Let’s talk about BBC

[matticus]

I am sorry that the Stanley Johnson domestic abuse documentary presented by Fiona Bruce last week did not live up to your expectations. It's clearly something you are passionate about, and you have been let down.

 

[icowden]

I am sorry that the Stanley Johnson domestic abuse documentary presented by Fiona Bruce last week did not live up to your expectations. It's clearly something you are passionate about, and you have been let down.

Eh?

This thread is about the BBC and the last few pages worth about the Lineker debacle and the BBC's impartiality police. If they are going to be impartial it stands to reason that they should report the proper context and not a context confected by the Daily Mail and Stanley Johnson's lawyers.

It's also clear that the hoohah about Fiona Bruce herself is also confected - but she has rather been dumped in it by making a statement from her editorial team who portrayed Johnson as a nice bloke who once gave his wife a friendly punch to the nose.

 

[matticus]

Eh?

This thread is about the BBC and the last few pages worth about the Lineker debacle and the BBC's impartiality police. If they are going to be impartial it stands to reason that they should report the proper context and not a context confected by the Daily Mail and Stanley Johnson's lawyers.

It's also clear that the hoohah about Fiona Bruce herself is also confected - but she has rather been dumped in it by making a statement from her editorial team who portrayed Johnson as a nice bloke who once gave his wife a friendly punch to the nose.

The problem here is that you are conflating the two issues. I agree that the BBC is very selective in deploying their "impartiality police" , but there are a couple of problems with using Slugger Stanley as your test case;
- firstly, just how can you define exactly what would have been impartial coverage in this instance? As I've conveyed, you would need an extensive piece on all the details of the case, taking up about an hour of Question Time's running time. Practical? To me it seems they briefly conveyed the key components, in much the same style as a short newspaper article would have done. You may differ, but how does that help us define "impartiality"?!?
- Secondly, you clearly have strong ... err even partial views on Stanley's marriage. Hence phrases like "gave his wife a friendly punch to the nose". By using this example, you are requiring readers to agree with you on BBC impartiality AND applaud+support your virtue-signalling on domestic violence by a pale stale tory. It's all or nothing, and I don't intend to join your cause, sorry!

 

[newfhouse]

To me it seems they briefly conveyed the key components, in much the same style as a short newspaper article would have done. You may differ, but how does that help us define "impartiality"?!?

Why the need for the chair to say anything at all? Surely on a panel show such as QT the participants are carefully chosen so as to provide a fair range of views, individually biased but collectively balanced.

 

[matticus]

Why the need for the chair to say anything at all? Surely on a panel show such as QT the participants are carefully chosen so as to provide a fair range of views, individually biased but collectively balanced.

When did you last complain about clarifications/interjections from the chair. Come on, show how impartial you are about QT!

 

[icowden]

Why the need for the chair to say anything at all? Surely on a panel show such as QT the participants are carefully chosen so as to provide a fair range of views, individually biased but collectively balanced.

Because the discussion point was whether the former Prime Minister should give his dad a knighthood. It is relevant to the discussion that the "dad" in question has a history of perpetrating domestic violence and thus be unsuitable for a chivalrous order.

 

[newfhouse]

Because the discussion point was whether the former Prime Minister should give his dad a knighthood. It is relevant to the discussion that the "dad" in question has a history of perpetrating domestic violence and thus be unsuitable for a chivalrous order.

Yes, I followed the discussion point, but thanks for explaining it again. What I’m struggling with is why, that point having been made by a panellist, it was necessary for the chair to leap to his defence with what now seems to be an expensively prepared response.

 

[BoldonLad]

Because the discussion point was whether the former Prime Minister should give his dad a knighthood. It is relevant to the discussion that the "dad" in question has a history of perpetrating domestic violence and thus be unsuitable for a chivalrous order.

Is it only domestic violence which makes a candidate unsuitable for an honour?, or, do you propose a list of "offences"?

"sirs" with domestic violence convictions are not unheard of. If we included infidelity in the 'barred list" we might actually be able to do away with the whole honours system

 

[icowden]

Is it only domestic violence which makes a candidate unsuitable for an honour?, or, do you propose a list of "offences"?

I'm sure there are many others. The point of an honour is that the person receiving it is honourable. In a debate about whether a person is honourable, prolonged domestic violence might seem to be a salient point,

 

[matticus]

You pricked my ...err interest. So I checked:
https://honours.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/about/

The honours system celebrates the people who go above and beyond to change the world around them for the better. The system recognises the people who have:

• selflessly volunteered their time and efforts;
• gained the respect of their peers;
• displayed moral and physical courage;
• or showed real innovation and entrepreneurship.

The honours system rewards those doing vital and extraordinary work across the country.

Purely IMO, that would seem to be a much more inclusive remit than Comrade Cowden's above.

 

[newfhouse]

gained the respect of their peers

Who are Johnson’s peers and why should we trust their judgement?

 

[The Crofted Crest]

https://honours.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/about/

showed

FFS

 

[BoldonLad]

I'm sure there are many others. The point of an honour is that the person receiving it is honourable. In a debate about whether a person is honourable, prolonged domestic violence might seem to be a salient point,

Didn’t say it wasn’t, just suggesting, there are precedents for ignoring that salient point.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I'm sure there are many others. The point of an honour is that the person receiving it is honourable. In a debate about whether a person is honourable, prolonged domestic violence might seem to be a salient point,

How very quaint.

Have you seen some of the people who have received honours in recent years?

The first and most recent that jumped immediately to mind was Gavin Williamson. Other dishonourable recipients are available. They are often bungs for pals and past favours/donations.

 

[multitool]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...laim-starmer-failed-to-prosecute-jimmy-savile