BBC 'fakes wildlife shots all the time'

[claig]

When I read this, af first I couldn't Adam and Eve it.

If they do that, what else are they doing?

And of course, what about 'climate catastrophe'?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450381/BBC-fakes-wildlife-shots-time-Veteran-cameraman-claims-species-smaller-rabbits-filmed-custom-built-sets.html

Dione, it doesn't bother me as long as they make it explicit. There are some people who are being misled into believeing it is real. It is a matter of ethics and a line needs to be drawn in case it may possibly lead to things such as faked competitions etc.

'Latest TV fake scenes: 'Grizzly attack' on survival show was man in fancy-dress bear costume'

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-471510/Latest-TV-fake-scenes-Grizzly-attack-survival-man-fancy-dress-bear-costume.html

I think we could use a bit of regulation in order to ensure that ethical standards are maintained.

Well it's a real polar bear, really giving birth to real baby polar bears. It's not white kittens in bear suits lying beside a tranquilized bear for effect.

Of course it is, but put a caption up saying that it is staged in order not to dupe the public.

Perhaps the DM and other tabloids should do something similar with some of their output...

BS detection tips

Pot-kettle with a vengeance!

Yes, if the DM is guilty of any misleading of the public, then it should be held to the same high standards.

claig that is completely different - they are apparently wilfully misleading the viewers to believe in something which is just not true. That is not the case with the serious nature documentaries of the beeb and others. You have to look at the intent not just the methods.

But newspapers are less regulated than the broadcasters at the moment. Yes they should be held to the same high standards, but they aren't. The daily Mail frequently misleads the public, as do all the papers to a certin extent, to fit in with their agenda.

Thing is, the BBC is held to high standards. There have been problems (genuine ones like the Blue Peter fake, not this fake outrage thing about the wildlife which was no secret if you're even half awake) - and they've been exposed and dealt with. The BBC is held accountable - heads roll quite regularly.

The newspapers on the other hand are still trying to evade proper standards. There seems to be no sanction at all when they publish incredibly misleading or downright false stories.

They won't be though, will they (until hopefully they get their asses unceremoniously kicked by a proper press Complaints commission... one can only hope...) rather than the one run by Dacre and his cronies.

I agree that it is a difference of degree, but that they are all examples of unethical filming to varying degrees, because they are not a full represntation of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Once truth is compromised, it is a slippery slope and can lead to greater misleading of the audience.

'The BBC is held accountable - heads roll quite regularly.'

How regularly are these things going on?

I agree that the BBC is held to a higher standard than newspapers, because the BBC is meant to be unbiased and impartial and is meant to present a fair representation of the truth, whereas newspapers are known to be partisan.

That is why it is more important to maintain the BBC's ethical standards than those of newspapers.

How much quality journalism do British newspapers even do now? maybe some of the broadsheets may once in a decade come up with a good investigative piece, but most of the time it's full of nonsense and rabble rousing 'editorial' or 'opinion ' pieces. No truth being told there at all, so they can't be accused of misleading the public because it's all just people whipping up a frenzy about a non story they have come across while browsing Twitter.

Surely a polar bear giving birth is a polar bear giving birth? And IT WASN'T HIDDEN! The BBC themselves said it was how it was done. I don't see how it is a slippery slope to dentists taking all your teeth out unnecessarily!

'How much quality journalism do British newspapers even do now?'

I think you are being harsh on the Guardian.

" the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Eh? I think you're confusing serious news topics with 'light' documentary subjects and I think the viewing public is more intelligent than you seem to give them credit for. If it's a hard-hitting Panorama documentary about ivory poaching we'd expect the reporting standards and accuracy to be high. A fluffy documentary about elephants frisking about at water-holes holds neither the same expectation or requirement.

Sharing a room in a Dutch Novotel to film polar bears in a zoo shows a better regard for licence-payers' money than a two-week expedition to the North Pole, don't you think OP?

I agree, I just think the staged shots should be labelled as such

The National Union of Journalists says the same thing over altered still photos and footage.

Yes, that makes sense.
Sometimes in the Mail there are stories with a photo attached and underneath the photo it says something like photo modelled by or courtesy of or something like that which avoids any confusion that the people depicted in the photo are the ones referred to in the article.

I agree, I just think the staged shots should be labelled as such

they are at the end of the show usually

Do you think everything on telly should be real?

I've read that a couple of times on MN this week and its an odd stance imho. Aside from the usual current affairs/news programmes I trust the BBC and other companies to use as much artistic license as they choose in order to entertain me

I think that documentaries should be as real as possible since they are purporting to be factual rather than just fantasy entertainment.

I think there is a danger of blurring fact and fiction in documentaries which, if allowed to, can spread to other aspects of factual reporting. It would be safer not to be in a war zone, is it possible that we may see staged shots from war zones one day?

It is a question of audience manipulation and a question of ethics, and if taken to the extreme it can easily veer into the realm of propaganda.

Sometimes in the Mail there are stories with a photo attached and underneath the photo it says something like photo modelled by or courtesy of or something like that which avoids any confusion that the people depicted in the photo are the ones referred to in the article.

That's not what I meant claig and I think you know it. If you don't, the line you describe is used principally by a publication to give them legal protection, not to avoid misleading readers.

I don't have a problem with staged shots in something like Life On Earth when the Mail, like all other publications, manipulate images and copy for their own purposes.

Besides, can you imagine the fuss over the cameraman who crawled into the bear’s lair only to have his head literally bitten off when she had a very painful contraction?

The BBC's decision seems eminently sensible, if only to spare us another tedious Littlejohn column on compo culture.