The BBC are screwed, aren't they?

[kinkytoes]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c891jp9j79do

Are we ever going to find out who actually made the monumental fuck up? Rather than just a homogenous apology from the top.

Is this person/people still working for them?

I actually understand why Trump is doing this. You can't just let something so wrong pass by or they'll just keep doing it.

😂

I agree with you but feel it is even harder to argue for it now we know what we have lost is definite. The protection for our rivers and seas for example and the farmers subsidies to mention but two...

How much are councillors paid that everyone does it as a day job? Not related to any party but it seems quite restrictive.

But they aren't trusted, they effectively lied and doctored footage to make that lie seem believable.

The BBC are now about as trustworthy as a TicTok reel.

Another reason you shouldn't use your watch to cheat at the pub quiz! Presumably the answers have now fed back into AI causing this to be perpetuated...?

I rather think the point is that if you are seeking to be elected to do something, it's probably not a bad idea to know what the thing you are expected to be doing entails.

Or is that too elitist these days ? I am keenly aware of how "knowing stuff" is discriminatory.

People have a right to time off for public duties. This includes being a councillor. It may or may not be paid.

Don't you think most people would check this kind of thing before standing for election?

There you go again.

Expecting people to research and understand things that will affect them.

It's the very worst form of elitism. No wonder people are unhappy.

(😀for the dim).

So they can get time off then. Although given how people work why in the day anyway. Seems restrictive.

I have stood for local elections twice - town council, which is voluntary. Many do stand and are unaware of the time needed and resign, which is fair enough.

However you are apprised of the facts beforehand so you need to cut your cloth to suit the position. Local elections are costly to run, especially by-elections.

Ik people love this kind of posting, it’s just a councillor it’s aimed at.

Haven't RTFT but in the short term no I don't think the BBC is screwed. It ought to be, but this frivolous lawsuit from Trump has given them a chance to distract us all from the main issue, which is their systemic bias.

I read the email that Michael Preston sent and there are about eight or nine other issues with the Trump election coverage, along with huge criticisms about systemic bias in reporting trans issues, terrible bias in reporting on Israel, sending out completely mental emails to subscribers (12 mentions of Russell Brand, constant drag queens, no mention of the Wpath files, possibly the biggest medical scandal in the last three or four decades) appalling reporting on race (a story about insurance companies discriminating against black people that was so wrong that it couldn't even be corrected, it had to be taken down) and that's before you mention the shambles of BBC Arabic, which featured reports from men they called journalists who supported Hamas and when challenged on this, said that they were merely eyewitnesses. One of these men appeared on the reports over 500 times. When challenged on this particular issue, the BBC manager announced with pride that the BBC is almost as trusted in the Arab world as Al Jazeera. Like that's the benchmark.

The big issue here is not so much the obvious systemic bias, it's the fact that the BBC appears to have abandoned normal journalistic ethics and practices. They have employed a bunch of young left wing activists and instead of training them into proper journalistic rigor, they have allowed them to run riot and possibly destroy a once great institution.

But in the short term we won't hear anything about them because they will concentrate on the David and Goliath narrative of Trump suing them. They'll also try and build the narrative that the only reason anyone's criticising them is because they're all right wing plotters who want to bring the corporation down. This will save them in the short term because they're genuinely are some right-wing people who want to get rid of the BBC, but long term it'll be the end of them because it will mean that instead of addressing the systematic bias, they'll carry on as they are. Literally the only justification for the license fee is that they reflect the views of everyone in the nation and if they can't do that there's just no reason for them to exist.

I have not seen the edited video in question, BBC is banned where I am.

When I see your post, I have to ask, did you see that Panorama at the time, and did it change your opinion about if he did or did not encourage the insurrection, or try to anyway?

I remember watching Jan 6th live, and when he made the speech, I thought, wow.. he is going to lead the crowd to bang on the doors of congress, to stop the vote. And is the national guard going to turn up, join Trump, and do the whole coup thing.

I am not arguing against your point here, the BBC has admitted the video was edited, and have apologised etc.

I am just genuinely interested if you watched the program at the time, and did it alter your opinion of that day ?

Or even if you maybe watched it a month ago, would it have changed your opinion ?

And of course, would you notice if the video had been edited ?

Yes, even if you take off the first bit, it is still clear he wants them to fight and will support them.

Yeah unfortunately they have managed to piss everyone off so its not going to be good. The people on the left will be pissed when a settlement is paid and it will be paid by an increase to tv licencing and I'm sure most would not revel that thought and on the right this has categorically proven to them that the BBC is biased. (Even if that might not be true) so this will almost guarantee a massive decline in licence payers whatever the outcome. It really was foolish to do this especially with someone like Trump. He is extremely experienced at lawfare and he knows exactly what he is doing. I highly doubt the BBC will survive this at all. On top of all this it really that smart to do this to the leader of the country that we rely on for our international and financial security despite what side your on this was beyond a dumb thing to do.

On the other hand, Trump might decide the publicity in this instance isn't great for him, when he has already had the longest shut down in history.

I mean, he does encourage the crowd to "fight" and we know what happened next. Does he want to remind all of those voters about this right now?

You do realise this is the example now that the media is out to get him. I guarantee this has earned him more supporters than he has lost.

You misunderstood.
Can't see why as I started my post by saying what the BBC had done was wrong.

Trump is a bully and uses legal action to silence and frighten people.

But the guy was showing off he could walk upstairs the other week to a room of adult men. He is no stranger to looking like an idiot on the world stage, it happens daily.

What the voters will be reminded of at a time a lot of the similar demographic have had SNAP removed and various other provisions, is what works for attention, storming the Capitol. I'd not egg it on if I were him.

He did NOT encourage the crowd to fight. Have you bothered to read the speech to check like I did, or are you just parroting the BBCs own justification?

The word fight is used in the context of "fighting to survive a disease", "fighting for our rights" "fighting to keep a footpath open". They are not in any way said in the cortext of inciting anyone to engage in physical violence.

In the middle of the two spliced sections he refers to sorting out the problems peaceably but nobody is quoting that bit because it doesn't fit their narrative.

As I watched it live I disagree. Repeatedly shouting at people to fight is the same and it came across when watching it live.

This is not true. Read the speech.

You can’t just splice together a sentence. It’s false and misleading whoever it’s done to.

.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I agree Trump is a bully and uses legal action to silence BUT, on this occasion I believe the BBC deserve it.

And that's not even taking all the other appalling stuff listed in the Prescott report on them.

The BBC should have known better over Trump, hamas, womens rights, wpath, false reports about racist car insurance etc etc. plus Savile, huw edwards.