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 find the idea that there is a culture at the BBC of "we know what the truth is and we will present that" far, far more worrying than a rogue journalist doing a sensationalist edit.

Spot on.

A politically motivated indictment, along with several others, designed to put him in a position where he would not be able to stand for election again. That went well, didn't it?

It’s very hard for them to see that last part.

The charges that were dropped and those he was acquitted from, you mean?

Trump is a terrible person. That doesn't mean the BBC get to pretend he said things he didn't in order to paint him as a bogeyman. in order to manipulate people into believing what they see as self-evidently "what all right-thinking people should believe".

That's not journalism. That's propaganda.

He said the words. Nobody can deny that.

Well, even if you think it was politically motivated, the point still stands that the BBC weren't the ones that invented the idea.

Are you saying that you think Trump's conduct in relation to the election that he lost was appropriate? Or do you accept his claim that he didn't actually lose and that the presidency was stolen from him?

It's an interesting conundrum isn't it.

If every prosecution of a politician is seen as political, then potentially there will be a situation where politicians are above the law. Because of course political prosecutions are wrong. But so is ignoring criminal actions.

One thing for sure, Trump does not appear to have any ethical qualms about using the law to go after folk he considers political enemies. Not this term.

"Lock her up " from his first campaign comes to mind. He never acted on that, a political threat. But this term, he is out for revenge.

Yes he did say the words But not combined the way the BBC showed it.

Splicing parts of a speech which were an hour apart and had completely different context is dishonest manipulation. Messing with the timeliness of the accompanying footage is also dishonest manipulation.

I just cannot believe the number of people who think that because Trump is a Bad Thing, that means our national broadcaster which is supposed to strive for balance, should be allowed to abandon all journalistic principles and indeed its remit.

Can people not hold two ideas in their head at the same time anymore? Yes Trump is bad. No, that doesn't mean the BBC has the right to act as activists instead of journalists.

And again people should read Michael Prescott's email because the Trump section is only a part of it. There are many other examples of systemic bias where the BBC has allowed its activist staff to decide what the British people find out about what is going on in the world instead of adhering to proper journalistic principles and practices.

The BBC haven't just spliced the Trump film. The whole of the American election coverage was biased, their approach to Israel Hamas was biased, the failure to report properly on transactivism has been a s* show of bias and their approach to race has been biased. And that's just for a start, there were a few other things in the memo. People who are defending the BBC because they don't like Trump are really not concentrating on what's going on here and again that's informed by the fact that they just get get their news from the BBC, who are heavily majoring on the Trump thing in order to make everyone forget all the other systemic issues highlighted by Prescott.

Read Prescott's email.

I’m not denying the manipulation to tell the story, but it doesn’t change the facts as we already understood them.
Trump said what he said and events unfolded as they did.

Well no. It was spliced together.

Just one of the things the BBC hasn't properly educated us about, is that in the US a prosecutor is a political appointment. Many people don't know that because guess what, the BBC has failed in its remit of education.

All the more reason why our state broadcaster should stick to their stated remit of "unbiased truth" instead of deliberately manipulating the public out of some hubristic belief that their own political view is that of the angels.

100%

The focus on the Trump splicing incident is a distraction.

It's very annoying that Trump gave the BBC this weapon with which to distract us all, because obviously being sued is a huge story and a huge thing, but it has enabled the BBC to ignore all the other stuff.

The BBC were the ones who edited a speech to have the currently most powerful man in World say something that he did not say. It's not relevant to this discussion what I think about Trump. He could be Hitler, he still shouldn't be having words spliced into his mouth to have him say something that he didn't say.

It's very clear that those on this thread who didn't think the BBC did much wrong are of exactly the same mindset as what created the edit. They already knew what he meant.

I'm of a mind that says accurate reporting will always trump my personal view of a person's behaviour.

So you don't think the actual truth of what someone said matters?

If you 'know' the situation... and the things you see happening can be interpreted according to your world view/the story, then that's OK?

So what's the point of journalism then? Just political storytelling....

I don't see the connection sorry.

Yes that seems to be the wrong way round from pp. They already know something so want words spliced to reflect that.

So the BBC are supposed to be educators of the US political system ?

And no, not every prosecutor in the US is a political appointment. 45 states have elected prosecutors.

I have said multiple times that the clip was indefensible, and my point really is and always has been that Trump should have never used words like fight on that day. He knew what he was doing when he said them.
His supporters were riled up, he was saying the election was rigged, he did not attempt a proper transition of power, and he was creating the tension that led to the riots.
As a pp did say we are focussing on this one issue when the email criticises many issues of potential bias which are now being swept under the carpet.
All that being said, I do think we need the BBC and it is good that they fall under scrutiny.
Trump though doesn’t deserve any sympathy.

@Catsandcheese but of course by the time he used the word “fight” the Capitol had been well and truly breached.

Before all this started I assumed that Trump directly inflamed and incited the riot. Following the revelations of the BBC edit I went back and read his actual speech and looked at the timeline. It’s unsurprising he was acquitted of the incitement charges as there doesn’t appear to be much actual evidence to support it. No wonder the BBC decided to make it up.

I'd be calling him out every day. He's the biggest scumbag on the planet and the media treat the nonce like he's a normal president.

You should be biased against non democratic right wing scumbags.
If anything, the BBC is pro right wing and full of misinformation. Look how much attention farage gets. If he gets in, bye bye Britain.

There’s a difference between political appointments and the president instructing such appointees to go after his enemies.

Is it not a case of trying to avoid the appearance of bias can lead to actual bias ?

Farage for example. Not many MP's but because of poll numbers, to not give him proportional coverage can be considered bias. But giving him coverage in proportion to his number of MPs can also look like bias.

CNN had a similar issue a few years back. And while CNN do have a democratic bias, their efforts to have right wing hosts was also called... bias.

I find self calibration is often required. For me personally anyway.

If there is a news story I am interested, and I think an MSM is biased, then I will read up on the same story in the likes of Reuters, which is factual. Because maybe it is me that is biased.

So I try to calibrate myself, just to check if it is me or not.