Election Year or Fear!

[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

[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

[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. 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.

[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.

[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!