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.

Farage.
Making up crap about the budget.
Never asking questions about Reform’s funding.
The fact the top people are Tories.
For sure I see a right wing bias.
Thise who don’t normaly cite Dr. Who being cast gay and black. These things aren’t the same.

If it’s right wing who benefits if it’s scrapped, it must be the left?

It’s not just a news service. I value it for the rest. Nobody benefits if it goes.
And even with the lean right, it’s less biased than other sources.

So keep the right wing biased news then. Ok

You could get rid of that part if it’s that bad and keep the rest btw

Did you notice the bit where I said it’s still less biased than most other sources?

I asked earlier about this article, what does it prove about BBC bias?

Of course news can't report everything.

Our national broadcaster should however, be reporting properly on the worst medical scandal in decades and should not be adopting a controversial, unscientific ideology. Here's only some of what Prescott said about this topic:

• On story selection, his report warned of an “unintended editorial bias”
• “Significant voices” were too often missing from the BBC’s coverage, including those who had transitioned and regretted their decision or those who had concerns about the process
• The report couldn’t find a single example in the review period that reflected the experience of de-transitioners
• It noted there were more stories about the waiting times for people to receive care than examining the quality of that care itself
• It also noted a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens considering it is such a niche group of people
• Stories that raised concerns about the quality or safety of care given to gender questioning children and adults received “little or no coverage”
• In March 2024, there was widespread media coverage of leaked documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. It was picked up by the Mail, Economist, Observer, Washington Post, the Times and others but not the BBC
• There was also scant coverage of biological women campaigning to exclude biological men from sensitive spaces
• The BBC failed to cover the story of Darlington nurses who took their employer to court for allowing their changing room to be used by biological males. This story was covered extensively by other news outlets including Sky News and GB News
• Similarly, there was no coverage of claims biological male police and prison officers were being allowed to conduct strip searches on women and girls
• The report warned that the phrase “assigned at birth” in relation to biological sex was appearing frequently in coverage, despite being advised against in guidelines
• The report noted concerns with how the debate about the Cass Review was framed on Newsnight – the views of a doctor critical of the Tavistock Clinic were “balanced” with those of a trans woman, who said she had received excellent care. The report pointed out that if Newsnight was covering concerns about a maternity unit it would not seek to provide balance by interviewing a mother who was happy with her care

That's just some of it.

Ah ok. You have your own, unrelated, axe to grind.
Have a good evening.

No I know you want to keep it despite how right wing it is.

People often say that but then stall at removing it.

What’s neutral to you, The Guardian?

It’s yet another distraction from the Epstein files. It was first broadcast a couple years ago, and it’s beyond the point he can sue in this country. Also he isn’t a BbC license holder so can’t watch it in real time. It’s not broadcast in the States so does no representation damage.

You have literally ignored all the other bits of Prescott's e-mail that I posted.

Expecting the BBC to not adopt an extremist ideology and then allow its activist staff to veto stories the public have the right to be told which relate to that extremist ideology, is a perfectly reasonable position and only someone who is an extremist, would see it as an axe to grind. Most reasonable people want the BBC to report the news from a neutral perspective, not an activist one.

Have a good evening yourself.

I doubt any news is completely neutral. I’d say the Guardian is centrist with Liberal leanings (U.K. meaning of liberal). BBC has a right slant in news and a left/liberal slant in drama etc. most of the rest of main stream, large publications are varying degrees of right wing. It’s why it’s worth reading more than one and watching things live when possible.

I couldn't agree more.

Apart from the fact it was made years later when everyone had already made up their minds…
You talk as if it was released immediately after events.

It wasn’t an oversight though. An oversight suggests a mistake. But the editing of the footage wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.

And the BBC didn’t sack these people. They resigned. So presumably they would still be in their roles otherwise. The BEEB made it very clear that they weren’t going to sack anyone.

I think the BBC have thought of themselves as sort of untouchable for decades, which is why people like Jimmy Saville and Martin Bashir got to do what they did.

They’ve unfortunately reached their day of reckoning with Trump now. It’s very sad.

yes thats exactly what happened. i dont recall the name but you can find out. The person who leaked it from inside the bbc is right wing and associated with trump supporting organisations. Its all a huge set up to discredit the bbc and move folk over to GB news. Who controls the media controls the population and political sway. Its very obvious. BBC have made mistakes and they do need a shake up but we are in big trouble if they are dismantled. The are the only credible news source in uk and most trusted in america aside from the weather channel (apparently). Plus the bbc had plans to launch in america. So of course Trump will try to derail that. Spot on.

Its all a huge set up to discredit the bbc who had plans to launch in america.
BBC new reform and have made errors but are still more trusted news than any others. A highly credible and trusted news organisation with plans to launch in America - of course he will try and distabilise that by discrediting them

And an acquittal isn’t innocence. There has to be substantial grounds for impeachment in the first place.

Even his most ardent supporters know what he did. Let’s not play silly games.

You might think he was justified. You might believe that he had no idea how bad it would get. Those things are both a matter of opinion.

But we all know what he did and what he said. And we all know what kind of man he is.

Very rarely are people brought to account at the BBC. They will.leave with a nice pay off and get a final salary pension.

Unless it is some kind of current sexual abuse allegation.

As Licence Payers we pay the wages.
Which they seem to conveniently forget.
Name and Shame them

Trump is a narcissist. He craves attention and has to continue with his outrageous acts in case the public forget him!

Trump is actually well-practiced at this. A chap he sued and who had to pay out was interviewed on Saturday on Radio 4, the interviewer was all ..."Trump cant win, we are the BBC and anyway we don't broadcast in the States", the interviewee was "sorry to burst your bubble but this will be taken before a Florida jury and the BBC will be royally screwed". Trump is asking for billions and BBC will settle it for a few million. Did you see how Trump got the BBC to apologise and then throws it that back at them as an admission. Rattlesnake's bite!

How do you think this set up was done?

How did Trump get October Films to splice his speech to materially mislead?

How did he get the BBC to go ahead with the broadcast despite staff raising concerns?

Did he have insiders in top roles of both organisations, perhaps, who could influence them to put aside all their institutional integrity? But then why would he fear them coming to the US?

Hypnosis perhaps? Or Black Magic?

.....look at the credits? It's not some sinister cover up.

The people directly responsible will be - the editor under the directorship of a series producer - both of whom will work for October films. Then the commissioning editor at the BBC.

When you say the Beeb didn't sack anyone....who would they sack? The most senior people at the organisation have resigned.

Those directly responsible for the edit will work for the independent production company (October Films) & likely be freelancers, working on a contract for the duration of the programme.