Are the media biased

[ramAnag]

Sorry...not being awkward, but...tbh, you’ve lost me.

[swaledale]

Yes, 'probably'. Let me simplify this. Name calling puts an end to any argument. You can continue to accuse someone of this, that or the other but you won't justify your opinion of that person forever. If eventually you name call, probably out of frustration, impatience or exasperation, you have put an end to the argument without having proved your case. Consider this a face-to-face exchange

Unless the person referred to is a complete ****!

[GUNTERYY36]

Sorry...not being awkward, but...tbh, you’ve lost me.

ram PM

[Ram59]

The latest allegations against the BBC are most disturbing, if they prove to be true.

The Bashir interview with Diana caused untold damage to the monarchy and appears that she was coerced into it. Is this the practise of a reputable independent news agency? Can we believe any panorama programme again?

Questions need to be asked why her brother has just come out of the woodwork, but the BBC admitted the forging of bank statements years ago, this is something you would expect from the red tops, not the BBC.

Or should we be surprised, doesn't it add fuel to the fire that the BBC is a left wing organisation?

[Andy_Faber]

The latest allegations against the BBC are most disturbing, if they prove to be true.

The Bashir interview with Diana caused untold damage to the monarchy and appears that she was coerced into it. Is this the practise of a reputable independent news agency? Can we believe any panorama programme again?

Questions need to be asked why her brother has just come out of the woodwork, but the BBC admitted the forging of bank statements years ago, this is something you would expect from the red tops, not the BBC.

Or should we be surprised, doesn't it add fuel to the fire that the BBC is a left wing organisation?

I've heard this a number of times on the radio but not heard who's making the allegations, is there an inquiry?

[Ram59]

I've heard this a number of times on the radio but not heard who's making the allegations, is there an inquiry?

The new DG has announced a new independent enquiry.

Allegedly, the BBC claim Bashir is too ill to be interviewed, but allegedly well enough to go and collect a take away on Friday night. I say allegedly, because I don't know what to believe any more. Any photographic or video 'evidence' can be constructed on your average home laptop, these days.

[swaledale]

The latest allegations against the BBC are most disturbing, if they prove to be true.

The Bashir interview with Diana caused untold damage to the monarchy and appears that she was coerced into it. Is this the practise of a reputable independent news agency? Can we believe any panorama programme again?

Questions need to be asked why her brother has just come out of the woodwork, but the BBC admitted the forging of bank statements years ago, this is something you would expect from the red tops, not the BBC.

Or should we be surprised, doesn't it add fuel to the fire that the BBC is a left wing organisation?

Coerced is rather strong, possibly persuaded by subterfuge, though as the person in question is dead and its her whinging **** of a brother complaining, the one who slagged off the royal family at her funeral, theres a whiff of hypocrisy here. I mean its not as if anything revealed in the interview wasn't true and the job of journalists is to get to the truth, sometimes that requires a little subterfuge, so Bashir was just doing his job!

As for causing untold damage to the Monarchy, hmm they seem perfectly capable of doing that themselves, especially when certain members are attending birthday parties at Woking Pizza express or injuring innocent motorists in Norfolk when they are incapable due to age of driving properly!

Not sure that exposing a "British" royal family ( one of whom is german (prussian) and the other Greek) as a bunch of old farts who disapprove of anybody who doesn't comply with the stuffy, 16th century conventions they live their lives by is necessarily indicative of "left wing" leanings - there are many countries that have dispensed with the outdated concept of inherited power who are clearly not hot beds of socialism!

[Ram59]

Coerced is rather strong, possibly persuaded by subterfuge, though as the person in question is dead and its her whinging **** of a brother complaining, the one who slagged off the royal family at her funeral, theres a whiff of hypocrisy here. I mean its not as if anything revealed in the interview wasn't true and the job of journalists is to get to the truth, sometimes that requires a little subterfuge, so Bashir was just doing his job!

As for causing untold damage to the Monarchy, hmm they seem perfectly capable of doing that themselves, especially when certain members are attending birthday parties at Woking Pizza express or injuring innocent motorists in Norfolk when they are incapable due to age of driving properly!

Not sure that exposing a "British" royal family ( one of whom is german (prussian) and the other Greek) as a bunch of old farts who disapprove of anybody who doesn't comply with the stuffy, 16th century conventions they live their lives by is necessarily indicative of "left wing" leanings - there are many countries that have dispensed with the outdated concept of inherited power who are clearly not hot beds of socialism!

So, as long as the journalist can get his story, anything goes?

I'm sure the trusted employee and/or friends of Diana felt the same way, when her trust in them was destroyed by forged documents saying that they were profiting from being deceitful to her. But hey ho, don't worry about their jobs and friendship, the story is more important.

No, a proper journalist doesn't need to resort to 'a little subterfuge' or forgery and libel to get his story.

The result for the monarchy was damaging, but what about the subject of his interview, Diana? Someone who was already fragile was led to believe that everyone around her was plotting against her, what affect did this have on her mental state?

Nevermind, there was a good story to be had. All the time Bashir was the caring interviewer, he was really stabbing her in the back, twisting the knife whilst doing so and the BBC have supported him.

[swaledale]

So, as long as the journalist can get his story, anything goes?

I'm sure the trusted employee and/or friends of Diana felt the same way, when her trust in them was destroyed by forged documents saying that they were profiting from being deceitful to her. But hey ho, don't worry about their jobs and friendship, the story is more important.

No, a proper journalist doesn't need to resort to 'a little subterfuge' or forgery and libel to get his story.

The result for the monarchy was damaging, but what about the subject of his interview, Diana? Someone who was already fragile was led to believe that everyone around her was plotting against her, what affect did this have on her mental state?

Nevermind, there was a good story to be had. All the time Bashir was the caring interviewer, he was really stabbing her in the back, twisting the knife whilst doing so and the BBC have supported him.

What utter codswallop, I'm sure you never read any tabloid papers then? Seeing as you are such a strict upholder of whats right and moral! Or perhaps before you do you check very thoroughly that the story your about to read has been obtained in a manner which meets your approval!

Before you start making assertions, perhaps you need to be sure of the facts? Instead of swallowing crap put out by a hypocritical member of the Aristocracy, well known for their compassion, adherence to the norms of society.

As for Diana, a pampered spoilt little brat, who knew exactly what she was doing and knew how to play the sympathy card that gullible people like you are only to eager to swallow.

How was Bashir "stabbing" her in the back and twisting the knife? Always assuming even half of what that hypocritical snake brother of hers is saying is true, and I'd be amazed if even half of it is! He interviewed her and gave her the chance to give her story, which she clearly wanted to do and knew what she was doing when she did it.

You clearly have no idea how journalism works, he may have used some subterfuge to get an interview, that happens all the time, half of the very important revelations that needed to be known would never have become public knowledge

Jeez some people are so naïve!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Please see sticky above about being nice. Another one eyed rant like ths is not what the forum needs. I happen to agree that Diana was a conniving little bitch who knew what she was getting into with the royal family, but milked it for what its worth, but I also agree she was sold down the river by the interviewers.

Neither of which is the point. This sort of personal attack is unacceptable.