Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

I thought at post 4840 there might be a chink of light regarding a serious conversation on today's hot topic, but I see the temptation to talk about Trump (and Farage) was just too much. At least it hasn't spread to the Matchday thread

[ramAnag]

I thought at post 4840 there might be a chink of light regarding a serious conversation on today's hot topic, but I see the temptation to talk about Trump (and Farage) was just too much. At least it hasn't spread to the Matchday thread

What an odd comment. You raised the topic and asked for discussion.
You’ve got your discussion and the story has developed so that now we have Trump and his entourage, along with Farage, Johnson and assorted others all piling in, but apparently you don’t like discussing that bit.

So far you’ve had GP playfully guessing what I’d have to say and both Sith and I agreeing that the BBC have messed up, but querying the notion of Trump and Farage holding any high moral ground where truth, fake news and propaganda are concerned.

What on earth is wrong with that, or do you just want to determine what can be said? Sorry to disappoint.

[Andy_Faber]

What an odd comment. You raised the topic and asked for discussion.
You?ve got your discussion and the story has developed so that now we have Trump and his entourage, along with Farage, Johnson and assorted others all piling in, but apparently you don?t like discussing that bit.

So far you?ve had GP immediately guessing what I?d have to say and both Sith and I agreeing that the BBC have messed up but querying the notion of Trump and Farage holding any high moral ground where truth, fake news and propaganda are concerned.

What on earth is wrong with that, or do you just want to determine what can be said? Sorry to disappoint.

Nothing wrong I guess, just that you're allowing yourself to be dragged along by the personalities, So what if Trump, Farage, Johnson or whoever else 'pile in', that's incidental to the issue in question, not the issue itself.

You will remember that BBC bias of this nature was something I touched on many years ago after gleaning info during an unguarded conversation with a BBC exec on a train journey home once, (one of those little anecdotes you rubbished as 'made up' incidentally) so I'm not surprised at any of the content of that memo, only that its taken this long to come to light. A number of commentators last night and this morning have pointed to a big problem in BBC being a journalistic/editorial cohort and management cohort being 'out of step' with one another, the former seeing it as a platform for pushing their opinions, the latter being too weak to push back or too inundated to see the often subtle way its being done. Now of course that's me maybe cherry picking to some extent but the journalists are just plods going about their business not any of your list of celebrities

[ramAnag]

Nothing wrong I guess, just that you're allowing yourself to be dragged along by the personalities, So what if Trump, Farage, Johnson or whoever else 'pile in', that's incidental to the issue in question, not the issue itself.

You will remember that BBC bias of this nature was something I touched on many years ago after gleaning info during an unguarded conversation with a BBC exec on a train journey home once, (one of those little anecdotes you rubbished as 'made up' incidentally) so I'm not surprised at any of the content of that memo, only that its taken this long to come to light. A number of commentators last night and this morning have pointed to a big problem in BBC being a journalistic/editorial cohort and management cohort being 'out of step' with one another, the former seeing it as a platform for pushing their opinions, the latter being too weak to push back or too inundated to see the often subtle way its being done. Now of course that's me maybe cherry picking to some extent but the journalists are just plods going about their business not any of your list of celebrities

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not allowing myself to be ‘dragged along’ by anyone. It’s just that the POTUS and the self proclaimed leader if the UK opposition rather transcend the term…’celebrity’, imo.

As for your anecdote, I’m sorry, not entirely surprisingly, I don't remember a conversation you had many years ago on a train journey home. Neither have I any idea how I responded to it, if indeed I did.

For me there are at least three separate issues here.
1. The BBC haven’t misquoted Trump but they have abbreviated his comments. To what extent is that wrong?
2. If that is wrong, who was responsible, why is it wrong and how misrepresentative is it of what Trump said and what he intended.
3. To what extent is this an example of a Right wing POTUS and his UK sidekicks launching an unprecedented attack on the British media…and why?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not allowing myself to be ‘dragged along’ by anyone. It’s just that the POTUS and the self proclaimed leader if the UK opposition rather transcend the term…’celebrity’, imo.

As for your anecdote, I’m sorry, not entirely surprisingly, I don't remember a conversation you had many years ago on a train journey home. Neither have I any idea how I responded to it, if indeed I did.

For me there are at least three separate issues here.
1. The BBC haven’t misquoted Trump but they have abbreviated his comments. To what extent is that wrong?
2. If that is wrong, who was responsible, why is it wrong and how misrepresentative is it of what Trump said and what he intended.
3. To what extent is this an example of a Right wing POTUS and his UK sidekicks launching an unprecedented attack on the British media…and why?

I'll keep it simple.(1) Bull****, it's wholly wrong (2)Noone here knows (3) I'd say the BBC started the unprecedented attack by willfully misquoting POTUS

[ramAnag]

I'll keep it simple.(1) Bull****, it's wholly wrong (2)Noone here knows (3) I'd say the BBC started the unprecedented attack by willfully misquoting POTUS

In a spirit of discussion rather than contradiction.

Are you sure this was ‘willfull misquoting’ and not just editing?
Trump said every word that the BBC clip showed. There was just a large part of his speech which presumably those responsible for editing decided was uninteresting.
I don’t know for sure but I’d imagine this happens regularly because the majority of political speeches are boring and too time consuming for the majority of people watching news slots.
Perhaps this was edited/doctored in an unsatisfactory way, I’m not sure, but I don’t think it constitutes ‘misquoting’.

[Geoff Parkstone]

to quote your own words, rA: "Im allowing myself to launch an unpredented attack on the BBC who had misquoted Trump and the UK opposition leader. I'd imagine this happens regularly in discussion - a large part of the BBC are boring and unsatisfactory"

You have used all of those words in the past two posts. I am not misquoting you, just editting. Was I responsible in doing this?? I dont think it constitutes misquoting, to quote you

[Andy_Faber]

In a spirit of discussion rather than contradiction.

Are you sure this was ‘willfull misquoting’ and not just editing?
Trump said every word that the BBC clip showed. There was just a large part of his speech which presumably those responsible for editing decided was uninteresting.
I don’t know for sure but I’d imagine this happens regularly because the majority of political speeches are boring and too time consuming for the majority of people watching news slots.
Perhaps this was edited/doctored in an unsatisfactory way, I’m not sure, but I don’t think it constitutes ‘misquoting’.

Not just misquoting, also misleading, as the reel shows Trump supporters marching on the White House after his speech whereas the clip used was from BEFORE his speech.

[ramAnag]

Not just misquoting, also misleading, as the reel shows Trump supporters marching on the White House after his speech whereas the clip used was from BEFORE his speech.

Okay, we don’t see things quite the same way. Not the first time, won’t be the last. I can see how you think what the BBC did was misleading, but misquoting I genuinely don’t get.
Perhaps I’m being dim, but he did actually use those words. I get that they were about fifty plus minutes after the first bit and that that is down to the editing - or what those who support him would call doctoring - but the BBC did not change his words and he did actually use the word ‘fight’ 18 times in that emotive speech, so how would you explain what you think his intentions were.

[ramAnag]

to quote your own words, rA: "Im allowing myself to launch an unpredented attack on the BBC who had misquoted Trump and the UK opposition leader. I'd imagine this happens regularly in discussion - a large part of the BBC are boring and unsatisfactory"

You have used all of those words in the past two posts. I am not misquoting you, just editting. Was I responsible in doing this?? I dont think it constitutes misquoting, to quote you

Rearranging the order of words to change their meaning is entirely different, GP, as you well know and that is not something that the BBC stands accused of.

You’ll have written enough essays/dissertations in the dim and distant to recognise that, when quoting people or passages, you often don’t use the full quote and draw attention to the relevant parts eg via the use of ellipses.
Imo, and I accept that I may be wrong, this is the televisual equivalent. Trump’s speech was over an hour long. There is no news channel that is going to include the whole speech, so don’t they invariably just try and provide the gist of it?

[Andy_Faber]

Rearranging the order of words to change their meaning is entirely different, GP, as you well know and that is not something that the BBC stands accused of.

But even ignoring that flagrant piece of editting, it DID change the order of events, which is as bad. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the program showed the marchers proceeding to the White House AFTER Trumps words, which intimates he incited them to do it, when in fact the clip related to an earlier time.

I definitely don't think you're dim, I actually think your failure to quite grasp strong opposing arguments is a tactic and you're doing it here. Its certainly more endearing than calling anyone with an opposing view a Nazi or racist

[ramAnag]

But even ignoring that flagrant piece of editting, it DID change the order of events, which is as bad. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the program showed the marchers proceeding to the White House AFTER Trumps words, which intimates he incited them to do it, when in fact the clip related to an earlier time.

I definitely don't think you're dim, I actually think your failure to quite grasp strong opposing arguments is a tactic and you're doing it here. Its certainly more endearing than calling anyone with an opposing view a Nazi or racist

Okay. You MAY have a point on the editing of the order of events, but you alone seem to be making that point. The fall out all appears to be about the fifty (ish) minute gap between Trump’s opening and closing words.

As regards tactics. I don’t have any. It’s a forum for debate. Doesn’t involve tactics and I genuinely wish people wouldn’t personalise things. As far as I’m concerned I just post my p.o.v and have a little banter. Sometimes I’m right, sometimes I’m not. Some people agree, some - unfortunately usually you and GP - don’t.

[Andy_Faber]

Okay, we don’t see things quite the same way. Not the first time, won’t be the last. I can see how you think what the BBC did was misleading, but misquoting I genuinely don’t get.
.

Amusingly, to me at least, this happened to me recently, in The Guardian of all places. I'm often asked for soundbites on music topics and dropped my guard badly, when asked to contribute regarding a particularly protective genre, by insisting on neither use of a pseudonym nor not to be quoted directly. So my two soundbites, originally offered many minutes apart as part of an 'on the one hand this but on the other hand that' response, were offered much closer together and only offering the negative perspective. There haven't been any death threats, but I've had some pretty terse observations on the piece as a whole and my role in it.

I won't be suing

Oct 20th if you don't believe this anecdote

[Andy_Faber]

Okay. You MAY have a point on the editing of the order of events, but you alone seem to be making that point. t.

BBC News channel a number of times last night, BBC News on BBC1 early today. No longer an issue as Trump is focussing on the other issue

[MadAmster]

I think the point here is (or should be) whether the BBC editing significantly changed the meaning of the Trump hour plus long ramble.

Were there people there who believed that Trump wanted them to literally "take the capitol". There were members of groups there, Proud Boys etc, who Trump seemed able to control (think about his stand down and stand by quote).

Move on an hour with the trouble excalating. Trump in the White House watching it all. Various people asking why he wasn't sending the National Guard in and imploring him to act. Sitting on his hands, was that a modern version of Nero playing the lire?

Based om having seen most of the proceedingsthat January 6th, IMO, Trump DID purvey a message of "go get 'em" and the BBC editing did no more than accentuate that.

Is he really as stupid as he sometimes appears or is it an act to keep his MAGA following believing he's the Saviour? When you listen to a 30 year old speech from Trump and compare it to today's word salad outpourings, you may well conclude that he has brain issues, be that Alzheimer or whatever. There is still the possibility that he's actually the world's greatest actor. Maybe even a bit of both. I'm not sure. I am, however, sure that he poses a threat to our way of life.