The bbc, again.

[McAhuna]

As much as I'd like to agree....I'll say that while your view is laudable it's also idealistic.

In the real world the line is taken from management because people care about paying their mortgage more than they care about 'ethics, integrity and decency'. So unless you have ensured an objective political balance then it'll become lop sided....as we have seen.

In the real world you have to deal with human nature and the majority of human nature isn't noble, it only concerns itself with advantage. So you have to be practical rather than idealistic.

So it's a choice between a practical, commercially driven 'real world' and an idealogical 'fantasy' world of ethics and morals?

At the risk of being churlish, if they had chosen the fantasy route they would be about £5 billion better off.

This 'real world' thing sounds a bit over-rated if you ask me. It's getting found out, and not before time.

 

[Stirlingsays]

So it's a choice between a practical, commercially driven 'real world' and an idealogical 'fantasy' world of ethics and morals?

At the risk of being churlish, if they had chosen the fantasy route they would be about £5 billion better off.

This 'real world' thing sounds a bit over-rated if you ask me. It's getting found out, and not before time.

Indeed.

But the real world is what we actually have.

Management decided not to live in it.....but rather than your ethics they chose their own.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Indeed.

But the real world is what we actually have.

Management decided not to live in it.....but rather than your ethics they chose their own.

And if ethics girls are anything to go by they didn't choose wisely.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Once again it's those with Wisbech's attitude who cost this country massive amounts of money.

All they care about is themselves and everyone else has to suffer for it......It's all over his politics.

The BBC is full of little WE types, and that's why he defends it so much.

In a way it's appropriate that it's Panorama that's the conduit for all this.....It was always very left wing and so very obvious fodder for the TDS sufferers to use.

If the BBC had sensible people in management this would have never happened.....but it doesn't....Just as with Bob Villian at Glastonbury, the reason this happened is because, what aired, is what they believe anyway.

There's no one right wing, who is in a position of influence to say....'hang on'.

Here we go again. Mr Know it All determines why someone else does things. So as that person let me correct him. After all, I do know. Not just think I do.

I defend the BBC when it’s appropriate to do so. Which given the level of attack from the pack of right wing detractors is regrettably frequent.

I do in the current case because I believe their position, and response to Trump, not only to be correct and fair I also think it to be quite smart.

Trump is well out of order, which is no surprise given his track record. He is seeking to project a victim image whilst personally enriching himself, or building monuments to his dubious memory. I hope the BBC remain resolute and that the government support them.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Here we go again. Mr Know it All determines why someone else does things. So as that person let me correct him. After all, I do know. Not just think I do.

Quite the amusing paragraph.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Here we go again. Mr Know it All determines why someone else does things. So as that person let me correct him. After all, I do know. Not just think I do.

I defend the BBC when it’s appropriate to do so. Which given the level of attack from the pack of right wing detractors is regrettably frequent.

I do in the current case because I believe their position, and response to Trump, not only to be correct and fair I also think it to be quite smart.

Trump is well out of order, which is no surprise given his track record. He is seeking to project a victim image whilst personally enriching himself, or building monuments to his dubious memory. I hope the BBC remain resolute and that the government support them.

How is it right wing to resent paying for programming which is almost exclusively either rubbish or repeats?

 

[Common Sense Club]

Here we go again. Mr Know it All determines why someone else does things. So as that person let me correct him. After all, I do know. Not just think I do.

I defend the BBC when it’s appropriate to do so. Which given the level of attack from the pack of right wing detractors is regrettably frequent.

I do in the current case because I believe their position, and response to Trump, not only to be correct and fair I also think it to be quite smart.

Trump is well out of order, which is no surprise given his track record. He is seeking to project a victim image whilst personally enriching himself, or building monuments to his dubious memory. I hope the BBC remain resolute and that the government support them.

But Trump was democratically elected and we trust our politicians to make decisions on our behalf…didn’t you say that once?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And you are happy to see the BBC misquote anyone they want in order to reinforce your opinion. They might as well have a report saying "Ignore what he actually said because what he really meant was..." And you could nod sagely and congratulate them on their honesty.

Of course not. Nor are they.

They didn’t though misquote anyone. Trump said what was quoted. Just not contemptuously with the previous quote. Which changed the meaning of the previous quote, but only if it is considered in isolation. Which in an hour long programme dealing with why so many seemed prepared to give him a second chance isn’t the case. It was not intended to be a factual report on every segment of the speech.

The point being made with the clips from the speech was that Trump approved of the mob marching to the Capitol because he was continuing to spread the lie that the election result was invalid. The phrases in the speech which actually followed the first one broadcast confirm that. Later in the speech he expanded on what he meant by encouraging them to fight.

It could easily be argued that the edit clarified, rather than distorted, the meaning of the speech as a whole. The apology was about the edit not being made clear. Not about the validity of the underlying message.

That underlying message being, of course, nothing to do with a tiny segment taken in isolation but the whole speech set in the context of everything said and done before and after.

Add to that there is no evidence it was even seen in the USA.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Of course not. Nor are they.

They didn’t though misquote anyone. Trump said what was quoted. Just not contemptuously with the previous quote. Which changed the meaning of the previous quote, but only if it is considered in isolation. Which in an hour long programme dealing with why so many seemed prepared to give him a second chance isn’t the case. It was not intended to be a factual report on every segment of the speech.

The point being made with the clips from the speech was that Trump approved of the mob marching to the Capitol because he was continuing to spread the lie that the election result was invalid. The phrases in the speech which actually followed the first one broadcast confirm that. Later in the speech he expanded on what he meant by encouraging them to fight.

It could easily be argued that the edit clarified, rather than distorted, the meaning of the speech as a whole. The apology was about the edit not being made clear. Not about the validity of the underlying message.

That underlying message being, of course, nothing to do with a tiny segment taken in isolation but the whole speech set in the context of everything said and done before and after.

Add to that there is no evidence it was even seen in the USA.

So it's another Morecambe and Wise repeat. They're quoting all the right words just not necessarily in the right order.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

But Trump was democratically elected and we trust our politicians to make decisions on our behalf…didn’t you say that once?

Why the “but”?

Any action by Trump will presumably be in a private capacity. There cannot be a case for a POTUS in an official capacity. Though with Trump you never know what he might try. Or get the Justice Department to pay for.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So it's another Morecambe and Wise repeat. They're quoting all the right words just not necessarily in the right order.

No. The words are all in the right order. They are just separated by other words, most of which are either garbled or on other subjects.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

How is it right wing to resent paying for programming which is almost exclusively either rubbish or repeats?

If you cannot see the attacks from the right then you are really not living in the real world.

You aren’t paying for rubbish (which is inevitably a matter of opinion) or repeats. You are paying for the totality of the BBC.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

No. The words are all in the right order. They are just separated by other words, most of which are either garbled or on other subjects.

Which they didn't feel the need to indicate when showing the clip. Twice.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

If you cannot see the attacks from the right then you are really not living in the real world.

You aren’t paying for rubbish (which is inevitably a matter of opinion) or repeats. You are paying for the totality of the BBC.

Don't "the right" have the right to "attack" a broadcaster or is that reserved for "the left" attacking GB News?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

How does any US jurisdiction have any reach outside of the US, doesn’t make any sense to me?

It doesn’t. He can only sue for damage caused in the USA. Which as the programme wasn’t broadcasted there is difficult to see. There are suggestions that discussions on social media or views over the internet could have influence in the USA but should that argument be accepted it opens up a huge international can of worms.

In any case he won the election!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Don't "the right" have the right to "attack" a broadcaster or is that reserved for "the left" attacking GB News?

Who said they don’t have the right?

That they have, and do, doesn’t mean the criticism is justified or that it shouldn’t be answered.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Which they didn't feel the need to indicate when showing the clip. Twice.

Which, after reconsideration (by the Board for whichever reason) they decided was an error and have apologised for. The second occasion being currently under review. I expect a similar outcome.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Who said they don’t have the right?

That they have, and do, doesn’t mean the criticism is justified or that it shouldn’t be answered.

The answer from the BBC was an apology and the resignation of the DG and the Head of News.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Which, after reconsideration (by the Board for whichever reason) they decided was an error and have apologised for. The second occasion being currently under review. I expect a similar outcome.

What they apologised for...
"We accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action," the statement said.

 

[Spiderman]

But Trump was democratically elected and we trust our politicians to make decisions on our behalf…didn’t you say that once?

Only once?