Split Thread BBC news reporting
- Thread starter Andy_Ross
- Start date
LDE1976
Muse
A dodgily-edited edition of Panorama means that everything you heard from the horse's mouth in the preceding three years is a lie (also, that Channel 4 series).
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
◊◊◊◊ off Donald, you stinking bag of puss and bile. ◊◊◊◊ off with your stupid vendettas, ◊◊◊◊ off with your lies and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊...is how I would respond if I thought for a moment that Trump were able to have actually written that.
It is also, coincidentally, how I would respond knowing that there is no way he wrote that (with the addition of suggesting that he throw his ridiculous facepaint into the sea, but only after applying it).
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Good, and about time!
No matter how much people might despise the serial liar we know as The Fat Orange Prolapsed Anus (and I despise him as much as any of the lefties on this forum) there is absolutely NO excuse for what the BBC did - willfully allowing the airing of footage they KNEW was intentionally edited together for the purpose of misleading the public.... in ANY documentary program, let alone their jewel in the crown, Panorama. First broadcast in 1953. It is the world's longest-running television news programme - known for its hard-hitting, honest presentation of news and current affairs. It had a reputation second to none. Its byline is "Television's window on the world", and it is often described as an "investigative documentary series revealing the truth about the stories that matter".
Someone much wiser than me once said "credibility is not a boomerang - if you throw it away, it ain't coming back". Unfortunately for BBC, they have been throwing away their credibility for years. I mean, they have committed some serious blunders...
- Continuing to promote the vile Jimmy Savile for years, all the time KNOWING that he was a profilic kiddie fiddler.
- Lying ◊◊◊◊ Martin Bashir scamming Princess Diana using forged bank statements to get access for an interiew.
- Huw Edwards, whose £300K a year pension is still being funded by licence fee payers despite the fact he's a filthy pedofile.
- BBC News' lies that Israel bombed a hospital in Gaza when it was in fact a wayward Hamas missile.
- The obscene coverage of the police raid on Cliff Richard's home.
- Persistent suppresseion of gender critial views and opinions on matters relatiing to transgenderism.
- The BBC Arabic service using different descriptions for the English Language and the Arabic language broadcasts, blaming "Israel" for attacks on Gaza in English language broadcasts but blaming "Jews" in their Arabic Language broadcasts.
- Allowing Bob Vylan's vile anti-Semitic rhetoric at Glastonbury to be broadcast live to the nation.
- Their Gaza documentary featuring family members of a Hamas minister.
- Disciplining presenter Martine Croxel for voicing he belef in fundamental biology - oh how very dare she!!
Much of this is down to a unit within the BBC called "BBC Verify" the so-called fact checking unit that pisses £3.5M of license fee money up the wall every year, paying more than 60 staff members to make sure news stories are accurate. BBC Verify would be more aptly named BBC Very Lie. How bizarre it must be to live in a country where you are expected to pay the National Broadcaster to misinform, indoctrinate and brainwash you while insulting your intelligence. The BBC News needs to STOP being the propaganda arm of the UK Labour party, and return to being the fair and balanced neutral media it once was.... and that will be a long road to hoe
In the meantime, we now know the BBC is going to apologise to The Fat Orange Turd for what they did. I hope that appeases him enough that he won't sue them, because he will be the only winner - under UK law, it would be a slam dunk win for him.
Last edited:
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Question: can a non-UK citizen sue in an English civil court?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The short answer is yes (in England & Wales anyway, not sure about Scotland) so long as they can show that it is the most appropriate place to bring the action. The court must be satisfied that the alleged defamation is sufficiently substantial and that it is clearly the most appropriate place to bring the lawsuit.
grunion
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 11,497
I think you overestimate the extent of true freedom of the press in a profit-based media ecosystem like the US, where seven companies (soon five) run 80% of broadcast and digital media.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
The BBC is not a monolith, it's composed of individuals who sometimes make errors of judgement. This latest one doesn't mean the whole organisation has suddenly descended to the level of Fox News, it's actually still one of the more reliable news sources. The mistakes are rarely deliberately intended to deceive, and are usually acknowledged and corrected when identified.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,791
In an age where one side lies and never even acknowledges their outright fabrications it should be enough for the other side to just post a correction when appropriate.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Since Trump was not even in the UK at the time, and very few Americans watch the Beeb, how can it affect him in the UK, negatively or positively? His ego is about as relevant in UK as the mayor of Nauru, or the king of Lesotho. No harm, no foul, for the thin-skinned paedophile.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Firstly, that is a fair bit of whataboutism you're indulging in, but to address your comment, I am well aware of the limitations on profit based media. But none of those media get funding from a compulsory license fee levied on the public. The BBC is the public's broadcaster - it ought to reflect what the public want.... it doesn't.
For the most part, the BBC is pretty good. Their entertainment programs are very good, their science, nature and wildlife programs are nothing short of excellent.. all really high quality productions, but unfortunately, BBC News and Current Affairs is a complete mess. It is hopelessy biased to the left and it has become their propganda arm... and this time, they have been publicly caught out and are suffering consequences.
The BBC repeatedly broke this little-known rule of journalism
The BBC has been in the spotlight over claims of biased and distorted journalism including of Donald Trump. Now its boss and news chief have resigned.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You'll get no argument from about the vileness of The Fat Orange Turd, but it does not matter whether he was in the UK or not. Damage to reputation (such as it is) does not become invalid when you cross a border.
Of course, he is a property owner in the UK, though I am unsure as to whether that forms any part of a valid legal argument.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
If you were living here and could see the amount of coverage devoted to Farage and Reform you would know better.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Here's the problem though - they are very selective about the stories they publish. Its very easy to come across as factual when publishing anything that might question the preferred narrative is avoided - its like the media version of "lying by omission.
I have posted something in another thread because I don't want to be accused of bringing that issue here. (I don't expect our willfully blind usual suspects to sully their worldviews with it, but I thought you might be interested).
Post with Fiona McAnena interview
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
When was the programme broadcast?
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,053
List of historic failings snipped for brevity. Some are fair, others are not. (Not having the right to strip a sacked presenter of his pension, for example)
I don't think that's fair at all. Verify fact-checks disputed story elements. It doesn't actively sift all output looking for bad editorial decisions. That's not what it is.
The departed Director General is a Tory through and through.