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.

Did the left incite the Antifa attacks would you say? Should we hold Jeremy Corbyn etc to account for that?

What do you mean about it not having been heard in a meaningful way?

I recall some excellent interviews with people like Kathleen Stock, for example. Or the Deborah Cohen investigations into gender dysphoria and the use of puberty blockers etc. Would you regard that kind of coverage as having been meaningless?

I'm sure that there are all sorts of different groups within the BBC pushing their own particular perspectives - it is a large and diverse organisation after all. I'm sure that mistakes were also made with regard to the coverage of trans issues. However, I am not aware of Sex Matters having been defined by the BBC as a terrorist group and banned from presenting their views. Is there actually any evidence of this?

Erm... I wasn't aware that antifa also marched on the Capitol?

I don't understand why the BBC has not put out a prominent statement that it will never again work with October Films.
I don't understand why it has not demanded that October Films publicly name the fools who did this fake editing (and presumably thought they were 'doing the right thing').

The only reason I can think of is that there is no real separation between the BBC and its outsourced companies like October Films. It is probably just a legal and financial split, to have separate companies, but with people of the same culture throughout, who will always protect each other because they believe they are on the right side of history.

That is categorically not true. The BBC is actually very well recognised overseas, whatever people may or may not think about it.

Oh god I've had to endure it for longer as my FIL watches it all the time. It is such poor quality, biased rubbish.
It just riles him up and makes him even more frothy. He's not referred to as "racist grandad" by several.of his grandchildren for no reason.

I have long thought the BBC had a bias problem (the trans issue and Woman’s Hour in particular) but I am so shocked by the reaction of so many BBC insiders to the dossier that I now think their situation is terminal. I can’t get my head around the minimising, obfuscating and whataboutery surrounding the egregious Trump edits. I’ll never trust them again.

I think as far as press standards go worldwide it’s generally ok but there is most definitely a left leaning, Champagne socialist in London slant to anything which involves ‘opinion’ and ‘left/right’.

It matters because if people lose trust in the "impartial"/centre publications they don't believe other factual statements they make.

I know several people who hate Trump because he "led a march on the Capitol to violently take power" but don't even know about the whole thing with replacing the electors in swing states and trying to get Mike Pence to certify them. Which is actually what he got in trouble for.

Because even when programmes are made by independent companies on behalf of the BBC they still need to have been signed off by the BBC before they’re aired.

Its a compliance issue that it wasn’t picked up, and the BBC would never redirect that blame because ultimately the sign off sat with them.

Its not that there’s no separation between independent TV producers and broadcasters, but independent producers will make content for multiple broadcasters - they might be making programmes for ITV, Channel 4, streaming platforms plus the BBC at any one time.

Yes they’ll be contracted legally to supply content under the editorial policies of those individual broadcasters, but they’re not tied to one.

So in some ways you’re right, the audience should see no difference between a programme made by an indie for the BBC but that’s only because they’re contracted to make that programme in a BBC format.

Loads of tv programmes are made in this way, C4 don’t make anything in house except news I think.

Quite obviously they didn’t but Antifa marches have involved extraordinary levels of violence and destruction of local businesses. And George Floyd marches saw 46 police offices killed and over 2,000 injured.

If he gets a cent from the BBC they can kiss goodbye to my licence fee.

It used to be more so. Which is why they should look at and take institutional bias seriously. If they can’t see it this kind of o/s provision is under threat too.

I was responding to the suggestion that people in other countries would have no idea what someone was talking about if they mentioned the BBC.

Brand recognition for the BBC is actually very high. This recent incident will have undoubtedly damaged the brand, but I don't think it will destroy it. Especially if Trump loses or abandons his case.

GB News lies because your indoctrinated children call their grandfather racist?

If you've seen so much of it, why not give us some examples of their lies?

This is important. Thank you for letting us know.

My BIL is a builder. He was approached by one of the popular "doing up a property" TV shows to be on it, but was advised by a friend who works in media not to touch it.
These shows always must have a narrative, a story of hopeful but innocent home owners, everything going wrong, and eventual triumph over the odds. They have to have "bad guys" and create drama. Usually the builder or tradespeople are painted as the bad guys by sneaky editing and bending the truth in the narration.
Basically, by doing this kind of show you are walking into a trap and will have your reputation damaged.

Basically, it is hard to trust the truth of ANY kind of constructed media, whether news or entertainment.
You used to be able to trust actual footage of events, but now it seems even that is not to be believed if you can't trust the editing.

You only have to watch Fiona Bruce on QT to understand the leaning of the BBC.
its not left leaning at all 😂.
Also, did anyone even watch the Panorama episode or have you all just jumped on this particular edited part?

Obviously, they need to take action to protect their reputation. And there will be some damage done to that reputation by the stupid Panorama edit. However, I think the fact that a lot of people around the world do believe that Trump was responsible for the Jan 6 riots in any case, the damage will be mitigated.

The BBC absolutely misrepresented what Trump actually said, and that was bad. But overall, the Panorama programme didn't put forward a narrative that wasn't already out there, and that will potentially provide some mitigation.

He won’t even get a penny :)

This!

Fiona Bruce is entirely neutral on QT, when you’re used to relentless left leaning slants yes that will look ‘right wing’

This has nothing to do with what Trump will do, except in the respect that it's remarkably stupid of our National broadcaster to have done a deliberately misleading edit on a man who we very much need, whether we like him or not, to be an ally.

Absolutely hilarious!

Don't you think the edit is enough?

Is it?