Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

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

AF, please stop with the ‘if you don’t believe this anecdote’ stuff. I’ve challenged your anecdotes two or three times, the two I remember being about false passports and flag pole ‘hijacking’ where you live. They didn’t ring completely true and you went on to accept that both were either flawed or enormously exaggerated. It’s not like I accuse you of lying all the time or doubting all your stories.
I don’t, but if we’re going to have worthwhile exchanges, which I think the BBC ones have been, then let’s ditch the self pity. It’s a forum. You and I are more likely to disagree - politically - than agree but that doesn’t mean I never believe you.

[ramAnag]

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.

Couldn’t agree more and I’d love any of those who appear so shocked by the BBC’s ‘behaviour’ to comment on that first sentence.

[Andy_Faber]

AF, please stop with the ?if you don?t believe this anecdote? stuff. I?ve challenged your anecdotes two or three times, the two I remember being about false passports and flag pole ?hijacking? where you live. They didn?t ring completely true and you went on to accept that both were either flawed or enormously exaggerated. It?s not like I accuse you of lying all the time or doubting all your stories.
I don?t, but if we?re going to have worthwhile exchanges, which I think the BBC ones have been, then let?s ditch the self pity. It?s a forum. You and I are more likely to disagree - politically - than agree but that doesn?t mean I never believe you.

No, you'll have to put up with it

[ramAnag]

No, you'll have to put up with it

Really? Are you nine years old?

I can ‘put up with it’, not my problem, just think it’s spectacularly childish.
We’ve had/are having, a sensible and respectful disagreement about the BBC. That’s how it should be and what, as our moderator, I’d have thought you’d want.
A forum is nothing without disagreement but ceaselessly carrying round a chip on your shoulder about a challenge/disagreement from what must now be about a year ago helps no one.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Ok, I'll run with that rA. IMHO there are two issues here. 1. Did the BBC doctor the presentation to give an impression of their own design. Answer - Yes. 2. Was the BBC version of events materially different to reality. Answer - probably not that much but it's still deceitful.. I blame the BBC here vicariously but in reality it will have been individual journalists. Grinding their own axes.

So this begs the question, why do it if the facts stand up to scrutiny in their own right. They are just asking for trouble and bringing themselves into disrepute. If the facts are clear then why edit them to make "them clearer" at the risk of being found out and being made to look at best foolish, at worst malicious.

I don't pay my near ?200 a year licence fee to be deceived in this way. That said I don't pay it for them to make utter **** like Mrs Browns Boys, Come Dancing or Celebrity **insert programme name of your choice** but we still get it as someone must like it.

[swaledale]

Ok, I'll run with that rA. IMHO there are two issues here. 1. Did the BBC doctor the presentation to give an impression of their own design. Answer - Yes. 2. Was the BBC version of events materially different to reality. Answer - probably not that much but it's still deceitful.. I blame the BBC here vicariously but in reality it will have been individual journalists. Grinding their own axes.

So this begs the question, why do it if the facts stand up to scrutiny in their own right. They are just asking for trouble and bringing themselves into disrepute. If the facts are clear then why edit them to make "them clearer" at the risk of being found out and being made to look at best foolish, at worst malicious.

I don't pay my near ?200 a year licence fee to be deceived in this way. That said I don't pay it for them to make utter **** like Mrs Browns Boys, Come Dancing or Celebrity **insert programme name of your choice** but we still get it as someone must like it.

I'm beginning to worry, as yet again I agree with you!

Whoever did that edit at the BBC were fools, there is enough evidence to demonstrate Trump's involvement in the Jan 2020 Capitol attacks, there was absolutely no need to do this. BBC leadership should also have been much quicker in taking responsibility and "owning" the mistake.

I'm somewhat sceptical about the resignations of the DG and News Editor, I'd not be surprised if they haven't already found alternative and possibly higher paid gigs elsewhere in an organisation that doesn't receive so much unfair and detailed scrutiny.

But lets recognise the hypocrisy of the attacks on the BBC from both right wing political actors who dislike having an impartial state broadcaster, whatever its flaws might be and also a self interested media, with Murdoch especially, but Rothermere at the mail constantly attacking the BBC as they don't like the competition for their power of influence.

If Labour suggest or try to make the BBC apologise to Trump, that will piss me off, the orange narcissist should be told to do one!

I can also provide an anecdote as to how in day to day news, the BBC and indeed other broadcasters' edit news to suit an agenda. I was interviewed about an incident which happened at an an organisation I worked for. The interview broadcast on Est Midlands to day bore no resemblance to the actual interview. They swapped some of my answers to a completely different question and didn't broadcast anything I said explaining the incident.

After that I never gave another interview, but issued a short explanatory statement, I wasn't getting hoodwinked again!

[Andy_Faber]

I don't pay my near ?200 a year licence fee to be deceived in this way. That said I don't pay it for them to make utter **** like Mrs Browns Boys, Come Dancing or Celebrity **insert programme name of your choice** but we still get it as someone must like it.

They are two different things of course, the entertainment part is a matter of personal taste whereas news and current affairs should be a matter of fact / impartiality not partial interpretation/ personal opinion. The partiality / personal opinion continues, As recently as last eve Katie Razell confirmed she was making a personal statement (derogatory towards the Chairman) live on air on the evening news.

[Geoff Parkstone]

So anyway rA, if they are whiter than white why have the DG and CEO News resigned today. Time to stop defending the indefensible.

[ramAnag]

Ok, I'll run with that rA. IMHO there are two issues here. 1. Did the BBC doctor the presentation to give an impression of their own design. Answer - Yes. 2. Was the BBC version of events materially different to reality. Answer - probably not that much but it's still deceitful.. I blame the BBC here vicariously but in reality it will have been individual journalists. Grinding their own axes.

So this begs the question, why do it if the facts stand up to scrutiny in their own right. They are just asking for trouble and bringing themselves into disrepute. If the facts are clear then why edit them to make "them clearer" at the risk of being found out and being made to look at best foolish, at worst malicious.

I don't pay my near ?200 a year licence fee to be deceived in this way. That said I don't pay it for them to make utter **** like Mrs Browns Boys, Come Dancing or Celebrity **insert programme name of your choice** but we still get it as someone must like it.

Thank you. A much more sensible response than yesterday evening.

1. I don’t know if they were seeking to ‘give an impression of their own design’. The speech was over an hour long and it was, as ever, edited so that people were informed of the gist of a bitter outgoing President’s rant.
2. It wasn’t a true record of Trump’s speech, but without listening to the entirety of it, how could it have been? Was it deceitful? See MA’s earlier comment with which I agree. Not one of Trump’s words were changed.

Beyond that, I’ve accepted right from the start that some at the BBC have acted ‘foolishly’ and I accept your comments about such behaviour ‘asking for trouble’. Had Trump been misquoted I’d absolutely accept your criticism of the BBC, but he wasn’t.

Question for you or AF. Do you think the BBC clip changed the tone/aim/intention behind Trump’s angry words to a largely disappointed and discontented mob and if so, in what way were the BBC lacking accuracy?

P.S. I’m puzzled by the resignations too. Maybe Swale is correct or maybe they’ve just had enough of the relentless attacks from those on the Right. It’s certainly strange.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I'm not puzzled, they realised that everything was ****ed up on their watch. Potentially allowing the BBC to face a massive lawsuit is well worthy of resignation regardless of the circumstances, and even if it ultimately failed the reputational damage would be done and defence costs significant.

It would have been nice to see the Donald appoint his new sycophant Keir as his lawyer!!

[ramAnag]

In other news…apparently Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has his hyphen back. Well duck me, thank goodness for that!

[Geoff Parkstone]

In other news…apparently Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has his hyphen back. Well duck me, thank goodness for that!

I must have missed this one, but then so have you as you havent given him a hyphen either?

[Andy_Faber]

Question for you or AF. Do you think the BBC clip changed the tone/aim/intention behind Trump?s angry words to a largely disappointed and discontented mob and if so, in what way were the BBC lacking accuracy?

If you mean does it change the perception of viewers, yes definitely. If for instance the producers/editors had retained the whole of the first part of the edit, in which Trump almost sounds conciliatory, the tone would have been completely different

If you means would that clip alone have had a different impact to the whole speech, I don't know, I can't put myself in the mindset of someone willing to do harm to people or property, there may be others here more disposed to comment on that

My personal observations, and my jaundiced view of the media is conditioned by these observations, is that the media do this all the time (see my own and Swale's comments above) sometimes to support an agenda, sometimes I'm sure just for buggeration, and it looks like someone is about to get a very bloody nose as a result

[ramAnag]

I must have missed this one, but then so have you as you havent given him a hyphen either?

I’m not sure he’s got it yet. I think they may have to find it first. Knowing him, which fortunately I don’t, possibly confused it with hymen.

[ramAnag]

If you mean does it change the perception of viewers, yes definitely. If for instance the producers/editors had retained the whole of the first part of the edit, in which Trump almost sounds conciliatory, the tone would have been completely different

If you means would that clip alone have had a different impact to the whole speech, I don't know, I can't put myself in the mindset of someone willing to do harm to people or property, there may be others here more disposed to comment on that

My personal observations, and my jaundiced view of the media is conditioned by these observations, is that the media do this all the time (see my own and Swale's comments above) sometimes to support an agenda, sometimes I'm sure just for buggeration, and it looks like someone is about to get a very bloody nose as a result

I’m not sure anyone on here would be willing to do harm to people or property, although I might wish it on two or three current politicians and believe that the world would be a better place without them.

I don’t agree with your first paragraph but that in no way means you’re wrong.