to say the BBC might be imperfect but

[user427654]

A lot of people here don't appreciate the value in what they have, and it would be beyond foolish to let this institution be decimated.

When I say here, I don't mean on MN, but in general in the UK

Absolutely unbelievable OP - I never, ever thought I'd say this but maybe the BBC should be disbanded. They've been on thin ice for a while - if Trump successfully sues, it will be completely deserved. What an appalling mess.

Do you mean you’re ok if people just remove words in between to change meaning?

Small-c conservative in terms of culture, with ostentatious nods to liberal ideas of inclusivity and tolerance, which it can indulge without fear of actually changing anything. Politically right of centre, in that undentable English way that typifies the WI, the CofE and M&S. It has to be risk-averse, but it's too big to control all its limbs, so when a member spasms in an unwelcome way it simply, as we have seen, cuts it off.

But actually, as I've said, I think the BBC's political influence is insignificant in relation to the cable channels, the social media and anything on the internet. So I really don't care too much where it sits on the political spectrum. I think the important bit is the entertainment.

Which is not to say I like all - or even most - of the entertainment. On the contrary, I dislike most of it. But all of it is liked by someone, and that's what the BBC's for.

I cannot get past their constant pushing of gender ideology aimed solidly at children within their child focussed media. The Trump thing is stupid and embarrassing, who honesty thought they could do that and get away with it? I don’t think I want them gone entirely but there has to be some accountability.

Not the way they did. You'll have to watch it, to see how they manipulated his speech. There was no obvious cut between the phrases that they quoted out of place. No fade out, no idea that it wasn't one sentence.

There's been a blink-and-you'll-miss-it reference to the Darlington nurses employment tribunal on the Six O'clock News on the BBC. After deafening silence throughout the hearing.

I wonder why tonight.

Actually, no I don't.

he did actually say all those things, albeit with other things in between.

@user427654 said, 'I did a nuclear detonation'

You did actually say those things, albeit with other things inbetween. It doesn't wash, does it?

Panorama version: “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

What he actually said: “We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

The 'fight like hell' quote was from near the end of the speech and appeared to be referring to electoral security.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

This is a shocking misrepresentation. It doesn't matter that he's a dangerous arsehole who I'm sure relished the insurrection. It's still a terrible failure of our national, publicly funded broadcaster which has a Royal Charter to uphold accuracy and impartiality. To point over there and say 'but Trump ...' in an attempt to deflect from that failure simply compounds it.

This

It's like saying because you gave air time to a nuclear detonation you have to give equal air time to a fireworks show.

It's much more like saying because you gave airtime to the Republican candidate you have to give equal airtime to the Democrat candidate.

But... since Trump's speaking that day added up to at least an hour, how should a news show, after the fact, have presented it?

Accurately?

Every interview you see on a news show, if not live, is edited to remove things in between. As I said, I haven't seen this programme, but I've watched several interviews with him lately and they've all been edited, mostly to make him sound more coherent, but he's not complaining about that.

No. It really isn't. If Harris supporters had participated in an insurrection, then it would have deserved equal air time.

That's literally like saying if a man commits a crime and his next door neighbour doesn't, they should get equal air time. It was (I gather) a show about the insurrection.

The 'fight like hell' quote was from near the end of the speech and appeared to be referring to electoral security.

Well, the crux of the argument is that it's open to interpretation. I'm not necessarily buying his lawyers' version.

My dad was one who ended up more than just bemused, he was absolutely convinced Trump was going to be thrashed and kept laughing about it. I was following rather more varied sources, and I don't think there was any doubt Trump would win, at least from a week or two after Harris took over. I did try and gently point out that I didn't think he was getting the full picture, but he was adamant. He was very confused and upset, and had refused to watch or listen to any news since. He does still only listen to BBC Sounds podcasts though, no matter how much I try to lure him away.

Ok maybe look at what the issue is.

Most people get editing but using edits to change meaning is a problem.

No it wasn't supposed to be about the insurrection particularly.

For the past two years, Panorama has been following some of Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters. One was just feet away from the former president when a gunman tried to assassinate him during a rally in Pennsylvania. They tell Panorama why they want Trump, now a convicted felon, to get a second chance in the White House, while experts analyse his continued appeal.

With the election on a knife-edge, and the former president facing more criminal charges, never before, and likely never again, will a candidate fight a presidential campaign whilst also fighting to stay out of prison.

(my bold)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0024h6r

Well, the crux of the argument is that it's open to interpretation.

The crux of the argument is that they removed the words about people peacefully and patriotically making their voices heard and replaced them with words about fighting like hell. I can't believe you think that's OK.

I Am generally pro BBC but I am not going to make any excuses for this - it’s a shockingly misleading bit of editing and I am surprised both that someone saw fit to edit the speech that way in the first place and that it wasn’t questioned by anyone reviewing the programme before broadcast (I feel like anyone with a general familiarity of Jan 6 knows that Trump didn’t say anything in his speech which was that direct).

I don’t see the value in it and thats before having to pay money for it.

I didnt take notes and it wasn't comprehensive.

I googled his name to find out who he was, clear, no bias etc.

Then I googled his name with various committees just to see. This was because I was a bit suspicious that someone can have no bias linked to his name.

He's a member, or was a few years ago of a US pharmaceutical group that's currently pressuring the UK to pay more for us produced drugs. I found a few links to trump. A few links to right wing based think tanks.

I'm a civilian and I did this in an hour or so, and this is the very issue with our media imo.

I did this as I know people who work at the BBC and they are not allowed at all to say anything political in public. It's an instantly sackable offence.

This is why I find the whole system a bit off. Their very means of ensuring no bias, are creating many ways of hidden bias. The system has been set up with the intention of clarity, but it's ensured their downfall. There is no clarity.

I honestly think they've done the best they can with the parameters they've been given. I say this as someone who is is critical of their coverage. I think they've been set up to fail. I think their loss will be a blow to democracy.

I want there to be a good BBC, far more than just tv and radio without adverts. There is even now still many good programmes, be they ones I value, and ones I don't watch or listen but think should still be there.

The BBC however seems to have a death wish, not just things like the Panorama issue, but never knowing when a series has come to a suitable end, and then the three word argument for licence fee abolition Mrs Browns' Boys.

The BBC needs to become subscription based, it is ridiculous that it hasn’t gone that way. I also find it unbelievable that BBC talking heads have been popping up all day to tell us that this Panorama edit was wrong but overall the beeb is great and just makes the odd mistake. They seemed to have wiped their facilitation of the country’s worst sex offender from the history books. It would be good if their worst crime was editing a Trump speech rather than it being enabling child abuse, rape and sexual assault. People are quick to forget.

It's not a fucking right wing coup, they were given all kinds of chances to make it good, they ignored and buried every one.

@TempestTost Orchestrated by The Telegraph. The Board cannot agree what to do because of political appointments. You need to open your eyes! They aren’t blameless but they have had people appointed to the board who don’t support them. So guess what happens?! Yes. More trouble than was needed because inaction causes this and of course the resignations. I’m obviously right or you wouldn’t be so angry.

Is that a serious question?

You can't edit two statements together to look like one statement, which is what they did. It wasn't even just that they edited two statements to follow when thee was more in between.

In any case, if it had been the latter, the standard is that you show that there has been a time lapse. There are a few ways to do that, it isn't hard.

This. And I think it says a great deal about the character and motives of people who are uncritically defending it, both here and elsewhere on social media.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the BBC Head Of News has resigned, and the BBC Director General has resigned, over this piece of film and edit that you a) haven't actually seen, and b) even people defending the BBC have said was a huge mistake.

But sure, keep going "La la la nothing to see here, Trump bad!" about a programme you haven't even watched and which has now claimed two major scalps in one of the biggest broadcasting companies in the world 🤔

I don’t want to see the BBC go and I’m still down with paying the licence fee

but I do want to see it improved, the arrogance shown in recent years has been its downfall