| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. 19:19 - May 27 with 11289 views | tractordownsouth |
What a load of nonsense. Nothing she said was inaccurate
Dominic Cummings broke the rules - FACT
He's made many people feel they can flout the rules - FACT, the police have said people have used Cummings as an excuse when being told off for breaking the rules
Public mood is anger at Cummings - FACT, literally all opinion polls have a large majority for him to resign, or at least apologise
As Mr O'Brien says, you cannot balance fact with fiction.
|  |
| |  |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 22:45 - May 27 with 2366 views | Trequartista |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 22:34 - May 27 by LankHenners |
Why would they? The Guardian article doesn't claim she'd been asked to step aside by the BBC. |
it says she has been switched, and then says she has been replaced.
in view of the fact you cannot replace yourself or switch yourself, the switcher or replacer is the bbc and therefore the difference is only semantics and the tweet contradicts the story. |  |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 22:56 - May 27 with 2349 views | LankHenners |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 22:45 - May 27 by Trequartista |
it says she has been switched, and then says she has been replaced.
in view of the fact you cannot replace yourself or switch yourself, the switcher or replacer is the bbc and therefore the difference is only semantics and the tweet contradicts the story. |
Are you alright?
It doesn't say "switched" anywhere in the article and being replaced doesn't mean she's been asked to step aside.
The article's a bit crafty in hinting that something like that could have happened without actually mentioning it but that's as far as it goes. What you're saying is "semantics" is you misinterpreting it and the tweet merely counteracts a potential interpretation of the story given its careful wording. |  |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 22:59 - May 27 with 2342 views | midastouch |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 22:42 - May 27 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Read my posting history (you might learn something ;-))
Not a troll, long time ITFC fan.
Each to their own Lanks, each to their own. |
Dominic Cummings is a troll. After all, he did invite us to take back conTROLL. |  |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 23:10 - May 27 with 2277 views | Trequartista |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 22:56 - May 27 by LankHenners |
Are you alright?
It doesn't say "switched" anywhere in the article and being replaced doesn't mean she's been asked to step aside.
The article's a bit crafty in hinting that something like that could have happened without actually mentioning it but that's as far as it goes. What you're saying is "semantics" is you misinterpreting it and the tweet merely counteracts a potential interpretation of the story given its careful wording. |
It says 'switched' in the link that you yourself presented and therefore yes i am fine thank you, are you?
I refer you to my previous answer, if you are being replaced, then you are being asked to step aside for someone else. How could one not involve the other? Unless you were not being informed of the replacement and there will be two presenters battling over a chair. I suspect that isn't/wasn't the case. | |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 23:15 - May 27 with 2269 views | LankHenners |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 23:10 - May 27 by Trequartista |
It says 'switched' in the link that you yourself presented and therefore yes i am fine thank you, are you?
I refer you to my previous answer, if you are being replaced, then you are being asked to step aside for someone else. How could one not involve the other? Unless you were not being informed of the replacement and there will be two presenters battling over a chair. I suspect that isn't/wasn't the case. |
Oh in the URL, not really the same as being in the article. Has the same function as 'replaced'.
"if you are being replaced, then you are being asked to step aside for someone else. How could one not involve the other?"
If Maitlis stepped aside of her own volition (for any number of reasons) and Newsnight have to get someone in to sit in for her then she has been replaced without being asked to step aside. Not very complicated. | |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 23:22 - May 27 with 2248 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 23:15 - May 27 by LankHenners |
Oh in the URL, not really the same as being in the article. Has the same function as 'replaced'.
"if you are being replaced, then you are being asked to step aside for someone else. How could one not involve the other?"
If Maitlis stepped aside of her own volition (for any number of reasons) and Newsnight have to get someone in to sit in for her then she has been replaced without being asked to step aside. Not very complicated. |
Semantics. |  |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 23:43 - May 27 with 2226 views | Trequartista |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 23:15 - May 27 by LankHenners |
Oh in the URL, not really the same as being in the article. Has the same function as 'replaced'.
"if you are being replaced, then you are being asked to step aside for someone else. How could one not involve the other?"
If Maitlis stepped aside of her own volition (for any number of reasons) and Newsnight have to get someone in to sit in for her then she has been replaced without being asked to step aside. Not very complicated. |
The guardian says she was replaced / switched. The tweet says the bbc has not asked her to take the night off. She cannot replace or switch herself, only the bbc can do that, therefore the guardian and twitter are contradictory.
Not very complicated (unless you introduce other phrases like step aside to try and obfuscate). Why not hold your hands up and admit your bible has made another error? Everything is so tribal. | |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 23:52 - May 27 with 2211 views | LankHenners |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 23:43 - May 27 by Trequartista |
The guardian says she was replaced / switched. The tweet says the bbc has not asked her to take the night off. She cannot replace or switch herself, only the bbc can do that, therefore the guardian and twitter are contradictory.
Not very complicated (unless you introduce other phrases like step aside to try and obfuscate). Why not hold your hands up and admit your bible has made another error? Everything is so tribal. |
You were taking 'replaced' to mean 'step aside' so I used it to show how 'replaced' could reasonably be interpreted differently.
The tweet responded to several people's interpretation that she'd been forced to sit out, which was suggested but not stated by the article.
You asked how someone could be replaced without being told to, and I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation to which you've completely ignored, presumably because it's beyond you to admit it was a stupid question that could be easily answered, therefore shattering the illusion you have of yourself as some being of higher intelligence to everyone else.
The Guardian - my bible?! Arf! You daft plonker. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 00:07 - May 28 with 2186 views | NthQldITFC |
If I picked up all the dinner money spilt during fights in the TWTD Academy playground I'd be a right old porker. |  |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 07:00 - May 28 with 2102 views | GaryCooper |
You do not understand that the BBC news should be exactly that?
The opinions of it's presenters is not allowed.
Not to difficult to understand really. |  | | |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 07:04 - May 28 with 2093 views | Darth_Koont |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 07:00 - May 28 by GaryCooper |
You do not understand that the BBC news should be exactly that?
The opinions of it's presenters is not allowed.
Not to difficult to understand really. |
Meanwhile ...
|  |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 07:54 - May 28 with 2064 views | pointofblue |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 07:04 - May 28 by Darth_Koont |
Meanwhile ...
|
Not wishing to derail the thread into another “let’s bash Laura Kuenssberg” one but the Newsnight presentation was very different to the Twitter posts - as the BBC says in that article, whilst I agree the wording and semantics could have been better, Kuenssberg was quoting a source and then responded with tweets from other sources who were asking for Cummings to quit.
I was astonished by the opening speech on Tuesday’s Newsnight. Delighted as well, and my blood was boiling by the time Andrew Bridgen slimed excuses across the airwaves, but the issue was whilst many - like myself - think he broke the rules the Protectorate Elite state he didn’t and I don’t think the BBC quite treaded the line well enough to get away with it. And perhaps they could have had more impact with members of the public who are backing Cummings with forensic dissection of his actions against the rules, or maybe speaking to those who have sacrificed so much for public wellbeing, than they did with the blunt instrument.
That being said did I enjoy it immensely and agree with it in full? Yes, yes I did. |  |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 08:02 - May 28 with 2046 views | Darth_Koont |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 07:54 - May 28 by pointofblue |
Not wishing to derail the thread into another “let’s bash Laura Kuenssberg” one but the Newsnight presentation was very different to the Twitter posts - as the BBC says in that article, whilst I agree the wording and semantics could have been better, Kuenssberg was quoting a source and then responded with tweets from other sources who were asking for Cummings to quit.
I was astonished by the opening speech on Tuesday’s Newsnight. Delighted as well, and my blood was boiling by the time Andrew Bridgen slimed excuses across the airwaves, but the issue was whilst many - like myself - think he broke the rules the Protectorate Elite state he didn’t and I don’t think the BBC quite treaded the line well enough to get away with it. And perhaps they could have had more impact with members of the public who are backing Cummings with forensic dissection of his actions against the rules, or maybe speaking to those who have sacrificed so much for public wellbeing, than they did with the blunt instrument.
That being said did I enjoy it immensely and agree with it in full? Yes, yes I did. |
Quoting a single unnamed source in direct response to another journalist's story.
If the difference between objective and partisan is indistinguishable then she needed to present these "facts" differently. Isn't that the BBC's argument re: Maitlis after all? | |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 08:15 - May 28 with 2030 views | pointofblue |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 08:02 - May 28 by Darth_Koont |
Quoting a single unnamed source in direct response to another journalist's story.
If the difference between objective and partisan is indistinguishable then she needed to present these "facts" differently. Isn't that the BBC's argument re: Maitlis after all? |
The difference is Laura Kuenssberg was tweeting a source in response, and in many ways was collaborating the original story by confirming Cummings did travel, rather than coming out with something which was a pure diatribe. Laura Kuenssberg and the BBC could hide behind a source whilst Emily Maitlis couldn’t.
That being said, both needed to perhaps be a little bit smarter about how this was presented to the public and the BBC should have highlighted this in Laura Kuenssberg’s case as well as Emily Maitlis’. | |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 08:30 - May 28 with 2019 views | Darth_Koont |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 08:15 - May 28 by pointofblue |
The difference is Laura Kuenssberg was tweeting a source in response, and in many ways was collaborating the original story by confirming Cummings did travel, rather than coming out with something which was a pure diatribe. Laura Kuenssberg and the BBC could hide behind a source whilst Emily Maitlis couldn’t.
That being said, both needed to perhaps be a little bit smarter about how this was presented to the public and the BBC should have highlighted this in Laura Kuenssberg’s case as well as Emily Maitlis’. |
She posted a single unnamed source denying independently verifiable facts. In direct response to another journalists exposé.
That's not journalism. It may be what we've come to expect from UK journalism but that's the point - it's a lamentably low standard. | |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 08:44 - May 28 with 1992 views | Herbivore |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 21:44 - May 27 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I just offer an opinion.
Trust me, it's not easy being a pragmatic centrist on here when so many have been brainwashed by momentum.
I merely try to add balance.
...and refrain from personal insults. |
Biggest load of garbage I've ever read on here I reckon, and there's some serious competition for that crown as well. |  |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 12:18 - May 28 with 1918 views | midastouch |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 08:44 - May 28 by Herbivore |
Biggest load of garbage I've ever read on here I reckon, and there's some serious competition for that crown as well. |
B*gger, seems I've finally been outdone then! :-) | |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 14:58 - May 28 with 1855 views | Swansea_Blue |
Breaking: the BBC have just apologised for Durham Police. |  |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 15:04 - May 28 with 1843 views | DublinBlue84 |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 08:30 - May 28 by Darth_Koont |
She posted a single unnamed source denying independently verifiable facts. In direct response to another journalists exposé.
That's not journalism. It may be what we've come to expect from UK journalism but that's the point - it's a lamentably low standard. |
This isn't journalism either, it's another scandal, waiting to break....
| |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 19:31 - May 28 with 1796 views | Trequartista |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 23:52 - May 27 by LankHenners |
You were taking 'replaced' to mean 'step aside' so I used it to show how 'replaced' could reasonably be interpreted differently.
The tweet responded to several people's interpretation that she'd been forced to sit out, which was suggested but not stated by the article.
You asked how someone could be replaced without being told to, and I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation to which you've completely ignored, presumably because it's beyond you to admit it was a stupid question that could be easily answered, therefore shattering the illusion you have of yourself as some being of higher intelligence to everyone else.
The Guardian - my bible?! Arf! You daft plonker. |
Quite an astounding accusation that I have an illusion of being of higher intelligence to everyone else. I don't know where the evidence for this is. I certainly don't go around saying i know better than huge swathes of the population like other posters have and with regards to this conversation, the condescending comments of "Are you alright? " and "Not very complicated." originate from you.
And conveniently, the BBC have tweeted to clear up the semantics issue.
so we now have the Guardian saying she has been replaced and the BBC confirming she has not been replaced. Are you still going to argue there is not a contradiction now? I suspect so, it will certainly be interesting. [Post edited 28 May 2020 19:32]
| |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 19:55 - May 28 with 1772 views | LankHenners |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 19:31 - May 28 by Trequartista |
Quite an astounding accusation that I have an illusion of being of higher intelligence to everyone else. I don't know where the evidence for this is. I certainly don't go around saying i know better than huge swathes of the population like other posters have and with regards to this conversation, the condescending comments of "Are you alright? " and "Not very complicated." originate from you.
And conveniently, the BBC have tweeted to clear up the semantics issue.
so we now have the Guardian saying she has been replaced and the BBC confirming she has not been replaced. Are you still going to argue there is not a contradiction now? I suspect so, it will certainly be interesting. [Post edited 28 May 2020 19:32]
|
Not even the point. | |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 20:51 - May 28 with 1739 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 19:31 - May 28 by Trequartista |
Quite an astounding accusation that I have an illusion of being of higher intelligence to everyone else. I don't know where the evidence for this is. I certainly don't go around saying i know better than huge swathes of the population like other posters have and with regards to this conversation, the condescending comments of "Are you alright? " and "Not very complicated." originate from you.
And conveniently, the BBC have tweeted to clear up the semantics issue.
so we now have the Guardian saying she has been replaced and the BBC confirming she has not been replaced. Are you still going to argue there is not a contradiction now? I suspect so, it will certainly be interesting. [Post edited 28 May 2020 19:32]
|
The only thing that hasn't been ruled out is that she told them to stick it after having a perfectly good programme publicly criticised. We'll never know as she has decided to not give details. She was supposed to be presenting last night's show (confirmed by her and the listings). So if she wasn't dropped, the only other explanation is that she refused to do it.
Anyway, that's very much secondary to the issue of the BBC apologising for her telling the truth. | |
| |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 21:02 - May 28 with 1730 views | jeera |
| The BBC apologise for Emily Maitlis. on 20:51 - May 28 by Swansea_Blue |
The only thing that hasn't been ruled out is that she told them to stick it after having a perfectly good programme publicly criticised. We'll never know as she has decided to not give details. She was supposed to be presenting last night's show (confirmed by her and the listings). So if she wasn't dropped, the only other explanation is that she refused to do it.
Anyway, that's very much secondary to the issue of the BBC apologising for her telling the truth. |
Quite. Once again it's not difficult.
There's been a bit of backstabbing - from where hasn't been established, but the ethics remain the same.
The BBC felt obliged to publicly criticise one of their own, decent presenters, either off their own back, and replaced her as punishment, (what the hell for? - this 'the BBC must appear impartial at all times' just doesn't work with their format of programmes. It would different if this was the 9 0'Clock news and the presenter was calling Johnson and Cummings a pair of c***s - however accurate that may be), or she felt belittled or frustrated enough to call for a night off despite being due on screen.
Is HIGNFY next for not respecting the PM and his cronies enough? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
