glaringly so.

Somebody made a concious decision to do this. And somebody else passed it off. And I cannot imagine it involving either of the two people who resigned. Who did it? That is the question not being answered here. Or seemingly even asked.

Not to be facetious but I believe it was in the Telegraph report. Although I haven't looked at it for a few days. It seems there was a discussion with the Panorama team and they laughed it off. Have a look into it.
I believe they should be fired but the BBC is probably forced to carry out due employment process.

 

[McAhuna]

Now that the understandable joy at the BBC getting its arse kicked has faded, I wonder why we are not hearing about the actual person or persons who spliced this Trump footage together in the first place?

One thing I have not got about this all is why anybody might think they would get away with it? Because it was blatent. Clearly 'fake' news from the start. Did they think it would escape attention? Or was it perhaps done deliberately? Put out knowing it would bite the BBC on the arse at a later day? A tad tin-foily? Perhaps. But something ain't quite right.

Mhmmmm...seen some sources (from both Left and Right) I put some credence in talking about this current pile on against the BBC actually being more about its coverage of Gaza rather than Trump. With Trump just the cover story.

Yes something is definitely off.
This was a major speech on a major channel.
Why has it taken 4 years to notice massive fraudulent edits?

 

[Badger11]

I get all of that, and am willing to concede I am perhaps seeing far more in shadows than actually exists but this 'error' goes way beyond the norm. Literally an edit involving splicing two parts together that are almost an hour apart with no attempt to even pretend otherwise. And in this age of media scrutiny, an absolute for being exposed. Glaringly so.

Somebody made a concious decision to do this. And somebody else passed it off. And I cannot imagine it involving either of the two people who resigned. Who did it? That is the question not being answered here. Or seemingly even asked.

If Trump does sue and is able to bring a case in the USA my guess is that his lawyers will trawl through all the BBC reports about Trump looking for factual errors. If they can establish a pattern then that goes a long way to proving malicious intent and the defence that it was an "error" starts to look weak.

I also expect they will be trawling through social media and I would be amazed if they don't find anti Trump stuff posted by people involved. Again if they can find that stuff it proves bias.

 

[McAhuna]

You don't need paying, or to be much of a scientist, to visit the Alps and see glacial retreat, as one example.

You can have "hysteria" but that's on both sides, but to argue against the rising gas output is totally moronic and deliberate.

Au contraire. You are answering the wrong question.
The question isn't whether there is climate change.
The question is whether climate change is 'man-made' or simply due to natural cycles, and more importantly are we even allowed to discuss it?
For the record, Antarctica is actually gaining ice, but no-one wants to talk about that one for some reason.

 

[McAhuna]

I am confused as to why it took so long for it to come out. Trump would have known within minutes of it being shown.
It didn’t need the telegraph years later !

Maybe they time it for when the BBC looks weak and vulnerable to get their own back?

But that doesn't make a lot of sense, because at the time Trump wouldn't have known he would be president in 2025. And no-one would be listening to an ex-politician whining about the BBC misrepresenting him.

 

[Badger11]

I am confused as to why it took so long for it to come out. Trump would have known within minutes of it being shown.
It didn’t need the telegraph years later !

Tactics, simple as that.

As the "injured" party Trump decides when it suits him to take action. Don't forget that this latest scandal all started with a BBC internal report which only strengthen Trump's hand, a report that the BBC sat on for nearly 11 months which again looks suspicious.

So to answer your question the BBC's lethargy has gifted Trump an opportunity.

 

[silvertop]

But that's stupid.

The left and social liberals (which the modern day Tories are also) brought all this sh1te in and I just hope I live long enough to see it all kicked to the curb.

Well, yes.

 

[silvertop]

That he is masquerading behind a pseudonym, and spending a lot of time, on HOL.

Mainly because is he regularly stuck indoors with nothing better to do as his Mrs keeps nicking the one Jag they have left to go shopping in.........

Ha, wrong Prescott. Who Private Eye used to refer to as "The Mouth of the Humber".

 

[McAhuna]

Tactics, simple as that.

As the "injured" party Trump decides when it suits him to take action. Don't forget that this latest scandal all started with a BBC internal report which only strengthen Trump's hand, a report that the BBC sat on for nearly 11 months which again looks suspicious.

So to answer your question the BBC's lethargy has gifted Trump an opportunity.

And the Telegraph did what they were told by raising it now?

 

[silvertop]

You obviously can't.

Let me know when you catch GB News lying or editing speeches to change the context.

In a discussion about political bias about a broadcaster who openly claim they have political bias.

I suppose they are more honest about it.

 

[silvertop]

the 'paid for' Science is clear. And the alarmist hysteria is clear also. As are all the previous harbingers of doom that were quietly shelved. Too many to even catalog them on here.

Climate Change me hole. A load of old rubbish. Sadiq Khans excuse to tax us.


Yes the weather is a tiny bit warmer. And no, i really dont give two flying fv.cks. Climate change is the new Transubstantiation......say the wrong opinion and they chop your head off.

I am sensing you are of an age where the effect will not impact you personally.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

In a discussion about political bias about a broadcaster who openly claim they have political bias.

I suppose they are more honest about it.

Political bias towards the right only needs to be the truth these days. Left wing bias is distortion, omission and lies, as recent events have shown, in case there was any doubt.

 

[silvertop]

Now that the understandable joy at the BBC getting its arse kicked has faded, I wonder why we are not hearing about the actual person or persons who spliced this Trump footage together in the first place?

One thing I have not got about this all is why anybody might think they would get away with it? Because it was blatent. Clearly 'fake' news from the start. Did they think it would escape attention? Or was it perhaps done deliberately? Put out knowing it would bite the BBC on the arse at a later day? A tad tin-foily? Perhaps. But something ain't quite right.

Mhmmmm...seen some sources (from both Left and Right) I put some credence in talking about this current pile on against the BBC actually being more about its coverage of Gaza rather than Trump. With Trump just the cover story.

I am also surprised the culprits have not been hauled out and pilloried.

Old fashioned collective responsibility perhaps? The people at the top who knew nothing about it falling on their swords for the stupid acts of their underlings.