| Well well well (part 2) on 09:27 - Nov 10 with 657 views | Cafe_Newman |
| Well well well (part 2) on 08:27 - Nov 10 by noggin |
I don't think this is even debatable anymore. Children shot in their heads, while queuing for food and paramedics buried along with their ambulances, after being shot dead while doing their jobs, is pretty conclusive. |
I thought all that stuff had been debunked as crisis actors filmed by Hamas funded UNRWA in their film studios hidden in Gaza terror tunnels. |  | |  |
| Well well well (part 2) on 10:21 - Nov 10 with 632 views | Pinewoodblue |
First I must confess .I haven’t felt the need to watch Panarama for years.
If the BBC is getting the balance right then you are going to get complaints of bias from both left and right. I do feel that currently, presumably in an attempt not to be biased, they are over compensating and giving Reform too much air time.
Trump is the difficult one as if you edit sound bites from his ramblings you are guaranteed to be accused of bias one way or the other.
What they appear to have done with his 6th January comments is linked together two sound bites , one from the first part of his speech and one from the end.
Did he say what the BBC broadcast of course he did.
Personally I don’t think it wise to give Trump the impression he can influence what a broadcaster in another country says.. Trump and his administration will of course continue to say whatever he/ they wants, see recent comments on North Sea oil & gas. |  |
| |
| Well well well (part 2) on 10:28 - Nov 10 with 615 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Well well well (part 2) on 10:21 - Nov 10 by Pinewoodblue |
First I must confess .I haven’t felt the need to watch Panarama for years.
If the BBC is getting the balance right then you are going to get complaints of bias from both left and right. I do feel that currently, presumably in an attempt not to be biased, they are over compensating and giving Reform too much air time.
Trump is the difficult one as if you edit sound bites from his ramblings you are guaranteed to be accused of bias one way or the other.
What they appear to have done with his 6th January comments is linked together two sound bites , one from the first part of his speech and one from the end.
Did he say what the BBC broadcast of course he did.
Personally I don’t think it wise to give Trump the impression he can influence what a broadcaster in another country says.. Trump and his administration will of course continue to say whatever he/ they wants, see recent comments on North Sea oil & gas. |
I think you've rather simplified how they edited Trump's speech when you say "Did he say what the BBC broadcast of course he did".
Imagine in a post match interview Mckenna said "I hate conceding sloppy goals" and later on in the interview he said "I thought the Ipswich fans were fantastic today". And BBC Suffolk edited his words to say "I hate Ipswich fans". Did he say what the BBC Suffolk broadcast of course he did".
Trump says enough vile and disgusting things without journalists deliberately editing his words in order to mislead the public. It just gives him more ammunition to cry "Fake News"!!!!! And his supporters can point to this and say "yeah he's right. What else are they making up".
The trust between the public and journalism is then broken and that ain't good in a healthy democracy. [Post edited 10 Nov 11:34]
|  |
| |
| Well well well (part 2) on 10:40 - Nov 10 with 573 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Well well well (part 2) on 06:56 - Nov 10 by Benters |
That was a simple tap in fair play to you. |
Watching the news and they are covering the BBC story and the next story is Tim Westwood appearing in court accused of rape and sexual assault. | |
| |
| Well well well (part 2) on 11:33 - Nov 10 with 546 views | lowhouseblue |
| Well well well (part 2) on 07:57 - Nov 10 by DJR |
People like me on the left think the BBC is biased the other way. For example, it bought the austerity agenda of the coalition government lock, stock and barrel.
The difference though is that criticisms from the left are not amplified in the same way as criticisms from the right.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/09/bbc-bias-row-timeline-a-week-of-ho
Indeed, as the article above indicates it even leads to things such as the following headline against someone who was president of the Conservative association at Oxford.
“BORIS’S BLAST AT ‘ARROGANT’ NICK ROBINSON FOR CLAIMING BIAS ROW IS AN ANTI-BBC PLOT”.
The hostility to the BBC is both political and commercial. It has also been going on since the 1980s. when Mrs Thatcher's favourite Marmaduke Hussey set out to root out what he thought of as left-wing bias, and started off with ousting the DG Alastair Milne. And this at a time when researchers at Glasgow University concluded that the BBC had a pro (Tory) government slant.
Constant criticism from the right has in my view made the BBC a very timid organisation which seems scared of its own shadow. This means, for example, that its political commentators are very bland in contrast to, say, those on Sky News who are not afraid to call a spade a spade. But even this isn't enough for its critics.
The irony these days is that the right has control of much of the media landscape, including social media and its own news channels (such as GB News). But this is not enough. The ultimate aim of some appears to be to end the BBC but I think Tory MPs rejoicing at the latest news need to be careful of what they wish for given the possibility of a Reform government. They might happily remove the obligation for impartiality on public service broadcasters and lead us down a route where something like Fox News becomes the main outlet for broadcast news.
EDIT: the Blair government should not be immune from criticism either with the disgraceful hounding of the BBC in the light of the Andrew Gilligan report, which in turn led to the resignation of the DG Greg Dyke. [Post edited 10 Nov 9:12]
|
a publicly funded national broadcaster has to be impartial. when evidence is provided that it has failed in that - and the trump speech and the other things shown by the telegraph are serious failures - it can't react defensively and it has to acknowledge the problem. the response in the past week has been poor and the radio 4 response this morning emphasising that criticism might be a political motivated campaign against it is unwise.
overall the standards that the bbc follows are very high and it gets most things right. but it isn't perfect and when there are legitimate criticisms of failures it needs to own them and act. the two of resigned have spent the last week hoping it will all go away. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Well well well (part 2) on 11:54 - Nov 10 with 513 views | leitrimblue |
| Well well well (part 2) on 09:27 - Nov 10 by Cafe_Newman |
I thought all that stuff had been debunked as crisis actors filmed by Hamas funded UNRWA in their film studios hidden in Gaza terror tunnels. |
The IDF remains committed to the rule of law and continues to operate in accordance with its legal and ethical obligations
An IDF spokesmen announced, barely able to contain he's own laughter |  | | |
| Well well well (part 2) on 12:59 - Nov 10 with 458 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Well well well (part 2) on 10:28 - Nov 10 by GlasgowBlue |
I think you've rather simplified how they edited Trump's speech when you say "Did he say what the BBC broadcast of course he did".
Imagine in a post match interview Mckenna said "I hate conceding sloppy goals" and later on in the interview he said "I thought the Ipswich fans were fantastic today". And BBC Suffolk edited his words to say "I hate Ipswich fans". Did he say what the BBC Suffolk broadcast of course he did".
Trump says enough vile and disgusting things without journalists deliberately editing his words in order to mislead the public. It just gives him more ammunition to cry "Fake News"!!!!! And his supporters can point to this and say "yeah he's right. What else are they making up".
The trust between the public and journalism is then broken and that ain't good in a healthy democracy. [Post edited 10 Nov 11:34]
|
Wasn’t it around a year ago that the Panorama‘Trump’ programme was broadcast.
The problem with Trump, and his ramblings, is if you tried to fairly represent the content it would be disjointed and uninteresting and viewers would switch off.
There is no dispute that Trump said what he said. It would be fair to say some would be mislead by the way Trump’s comments were linked.
It would have been better to have played the first clip, then add he later said before playing the second part.
Your example is pathetic as they are clearly comments on different matters, Trumps were not.
Presumably we can expect Starmer to be called to The White House and be given the Zelenskyy treatment.
Have Sky on at the moment and they still seem to think it appropriate that the politician being quoted, on screen, is Farage. | |
| |
| Well well well (part 2) on 13:25 - Nov 10 with 410 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Well well well (part 2) on 12:59 - Nov 10 by Pinewoodblue |
Wasn’t it around a year ago that the Panorama‘Trump’ programme was broadcast.
The problem with Trump, and his ramblings, is if you tried to fairly represent the content it would be disjointed and uninteresting and viewers would switch off.
There is no dispute that Trump said what he said. It would be fair to say some would be mislead by the way Trump’s comments were linked.
It would have been better to have played the first clip, then add he later said before playing the second part.
Your example is pathetic as they are clearly comments on different matters, Trumps were not.
Presumably we can expect Starmer to be called to The White House and be given the Zelenskyy treatment.
Have Sky on at the moment and they still seem to think it appropriate that the politician being quoted, on screen, is Farage. |
So you're happy with our national broadcaster deliberately editing Trump's speech in order to mislead it's viewers? It the BBC for fcuks sake. Not Al Jazeera, Russia Today, Press TV or GB News.
We should expect better. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Well well well (part 2) on 13:28 - Nov 10 with 400 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Well well well (part 2) on 13:25 - Nov 10 by GlasgowBlue |
So you're happy with our national broadcaster deliberately editing Trump's speech in order to mislead it's viewers? It the BBC for fcuks sake. Not Al Jazeera, Russia Today, Press TV or GB News.
We should expect better. |
You are seeing what you want to see. . This was yesterday and yesterday has gone. | |
| |
| Well well well (part 2) on 16:03 - Nov 10 with 341 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Well well well (part 2) on 13:25 - Nov 10 by GlasgowBlue |
So you're happy with our national broadcaster deliberately editing Trump's speech in order to mislead it's viewers? It the BBC for fcuks sake. Not Al Jazeera, Russia Today, Press TV or GB News.
We should expect better. |
They royally messed up on the Trump speech but lumping in Gaza coverage, Glastonbury live streams and whatever is just ridiculous. |  |
| |
| Well well well (part 2) on 16:19 - Nov 10 with 319 views | The_Major |
The orange scrote is now saying he will sue the BBC for $1bn.
Which would probably destroy it. Hopefully Starmer will grow some cojones and tell him to do one, but no doubt the fifth columnists like Farage and all his treacherous hangers on and supporters in the press will be backing him.
Did the BBC screw up? Yes. Should they apologise? Yes. Should there have been resignations? Debateable.
You'd think this week of all weeks, the history of what happens if you try to appease the far right would be brought into sharp relief.
The BBC just didn't learn. They'll now cravenly have Farage on QT another 63 times before the end of the year because they won't want to upset the Telegraph. |  | | |
| Well well well (part 2) on 16:22 - Nov 10 with 313 views | DJR |
As someone who spends at least three hours a day consuming BBC radio news (a mix of the World Service, the Today Programme and the World Tonight), I'm with James Landale on this.
[Post edited 10 Nov 16:25]
|  | | |
| Well well well on 17:02 - Nov 10 with 267 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Well well well (part 2) on 16:19 - Nov 10 by The_Major |
The orange scrote is now saying he will sue the BBC for $1bn.
Which would probably destroy it. Hopefully Starmer will grow some cojones and tell him to do one, but no doubt the fifth columnists like Farage and all his treacherous hangers on and supporters in the press will be backing him.
Did the BBC screw up? Yes. Should they apologise? Yes. Should there have been resignations? Debateable.
You'd think this week of all weeks, the history of what happens if you try to appease the far right would be brought into sharp relief.
The BBC just didn't learn. They'll now cravenly have Farage on QT another 63 times before the end of the year because they won't want to upset the Telegraph. |
The BBC was right to broadcast both snippets , which I believe the majority of broadcasters around the world would have done as news items at the time.
It was naughty to make it appear as if it was one sentence.
This really is a year old story dragged up as part of an attack on BBC. Just one bullet in a loaded pistol.
Any broadcaster worth their salt is always going to be accused of bias, it is the way the likes of Farage get airtime as they know broadcasters try to be impartial.
I would like to see broadcasters being brave enough to follow so many of Trump’s comments by fact checking them.
Trump will no doubt use this, as he has many other issues as a means of distraction. | |
| |
| Well well well (part 2) on 17:11 - Nov 10 with 255 views | Benters |
| Well well well (part 2) on 13:25 - Nov 10 by GlasgowBlue |
So you're happy with our national broadcaster deliberately editing Trump's speech in order to mislead it's viewers? It the BBC for fcuks sake. Not Al Jazeera, Russia Today, Press TV or GB News.
We should expect better. |
This. |  |
| |
| Well well well (part 2) on 19:22 - Nov 10 with 187 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Well well well (part 2) on 17:11 - Nov 10 by Benters |
This. |
....that, or the other. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
