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.

No because they want all media to be accountable to shareholders only! If lots of money is to be paid out in compensation your damn right we need to scrutinise the motivations of the accuser.

Well maybe, just maybe, a lot of us are concerned with this issue?

What do you think will be better than the BBC?
Where do you think you get better, more impartial news?
Do you think some people have a vested interest in getting rid of the BBC?

@SeaAndStars imo The Times does a far better job than the BBC of accurately reporting the range of opinions on contentious issues such as Israel/Gaza, Trans issues and Trump etc.

Good call, but The Times is behind a paywall. BBC news on line is free.

Hello Ms Leavitt.

What conspiracy theory are you talking about?

If money ends up being paid out by the BBC in compensation, then that's because they've spectacularly fucked up. In that case, damned right we should be scrutinising what's happened. But scrutinising and fixing the BBC: not the person the courts judge was the victim

The craziest thing about all this is that the BBC didn't need to do anything to further besmirch him; he does it naturally himself!

I've never watched GB News and I am a bit worried that I will start frothing. Can anyone reassure me that it's safe?

As this thread continues about bias in the BBC, just a reminder that the BBC is banned in many countries. And yes, the Trump edit was bad, wrong, should be acted on, lessons learned etc.

A reminder though.

The BBC is banned in China.

And here is how the PRC state controlled media reported this Trump story.

All victims of malicious editing have the right to demand compensation from the BBC: Global Times editorial - Global Times

I hope this link works, it is state media, so might not.

The Global Times, a Party controlled organ say this about the BBC :

" Even worse, through such smears, the BBC's reporting has colluded with international anti-China forces, becoming one of the most active proponents of "sanctions against Chinese companies." China's products, such as solar panels, cotton, and tomatoes, are high-quality items that are cost-effective in the international market. However, the malicious slander from the BBC and the incitement from anti-China forces have exerted real pressure of market discrimination on these Chinese enterprises, disrupting the normal operation of international supply chains."

The CPC does not like the BBC.

And no wonder, the BBC is one of the few world rated news organizations that reports on the Uygur people in XJ. Note the word in bold in the quote. "cotton". That's XJ.

Is that political bias ? To keep reporting on an issue, or an alleged issue, against the wishes of the Government of that region.

Is the BBC a state mouthpiece for the UK Government, of whatever flavour, when officials visiting the PRC need to defend it. Is the BBC doing Westminster's bidding when it's reporting potentially jeoperdises relations?

Away from China, there was that school girl, shot in the head by the Taliban.

She was blogging for the BBC.

Political bias ?

The Taliban would likely say so.

I am not making excuses for the BBC here. Hold them to account.

But for people calling for it to be scrapped. Nah.

We are running short of news orgs that are not scared of Governments.

And that have the clout to do reports that can scare Governments anywhere in the world.

To scare them with the truth.

scaremongering is not needed

I didn’t say the edit was an oversight. I said there was a failure of oversight, ie they failed to oversee the work of an outside company properly before broadcast.

The BBC could just use the Trump defence.

" Who ? I don't know this person you are asking about. think maybe they made tea for us once."

The Times had to retract 2 stories recently for a bit more then dodgy editing.

There seems to be a trend on this thread. Who retracts stories and who does not.

Personally, I think media who hold their hands up and way, " We messed up, sorry", are more trustworthy than those who don't.

The Telegraph does a lot of corrections in small letters and not very obvious.

I see your point. Not exactly tearing of sackcloth.

@bemoresloth which stories were they out of interest? All newspapers have a corrections space but I’m not aware of The Times putting its hand up recently to anything of the significance of the BBC Trump edit?

The lie about Torsten Bell's desk (also Mail and Telegraph) and quoting the wrong Bill de Blasio

Telegraph made up a fake family being upset about private school VAT.

Let's be honest here though. They couldn't really deny it could they? It was there for all to see. I'm sure 'there's nothing to see here' was their first go to., but it wouldn't hold water so they were kind of backed into a corner.

@bemoresloth the quote attributed to the wrong de Blasio was immediately deleted from the site and an apology issued (it never made it into the print edition). If the BBC had done that re the Trump edit it wouldn’t be in this mess.

The Bell desk thing was certainly poor journalism but it’s hard to get worked up about it, it’s not like it was alleging incitement to violence by a candidate a week before an election for example.

Valid point, and I agree.

How many people saw it though.

BBC has apologised, 2 people resigned, the edit didn't trouble anyone at the time of broadcasting.

The BBC didn't make up any quotes or quoted the wrong Trump.

You are happy with foreign interference then?

Ex BBC consultant 2011 to 2015. They are a horrendous organisation and what's been happening over the years comes as no surprise to me at all.

God no. It's unashamedly right wing and horribly over focused on migrant boat arrivals. But it has done a bloody good job that it seems nobody else would do for the victims of the rape gangs. Rees Mogg is not part of the frothing about boat people and is really sharp, well briefed and data focused on economics, history and a few other bits. He's Catholic and his stance on abortion and assisted dying drive me nuts. There's a 5 person panel show at the weekend evenings which deals with a lot of topics in 5 minute bits and can be quite fun. Camilla Tominey is, imo, the best political interviewer on TV, so polite, so charming, lets them answer, smiles nicely and then suddenly in goes a dagger of a question that goes right to the heart of things. There's normally a 6 o'clock summary of her Sunday morning show on in the evening.

I honestly think, if it's now Britain's most watched news channel, that everyone with time and a brain should watch at least a bit of the prime time shows to find out why so many other people are watching it and consider how that affects society. Our pet name for it is "rant TV". Got to go, Camilla is on in a moment.