The bbc, again.

[Teddy Eagle]

I am no more either the producer or the editor of that Panorama programme than you are but I have tried to explain what I suspect happened several times.

They probably had a number of short clips taken from that speech saying the kind of things he had been saying for weeks which continued afterwards. They decided to use a couple but overlooked the need to introduce a fade between them because they weren’t contemporaneous. Whether the overlooking was simply an accident, or considered unnecessary because the point it made was perfectly valid within its context, is unknown. It wasn’t noticed on final editing because it appeared so typical of him. The editor didn’t notice and nor did anyone else until much later.

The BBC decided, in their wisdom, to apologise for an error of judgement. Probably a Board decision which was not supported by the staff involved.

And your explanations have ranged from it being an accident, a mistake and deliberately engineered.
Nevermind, carry on enjoying the BBC coverage of world events in the knowledge you might well be accepting some random editor's idea of how the world should be.

 

[Bassak]

And your explanations have ranged from it being an accident, a mistake and deliberately engineered.
Nevermind, carry on enjoying the BBC coverage of world events in the knowledge you might well be accepting some random editor's idea of how the world should be.

And he uses probably a lot meaning he doesn’t know !

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And your explanations have ranged from it being an accident, a mistake and deliberately engineered.
Nevermind, carry on enjoying the BBC coverage of world events in the knowledge you might well be accepting some random editor's idea of how the world should be.

The reason for that is because as only the programme makers know, everything else has to be deduced from both the evidence and past record. I don’t know whether it was intentional to present it that way, although I think it very unlikely. What I am confident about is that there was nothing malicious involved. It was explaining how people reacted to a charismatic person like Trump in the febrile political environment of the USA these days.

It wasn’t about Trump. It was about how others responded to the kind of rhetoric someone like him produces. Those quotes being merely examples to make a point.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And he uses probably a lot meaning he doesn’t know !

Only the programme makers know.

Everything else is conjecture, some more likely than others. Hence probably. Although I am possibly wrong!

 

[McAhuna]

Not at all. The issue is now about whether what happened amounts to defamation. Not about the edit itself.

The position of the BBC being that there was nothing “deliberate” involved. It was an editing error in a programme that wasn’t about Trump. It was two clips spliced together which indicated the type of rhetoric that led to the riot. It wasn’t a report on the speech. It was a few seconds lifted from it used to make a point. With hindsight they accepted that it should have been made clear it wasn’t contemporaneous and apologised. I wouldn’t have done! Not because I think (my opinion, not that of the BBC) that he is an awful piece of humanity, but because in its context an apology wasn’t justified. It wasn’t him that was the subject. Therefore no defamation happened.

Imagine a programme about the passions of football supporters that includes some clips of famous incidents that arouses them. Then imagine two clips of the same player, taken from the same game. One shows a wonderful weaving run, beating player after player. The next him missing an open goal by 10 yards. The programme only airs in the UK. Was the player defamed in the USA because it wasn’t made clear they were separate incidents? It wasn’t about him! It was about the passion incidents like that generate.

Behind the rambling word salad lies one of the stupidest points ever made on the internet.

Wisbech Eagle thinks MOTD highlights amount to defamation 🤣 🤣 🤣

 

[Teddy Eagle]

The reason for that is because as only the programme makers know, everything else has to be deduced from both the evidence and past record. I don’t know whether it was intentional to present it that way, although I think it very unlikely. What I am confident about is that there was nothing malicious involved. It was explaining how people reacted to a charismatic person like Trump in the febrile political environment of the USA these days.

It wasn’t about Trump. It was about how others responded to the kind of rhetoric someone like him produces. Those quotes being merely examples to make a point.

On what do base this confidence it wasn't malicious? They were showing how people reacted to something he didn't say and if it wasn't intentional then what are the odds that it reflected the point they were making?
If it wasn't about Trump I'm confident your defence wouldn't be so strident.

 

[georgenorman]

On what do base this confidence it wasn't malicious? They were showing how people reacted to something he didn't say and if it wasn't intentional then what are the odds that it reflected the point they were making?
If it wasn't about Trump I'm confident your defence wouldn't be so strident.

If it had been an edited video of Biden showing he had dementia, Wisbech would be incandescent with rage.

 

[cryrst]

If it had been an edited video of Biden showing he had dementia, Wisbech would be incandescent with rage.

There were a few showing Biden in a pickle like being escorted from a stage which were not edited. There may well have been a defender questioning if it was edited by a right wing MSM

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Could it be possible ? is Joe Biden registered on HOL as an infamous user ? All the traits are there. 🙂

 

[georgenorman]

Could it be possible ? is Joe Biden registered on HOL as an infamous user ? All the traits are there. 🙂

I think posts from Biden would be more coherent than those from you know who.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

On what do base this confidence it wasn't malicious? They were showing how people reacted to something he didn't say and if it wasn't intentional then what are the odds that it reflected the point they were making?
If it wasn't about Trump I'm confident your defence wouldn't be so strident.

They weren’t showing how people reacted to anything he didn’t say! They showed how people reacted to a broad spectrum of things he did say, repeatedly. Not just two examples left next to one another and not separated by a fade. I am confident it wasn’t malicious because it would have been pointless to do it to deliberately cause harm. It wasn’t about him, so why harm him?

Only Trump would even think of trying to use such an event to sue another broadcaster he wants to intimidate and force money from them. He’s so openly corrupt that we now just seem to accept it. We really shouldn’t. So nobody else would cause such a defence to be required.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

They weren’t showing how people reacted to anything he didn’t say! They showed how people reacted to a broad spectrum of things he did say, repeatedly. Not just two examples left next to one another and not separated by a fade. I am confident it wasn’t malicious because it would have been pointless to do it to deliberately cause harm. It wasn’t about him, so why harm him?

Only Trump would even think of trying to use such an event to sue another broadcaster he wants to intimidate and force money from them. He’s so openly corrupt that we now just seem to accept it. We really shouldn’t. So nobody else would cause such a defence to be required.

Keep telling yourself that next time they broadcast one of their versions of a speech.
It wasn't malicious? Sure it wasn't.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Keep telling yourself that next time they broadcast one of their versions of a speech.
It wasn't malicious? Sure it wasn't.

If they were broadcasting a “version of a speech” then your comment would make some sense.

They weren’t. They included two very short clips from a speech, in an hour long programme, as part of a much wider point that was being examined.

It ought to have included a fade between them or a voice over stating this was the kind of thing being heard by the rioters. Something that has been accepted and an apology given. That’s more than enough.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

If they were broadcasting a “version of a speech” then your comment would make some sense.

They weren’t. They included two very short clips from a speech, in an hour long programme, as part of a much wider point that was being examined.

It ought to have included a fade between them or a voice over stating this was the kind of thing being heard by the rioters. Something that has been accepted and an apology given. That’s more than enough.

And ran them together whilst editing out the part about protesting peacefully which totally changed the meaning and all the waffle about context doesn't change that.
Your position here is entirely predictable:
Savile/ Harris / Hall/ Edwards? The BBC didn't know anything or they would have acted.
Falsifying documents in the Princess Diana programme? One man acted alone and no one else knew.
The Gaza documentary? A complete accident.
Lord McAlpine wrongly implicated? An accident.
Bob Vylan at Glastonbury? Nothing to see here.

Is it conceivable that one day you'll admit any culpability on their part.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And ran them together whilst editing out the part about protesting peacefully which totally changed the meaning and all the waffle about context doesn't change that.
Your position here is entirely predictable:
Savile/ Harris / Hall/ Edwards? The BBC didn't know anything or they would have acted.
Falsifying documents in the Princess Diana programme? One man acted alone and no one else knew.
The Gaza documentary? A complete accident.
Lord McAlpine wrongly implicated? An accident.
Bob Vylan at Glastonbury? Nothing to see here.

Is it conceivable that one day you'll admit any culpability on their part.

Are you suggesting that’s the BBC’s position on those “events”, or mine?

Actually it’s neither! They are simply cynical, distorted and dishonest descriptions from the position of someone with a warped view of the BBC born of a misunderstanding of its role.

Whenever the BBC make any kind of error, which given the scale of their operation, and a level of scrutiny that means when someone uses two sheets of toilet paper when one would have been sufficient it becomes national news, is not infrequent, they review, explain and apologise if required.

When others make errors no one either notices or cares.

The editing did not change the meaning. Because the point being made wasn’t about the speech. It was about the kind of rhetoric being heard then. And now.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Are you suggesting that’s the BBC’s position on those “events”, or mine?

Actually it’s neither! They are simply cynical, distorted and dishonest descriptions from the position of someone with a warped view of the BBC born of a misunderstanding of its role.

Whenever the BBC make any kind of error, which given the scale of their operation, and a level of scrutiny that means when someone uses two sheets of toilet paper when one would have been sufficient it becomes national news, is not infrequent, they review, explain and apologise if required.

When others make errors no one either notices or cares.

The editing did not change the meaning. Because the point being made wasn’t about the speech. It was about the kind of rhetoric being heard then. And now.

Not warped but an expectation that a broadcaster for whose service everyone is required to pay regardless of their not watching it should not be involved in such events.
That kind of rhetoric wasn't heard then either because he didn't say it. It was dishonest despite any spin applied to the situation.
The BBC's role isn't to distort and twist stories to fit an agenda.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Not warped but an expectation that a broadcaster for whose service everyone is required to pay regardless of their not watching it should not be involved in such events.
That kind of rhetoric wasn't heard then either because he didn't say it. It was dishonest despite any spin applied to the situation.
The BBC's role isn't to distort and twist stories to fit an agenda.

We should certainly expect, and get, high standards of the BBC. Reflecting on, and apologising for mistakes, however significant, and constantly trying to improve are part of those high standards. That there is a group reluctant to accept their duty to fund a national asset and determined to undermine them at every opportunity, isn’t their fault.

The kind of rhetoric that was highlighted by those two clips wasn’t intended to be any kind of reporting on any particular speech. It was just indicative. Not including a fade, or voice over, has, with the benefit of hindsight been recognised as poorly done and an apology given. That ought to be the end of it. Honest mistakes don’t equal deliberate distortion by the BBC, who only commissioned the programme. They didn’t make it.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

We should certainly expect, and get, high standards of the BBC. Reflecting on, and apologising for mistakes, however significant, and constantly trying to improve are part of those high standards. That there is a group reluctant to accept their duty to fund a national asset and determined to undermine them at every opportunity, isn’t their fault.

The kind of rhetoric that was highlighted by those two clips wasn’t intended to be any kind of reporting on any particular speech. It was just indicative. Not including a fade, or voice over, has, with the benefit of hindsight been recognised as poorly done and an apology given. That ought to be the end of it. Honest mistakes don’t equal deliberate distortion by the BBC, who only commissioned the programme. They didn’t make it.

Surely Trump has said enough daft, dumb and incendiary things they could have quoted without creating an example.
Whether they made the programme is immaterial. They broadcast it and so bear responsibility.

 

[silvertop]

And he uses probably a lot meaning he doesn’t know !

As I keep saying, he does not; but neither do you.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Surely Trump has said enough daft, dumb and incendiary things they could have quoted without creating an example.
Whether they made the programme is immaterial. They broadcast it and so bear responsibility.

That’s why they apologised. They missed the edit on review prior to broadcast for exactly the same reason everyone else, bar one, did. They took responsibility and apologised.

As the programme can no longer be accessed it’s impossible to check and list all the other “dumb, daft and incendiary things” done by Trump that were included but from memory there was a selection. Phone calls to Governors asking them to find votes being among them.