MPs question key figures in BBC crisis over bias

[WarriorN]

Key figures in BBC crisis to be questioned by MPs https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jepgyl2jwo

I like to fancy myself as a bit of a body language and "tell" studier, and he seemed really honest at that point. No glancing away or upwards, no fidgetting, no rubbing face, no looking down. Eye gaze steady.

Prescott was very impressive. Huq et al will be disappointed that he was so unflappable.

Part 2 starting now ...

I think you're absolutely right, he seemed grateful to be able to discuss the issues and he seemed, understandably, frustrated by the repeated gotchas that were stymieing his attempt to get the BBC the help it needs to improve its problems.

The Labour lot and thread favourite Cameron Thomas, Liberal Democrat will be foaming at the mouth when it's Gibb's turn.

WE'RE BACK

With the big guns

After that performance by Prescott, Samir Shah, Chair at BBC is noticeably underwhelming.

Shah just seems a bit hopeless. How on earth did he get the job.

Just caught up on this thread.

I haven't seen the footage yet but from what I've read above, it's a shame that sex and gender didn't get much of a mention.

It's difficult to know without seeing it but if I'm understanding the comments properly it sounds like the attempts to smear Prescott didn't work out particularly well. That will hopefully set a good foundation for the BBC having to face up to and address its bias, rather than continue as it has been.

I've not forgiven them for the way they spun the Cass Report into a drip feed sob story about a succession of (transwo)men having to wait a long time for their "gender affirming care". The BBC has been positioning the idea that we have a gender identity as if it were factually true and signposting children and young adults towards this irreversible mental and physical harm (by framing it as inclusive and celebratory) for years. They've made a few small steps in the right direction recently but they have a very long way to go.

Oh crap I need to do pick up

Prescott would have engaged with a question about the trans issue but no one in the room was willing to touch it.

With respect, you need to get your priorities right.

Am I right in thinking the committee is packed with mostly lab and lib dems, who only try the smear tactic?

Chair is a Tory, so is Damian Hinds.

Not sure about the general makeup of the Committee. But it is cross bench.

Shah's answers are lower on specifics and defensive. Quite a big difference from Prescott's testimony.

Rupa Huq yet to have her turn but I think she'll ask the BBC Chair something like: "On a scale of 1 to 10 how evil was it that the despicable Michael Prescott stabbed you, personally, the BBC in general, and every person in the country, in the back?"

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/culture-media-and-sport-committee/membership/

Ha ha. Flowery Tie Lib Dem now trying to get Shah to say "It was all Robbie Gibb's fault!!!"

Chair is a Tory, so is Damian Hinds.
I know. It seems skewed

I can foresee highlights of this hearing being shown in a Florida court room at some point. If it is, will it be edited more fairely than the footage in the Panorama programme?

Ha ha. Shah has just said that the Board agreed, in Oct, on what to do next.

So no more "Big meany Robbie Gibb orchestrated things!"

That's their MO, isn't it? If criticism can be linked to the Right, they seem to think that's enough to dismiss it.
I've even heard the defence that OK so the editing of Trump's speech was, like, technically wrong but hey everybody knows that's what he meant, we just speeded it up a bit.

I also don't get the explanation that it was 'a mistake' - a mistake is ordering the wrong size t-shirt, or misjudging the distance between your car and a wall.
Editing a speech in such a way as to make the edit invisible to the viewer took planning, time and know-how.
It wasn't 'Oops, we mistakenly edited that so slickly that it looks like he's saying let's go right now and fight fight fight! Our bad! Silly us!'

How long has this got left?
I feel as though it's got stuck in the Panorama programme, when there is much more to discuss.

Ahh, Caroline Thomson, non-executive member, BBC Board and Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee intervened in the evidence from the BBC Chair and confirmed something that was reported at the time. One reason why the BBC did nothing for about a week was that internally there was a significant disagreement between the Board and the senior management of BBC News with the latter wanting to be very mealy-mouthed and to avoid making a proper apology. (I'm doing major paraphrasing here.)