The bbc, again.

Living In Hope said:
You are ignoring the fact that she was formally admonished by the BBC for rolling her eyes at being obliged to say "pregnant people" rather than "pregnant women" ? That is very clear evidence that the BBC has an official stance on the matter.

I have until recently defended the BBC, and I still very much hope that the answer is adjustment of the BBC, not its destruction.
Click to expand...
She was admonished for allowing a personal belief to interfere with her professional duties. Newsreaders read the news. They don’t edit the copy.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
But they are not “self appointed”!

It’s required by us, via the Charter.

They are obliged to approach everything from an arbitrary point of view. That some people will disagree with every judgement is just inevitable but it doesn’t mean they don’t approach the task diligently and professionally.

The BBC is one of our last remaining pieces of treasure that sets us apart. You might not trust it but those around the world who live in countries with state controlled media do.

Live in Russia and want the truth? Do you go to Izvestia and get Putin’s opinion, or the BBC? Or you can try, via a VPN, because it’s blocked now.
Click to expand...
How arbitrary was the decision that because Trump is a bad man they were entitled to edit his speech?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
She was admonished for allowing a personal belief to interfere with her professional duties. Newsreaders read the news. They don’t edit the copy.
Click to expand...
Let’s put ourselves in the BBC’s shoes. Your argument is that the BBC considered that there were 2 issues, one being an editorial error to use the expression “pregnant people” instead of “pregnant women”, the second being that Croxall rolled her eyes, presumably therefore because of the editorial error. They publicised the admonishment of Croxall but said nothing about the inappropriate use of “pregnant people”.

My argument is that from the BBC’s perspective gender ideology is ingrained in its systems and policies, so to use the expression “pregnant people” was not an error. So from their perspective the only error was that Croxall rolled her eyes, showing disapproval of the BBC’s approved doctrine of gender ideology. That is why she was admonished and there was no mention of an error in the expression “pregnant people”, and why I conclude that the BBC is promoting a belief system instead of basing its reporting on science / fact.

Neither of us know. Others will form their views on which is more likely.
 
Last edited:
Wisbech Eagle said:
She was admonished for allowing a personal belief to interfere with her professional duties. Newsreaders read the news. They don’t edit the copy.
Click to expand...
I would also like to say that disagreement or not, I fully respect and appreciate your contribution to this site. It is incredibly important for us to listen to a range of views, including opposing ones. I do sometimes agree with you, but not that often !🙂
No doubt I will get a sarcy comment or two for this post.
 
Spindle said:
"Solar cycles" lol you are clueless, you've no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
I hope you realise that the Earth does warm and cool in a cycle and has done so many times.
We are currently in a warming period but that will end at some point. On previous occasions that had meant an ice age that resulted in a 2 mile high ice sheet across Northern Europe.

Are you sure global warming is the biggest problem?

I’d say it was the pollution of our oceans.
 
Spindle said:
1. Have no problems with being a world leader in green energy. That's an investment
2. Fossil fuels subsidy is way way more
3. China will be net zero before anyone else, they are world leaders. The USA also invests privately, so doing nothing is a big lie
Click to expand...
Our obsession with green is increasing energy prices. That is a fact.
China and the US are keen on green and yet they don’t turn up to the climate summit? Not very encouraging. You think they are going to give up coal and oil any time soon? Not likely.
 
eaglesdare said:
Somone who thinks it's okay to wish death on Donald Trump and rationalises Charlie kirks death will of course defend the BBC and blame Trump for the bbc team editing the clip 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...
Don't forget defending the lack of any action against paedophile rape gangs of predominately Pakistani hertitage.
 
Living In Hope said:
Let’s put ourselves in the BBC’s shoes. Your argument is that the BBC considered that there were 2 issues, one being an editorial error to use the expression “pregnant people” instead of “pregnant women”, the second being that Croxall rolled her eyes, presumably therefore because of the editorial error. They publicised the admonishment of Croxall but said nothing about the inappropriate use of “pregnant people”.

My argument is that from the BBC’s perspective gender ideology is ingrained in its systems and policies, so to use the expression “pregnant people” was not an error. So from their perspective the only error was that Croxall rolled her eyes, showing disapproval of the BBC’s approved doctrine of gender ideology. That is why she was admonished and there was no mention of an error in the expression “pregnant people”, and why I conclude that the BBC is promoting a belief system instead of basing its reporting on science / fact.

Neither of us know. Others will form their views on which is more likely.
Click to expand...
How do you know why she rolled her eyes? She could have had a trapped eyelash.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Simply untrue.

There is clearly a coordinated campaign on the right of British politics to scrutinise everything the BBC does to try to find anything they can complain about.

GBNews is not really a news channel. It’s unashamedly biased to the right and makes no apologies for doing so. It has been found guilty 5 times so far of breaking the broadcasting code by Ofcom.

theconversation.com

Ofcom has rules on broadcaster impartiality – so why is GB News getting away with breaking them?

Evidence shows the public still want impartiality from broadcasters.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
Click to expand...
Simply untrue. Why should they apologise? They always give the left leaning guests as much air time as the right leaning ones. At least they admit their political leanings, unlike other news channels
If they have been found guilty 5 times, perhaps that is because they are under more scrutiny! Not beyond the realms of possibility, unless you have a totally blinkered view
 
Last edited:
Wisbech Eagle said:
What did the original report say? It’s been removed and updated. It looks pretty accurate to me. Lowe getting a poor response from all sides of the House.

Big bag of nothing but spite towards the BBC.
Click to expand...

Wait.
You didn't read the report.
But nonetheless state it looks 'pretty accurate' to you.

This must be the valuable alternative viewpoint I have been hearing about.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
How arbitrary was the decision that because Trump is a bad man they were entitled to edit his speech?
Click to expand...
Was that the basis for the decision?

I thought that as trying to include all his hour long speech into an hour long special, which covered a multitude of different aspects, was obviously impossible, editing was inevitable.

The style of the edit has been, with significant hindsight, now been regarded as inappropriate and apologised for. Not so the overall message of the documentary.

Whether this meant Trump is a “bad man” was for a viewer to determine.
 
Spiderman said:
Simply untrue. Why should they apologise? They always give the left leaning guests as much air time as the right leaning ones. At least they admit their political leanings, unlike other news channels
If they have been found guilty 5 times, perhaps that is because they are under more scrutiny! Not beyond the realms of possibility, unless you have a totally blinkered view
Click to expand...
As no broadcaster is permitted, by the terms of their licence, to have any political leanings the wonder is, given they admit it, Ofcom has not removed their licence.

Inviting guests for ridicule is all part of the strategy.
 
Common Sense Club said:
They should have you on their programme…
Click to expand...
He's already been on Crime watch, Watchdog and Rogue Traders. Aiming for celebrity status 👍

Meanwhile, nothing of note came out of the Epstein files. I suppose we wait until the lawsuit is filled to see what he wants from the BBC.
The BBC needs a bloody good shake up, in any event. Self Regulation was an immense fail
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top