Tweet
Stupidity at the BBC has seen Tim Davie and Deborah Turness lose their jobs through mostly their own faults and in the process given ammunition to some (e.g. Trump and Netanyahu) who still have legitimate things to answer for.
The job as DG must be an exceptionally pressured one but whilst he couldn't control the actions of some of the BBC's individual employees (e.g. whoever decided to continue to live stream Bob Vylan's set at Glastonbury or the behaviour of Huw Edwards or the conduct of some on Strictly or Masterchef) Davie is accountable for his reactions to these. In some cases he can be seen to fail, in others -such as the Edwards case-the circumstances are more nuanced. He could not simply have sacked Edwards as soon as he heard of the allegations (as some demanded with the benefit of hindsight) because due process had to be followed and he was told explicitly to keep shtum and not do anything by the Police whilst the investigation continued.
The more recent revelations in the Telegraph and elsewhere, however, sealed his fate. But the pointless stupidity of both stick out. The first is the blatant editing of Trump's speech by Panorama to make it appear that he not only supported the Capitol Rioters but insinuated that he also actively encouraged them. Such editing was not only a misrepresentation of what Trump actually said but it was also pointless. Trump has made his own position on the issue pretty clear on several occasions since ( e.g. the mooted pardons) so there was no need for Panorama to make the point. Now the Orange One, a man responsible for more fake news than anyone else in the world, has been given the opportunity to claim that any news reports by the BBC that are detrimental to himself are "fake news". Rather than spend ages deliberating, Davie should have immediately issued an apology and correction.
The second own-goal was their reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Whilst the main English BBC strove for some balance, it allowed BBC Arabic to present it's coverage with a clear anti-Israeli bias throughout. As the Jewish News notes, there was a huge gulf between the two in their reporting of the same stories with BBC Arabic consistently playing down or ignoring atrocities committed by Hamas whilst exaggerating claims against the IDF. It also frequently used contributions from those with both anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic beliefs.
Some claim that the main BBC news editors were similarly biased. Certainly a lot of their sources on Gaza came mostly from the Hamas run Health Ministry alongside whatever information they could get from various aid organizations but the BBC very clearly identified their sources. Exaggerations could clearly be made but there was no real way of fact checking. Why? Because the IDF actively prevented them from doing so or letting journalists into Gaza to report independently. Now why was that?
Nevertheless, when presented with reports on the clear bias of BBC Arabic the board procrastinated more than Hamlet and Davie is surely at fault for not taking far quicker actions to ensure journalistic integrity/ impartiality was ensured. He didn't deal with it properly and has given Netanyahu similar ammunition to what he has allowed Trump in terms of calling out BBC bias. Yet, despite any exaggerations or misinformation, does anyone seriously doubt that Netanyahu's operation in Gaza has caused thousands of civilians death or severe deprivation?
The majority of newspapers in the UK are right leaning and they have pushed the line about the BBC being left-wing wokies for so long now that most people simply believe it to be true. For those prepared to dig just a little bit deeper, however, it does not take too much effort to uncover a different story.
I don't doubt that many BBC reporters may hold left/ centre views but I also believe that they strive for journalistic integrity and impartiality. At board level, things have been a bit different. The Telegraph and Mail peddle stories of systemic left wing bias at the BBC but there are plenty of examples where those with influence on the board have ties to these right wing papers themselves or to the Conservative Party or both.
Former Conservative cabinet minister, Chris Patten, was chairman of the BBC Trust for example 2011-17 whilst former BBC Chairman Richard Sharp (a major donor to the Conservative Party) was criticised for his gross "error of judgement" in facilitating a £800k loan to then PM, Boris Johnson. Then there is Sir Robbie Gibb, brother of a former Conservative MP, Director of Communications for Theresa May 2017-19, owner of the Jewish Chronicle and a non-exec board member of the BBC since 2021. Even Davie himself has links to the Conservative Party and previously stood in his local council elections. During the 2017 election, watchdogs were critical of the BBC for devoting 69% of their attention to pro-Conservative stories in the press as opposed to just 23% of those supporting a Labour point of view. These are just some examples.
Despite the boos aimed at Laura Kuenssberg for her alleged left wing bias or Sally Nugent's support on social media for Marcus Rashford's free school meals campaign or even a certain ludicrously over-paid football pundit's posts on Brexit or Gaza, the BBC was also home to Andrew Neil's flagship political show for several years too remember. Given all of the above, systemic left-wing bias? In 2023 (before his brief spell as bestie with the man-baby POTUS) even Twitter owner Elon Musk acknowledged the BBC as "amongst the least biased media organizations". Fox News it certainly isnt.
Davie undoubtedly made mistakes he should not have done, he did not properly address areas concerning journalistic integrity in certain cases and has ultimately paid the price but there is more to this story than the report in The Telegraph would have us believe.
Sorry for the long post-got carried away, but I'm sure at least 68 will enjoy reading through it all 😂
The job as DG must be an exceptionally pressured one but whilst he couldn't control the actions of some of the BBC's individual employees (e.g. whoever decided to continue to live stream Bob Vylan's set at Glastonbury or the behaviour of Huw Edwards or the conduct of some on Strictly or Masterchef) Davie is accountable for his reactions to these. In some cases he can be seen to fail, in others -such as the Edwards case-the circumstances are more nuanced. He could not simply have sacked Edwards as soon as he heard of the allegations (as some demanded with the benefit of hindsight) because due process had to be followed and he was told explicitly to keep shtum and not do anything by the Police whilst the investigation continued.
The more recent revelations in the Telegraph and elsewhere, however, sealed his fate. But the pointless stupidity of both stick out. The first is the blatant editing of Trump's speech by Panorama to make it appear that he not only supported the Capitol Rioters but insinuated that he also actively encouraged them. Such editing was not only a misrepresentation of what Trump actually said but it was also pointless. Trump has made his own position on the issue pretty clear on several occasions since ( e.g. the mooted pardons) so there was no need for Panorama to make the point. Now the Orange One, a man responsible for more fake news than anyone else in the world, has been given the opportunity to claim that any news reports by the BBC that are detrimental to himself are "fake news". Rather than spend ages deliberating, Davie should have immediately issued an apology and correction.
The second own-goal was their reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Whilst the main English BBC strove for some balance, it allowed BBC Arabic to present it's coverage with a clear anti-Israeli bias throughout. As the Jewish News notes, there was a huge gulf between the two in their reporting of the same stories with BBC Arabic consistently playing down or ignoring atrocities committed by Hamas whilst exaggerating claims against the IDF. It also frequently used contributions from those with both anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic beliefs.
Some claim that the main BBC news editors were similarly biased. Certainly a lot of their sources on Gaza came mostly from the Hamas run Health Ministry alongside whatever information they could get from various aid organizations but the BBC very clearly identified their sources. Exaggerations could clearly be made but there was no real way of fact checking. Why? Because the IDF actively prevented them from doing so or letting journalists into Gaza to report independently. Now why was that?
Nevertheless, when presented with reports on the clear bias of BBC Arabic the board procrastinated more than Hamlet and Davie is surely at fault for not taking far quicker actions to ensure journalistic integrity/ impartiality was ensured. He didn't deal with it properly and has given Netanyahu similar ammunition to what he has allowed Trump in terms of calling out BBC bias. Yet, despite any exaggerations or misinformation, does anyone seriously doubt that Netanyahu's operation in Gaza has caused thousands of civilians death or severe deprivation?
The majority of newspapers in the UK are right leaning and they have pushed the line about the BBC being left-wing wokies for so long now that most people simply believe it to be true. For those prepared to dig just a little bit deeper, however, it does not take too much effort to uncover a different story.
I don't doubt that many BBC reporters may hold left/ centre views but I also believe that they strive for journalistic integrity and impartiality. At board level, things have been a bit different. The Telegraph and Mail peddle stories of systemic left wing bias at the BBC but there are plenty of examples where those with influence on the board have ties to these right wing papers themselves or to the Conservative Party or both.
Former Conservative cabinet minister, Chris Patten, was chairman of the BBC Trust for example 2011-17 whilst former BBC Chairman Richard Sharp (a major donor to the Conservative Party) was criticised for his gross "error of judgement" in facilitating a £800k loan to then PM, Boris Johnson. Then there is Sir Robbie Gibb, brother of a former Conservative MP, Director of Communications for Theresa May 2017-19, owner of the Jewish Chronicle and a non-exec board member of the BBC since 2021. Even Davie himself has links to the Conservative Party and previously stood in his local council elections. During the 2017 election, watchdogs were critical of the BBC for devoting 69% of their attention to pro-Conservative stories in the press as opposed to just 23% of those supporting a Labour point of view. These are just some examples.
Despite the boos aimed at Laura Kuenssberg for her alleged left wing bias or Sally Nugent's support on social media for Marcus Rashford's free school meals campaign or even a certain ludicrously over-paid football pundit's posts on Brexit or Gaza, the BBC was also home to Andrew Neil's flagship political show for several years too remember. Given all of the above, systemic left-wing bias? In 2023 (before his brief spell as bestie with the man-baby POTUS) even Twitter owner Elon Musk acknowledged the BBC as "amongst the least biased media organizations". Fox News it certainly isnt.
Davie undoubtedly made mistakes he should not have done, he did not properly address areas concerning journalistic integrity in certain cases and has ultimately paid the price but there is more to this story than the report in The Telegraph would have us believe.
Sorry for the long post-got carried away, but I'm sure at least 68 will enjoy reading through it all 😂
Comment