Election Year or Fear!

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[swaledale]

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

I'm not sure RA is claiming the BBC are whiter than white to be fair, just that the fuss over the edit is a touch overblown, which it is, but then the BBC brought that on themselves or at least those responsible for the edit did.

As fir the resignations, as I have said, they will walk away from a job which is poorly paid compared to other jobs they will certainly walk into and those higher paid jobs will come with much less stress, scrutiny to deal with.

It suits them and it suits the BBC who can claim there has been accountability.

[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?

[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.

[Geoff Parkstone]

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.

OOOH how rude, but of course on that basis he may have lost the hymens of others rather than himself