Election Year or Fear!

Indeed the BBC have possibly suffered more reputational damage than the Donald has - although clearly self inflicted. As regards compensation he can **** off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

Don?t see how those first two points are relevant

As you probably recall, one of my many ?hats? is (actually, from recently, was) as editor of a newsagent-stocked magazine. I?ve looked through the Telegraph list that Swale was so desperate to post, and a reasonable amount of examples were no different to the type of minor league cock up I used to happily offer corrections/addenda to with no hard feelings either way. Quantity does not equal quantity and BBC?s misdemeanour was high quality. In media as in real life, no action can be taken with a guarantee of reaction

---

Desperate to post???? How did you reach that conclusion? I posted them purely because GP continually implied that my original post was an exaggeration.

Some of those errors are far from minor league and done (IMO) deliberately to exaggerate a point knowing that the original headline would be read by for more people than the correction. My simple point being that a media organisation that practices such exaggeration on a regular basis when publishing news, is not a credible one to be attacking the BBC for its editorial practices.

AS for the BBC misdemeanour being high quality, mm most reasonable people would surely look at it and think, it was foolish and unnecessary, but it terms of offence and reputational damage it ranks the same as prisoners who claim a higher moral standard for just having murdered somebody as against one who is a *** offender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

Indeed the BBC have possibly suffered more reputational damage than the Donald has - although clearly self inflicted. As regards compensation he can **** off.

---

Trump has suffered no reputational damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

Trump has suffered no reputational damage.

---

If your rep isn't a good one, far from it, how can it be damaged? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

You have a point, but one example this morning rather made mine. The Tories have been banging on for weeks about how terrible it is that Rachel Reeves is, allegedly, planning income tax rises in the forthcoming budget, yet when it was ‘leaked’ earlier today that income tax rises will not feature, they immediately changed their tune to how disgraceful and chaotic it is that Rachel Reeves has had to change her mind. :confused:

---

To an extent. though Labour have IMO ****ed up here, I do really wonder which bozo is running this strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Again you have a point, but it was you that introduced into the debate us all having to pay for the licence fee and I was just pointing out that, in measurable terms, subscription via the licence fee costs around 48p per day (I can actually think of nothing offering better value) whereas daily subscription to the Daily Telegraph costs around 3.64 per day.

When you consider what the two figures entitle you to there really is no comparison and when you consider that the BBC, with all that it produces and a far greater audience, has had to make many fewer ‘corrections’ than the Telegraph - some were far from ‘minor league’ - then it is perhaps time to stop the BBC bashing.

As regards the Trump matter specifically. I totally agree with their stance today. Apologise for the clumsy, unprofessional, slightly misleading and foolish editing, but tell him to go to hell (albeit politely) as far as recompense for reputational damage is concerned.

---

The key words are ?have to?. Unless one is particularly sneaky in avoiding all the transmission types that require the license fee to be paid, or is happy to break the law, then the license fee is pretty much compulsory, which of course is not the case with the Telelegraph or any other newspaper. Therefore I and many others feel there is a greater duty of care/ higher bar for BBC. You clearly feel it is reaching that bar, I, and after increasingly (popular phrase alert) fact checking things I have a personal doubt about, do not. I?m nowhere near thinking BBC has an overarching ?agenda? beyond impartiality but there are clear areas where some sort of influence is applied which skews the message. The recent leaked report confirms that but imo it only scratches the surface in examples given. Just my observation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

The key words are ?have to?. Unless one is particularly sneaky in avoiding all the transmission types that require the license fee to be paid, or is happy to break the law, then the license fee is pretty much compulsory, which of course is not the case with the Telelegraph or any other newspaper. Therefore I and many others feel there is a greater duty of care/ higher bar for BBC. You clearly feel it is reaching that bar, I, and after increasingly (popular phrase alert) fact checking things I have a personal doubt about, do not. I?m nowhere near thinking BBC has an overarching ?agenda? beyond impartiality but there are clear areas where some sort of influence is applied which skews the message. The recent leaked report confirms that but imo it only scratches the surface in examples given. Just my observation

---

I recognise your own restraint but it seems to be open season on the BBC at the moment and has been for a while. The usual suspects, i.e. various politicians on the Right are all queuing up to have a go, aided and abetted by certain sections of the public who are outraged by the behaviour of people from Savile to this latest Radio 1 DJ.

For me, the BBC does a damned good job - especially for the less than 50p per day it costs us - and usually remains as impartial as possible. A corporation of such size cannot be blamed for the behaviour of a tiny minority of employees anymore than the NHS is to blame for the behaviour of Shipman or the Education Secretary for the behaviour of one dodgy headteacher.

I believe that the current attacks on it are entirely politically orchestrated.
Did it make mistakes? Yes.
Did it make mistakes which justify the current levels of criticism or Trump’s threat to sue for a vast amount of money? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

I recognise your own restraint but it seems to be open season on the BBC at the moment and has been for a while. The usual suspects, i.e. various politicians on the Right are all queuing up to have a go, aided and abetted by certain sections of the public who are outraged by the behaviour of people from Savile to this latest Radio 1 DJ.

For me, the BBC does a damned good job - especially for the less than 50p per day it costs us - and usually remains as impartial as possible. A corporation of such size cannot be blamed for the behaviour of a tiny minority of employees anymore than the NHS is to blame for the behaviour of Shipman or the Education Secretary for the behaviour of one dodgy headteacher.

I believe that the current attacks on it are entirely politically orchestrated.
Did it make mistakes? Yes.
Did it make mistakes which justify the current levels of criticism or Trump?’s threat to sue for a vast amount of money? No.

---

I agree for the most part it does a good/great job, and agree its currently being ganged up on, possibly for small p political reasons. My observations, which originated before the recent raising of heat on the Corp are that some of the BBC's mistakes aren't mistakes but the product of a culture and I'm guessing we'll have to disagree on that point

Trump is being a bit of a twit though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

I agree for the most part it does a good/great job, and agree its currently being ganged up on, possibly for small p political reasons. My observations, which originated before the recent raising of heat on the Corp are that some of the BBC's mistakes aren't mistakes but the product of a culture and I'm guessing we'll have to disagree on that point

Trump is being a bit of a twit though

---

Have to disagree about the ‘small p’ and fear it’s very Political indeed.

I honestly think it’s very difficult to always remain entirely impartial. How for instance does one remain completely impartial when reporting on such issues as paed*phillia, brutal murder, rape, domestic/child abuse, terrorist bombings, starvation or, for that matter, the aggressive speech of an aggrieved recently deposed leader?

It is good to have a constructive and respectful exchange though even though we disagree on some aspects of this issue.

Has Starmer bowed to pressure and resigned then? Must have missed it when in hospital yesterday