Let’s talk about BBC

[First Aspect]

If GB News had edited a speech from, say, Corbyn, tacking a sentence from the beginning onto to a sentence from 50 minutes later, would anybody think it was a minor editing error?

From what I've been hearing, it is a fairly bad blunder.

Doing it in the first place was pretty crap, but the BBC are in trouble because they investigated it and decided it was okay.

The reason the previous internal investigation ruled it was acceptable was, supposedly, because they agreed that the edit was made because it only helped to clarity that he intended to incite storming the capitol building. That reasoning itself is biased, because in 2024 he was still, and remains entirely innocent of that.

Regardless of how reasonable an opinion might be, I think you can see that if you start to apply that reasoning to someone else and some other alleged crime and it quickly becomes a problem.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think the idea it was a simple editing error is founded on the notion that the BBC is still what we all believed it was - authoritative, fair, balanced - and rigorous in checking its output. The other points raised in the memo show that isn't the case. I don't accept the info put out by GB News uncritically but then I'm not paying them £175 a year for it. I think the BBC should be held to higher standards so I can treat their output with confidence.

 

[Beebo]

I think the idea it was a simple editing error is founded on the notion that the BBC is still what we all believed it was - authoritative, fair, balanced - and rigorous in checking its output. The other points raised in the memo show that isn't the case. I don't accept the info put out by GB News uncritically but then I'm not paying them £175 a year for it. I think the BBC should be held to higher standards so I can treat their output with confidence.

I agree that BBC should be held to an high standard of journalism, but what is very hard to swallow is being lectured by the likes of Daiky Mail and Telegraph which are opinion pieces with almost no journalistic integrity.

And to what standard should we hold the President of United States?

 

[First Aspect]

I agree that BBC should be held to an high standard of journalism, but what is very hard to swallow is being lectured by the likes of Daiky Mail and Telegraph which are opinion pieces with almost no journalistic integrity.

And to what standard should we hold the President of United States?

The BBC is clearly in a different position because it is a state funded outlet.

I don't think that gives a libel action any greater teeth, but Trump doesn't need to win it. He never does.

 

[icowden]

That reasoning itself is biased, because in 2024 he was still, and remains entirely innocent of that.

Wow, "entirely innocent" doing a *lot* of heavy lifting there

It's fair to say that the senate which had a majority that supported Trump found him not guilty of insurrection. That's not much of a measure.

 

[First Aspect]

Wow, "entirely innocent" doing a *lot* of heavy lifting there

It's fair to say that the senate which had a majority that supported Trump found him not guilty of insurrection. That's not much of a measure.

He hasn't been convicted of election interfence. That is simply a fact.

The rest is just opinion, however widely held.

 

[AuroraSaab]

And to what standard should we hold the President of United States?

A high standard. But don't all individuals deserve not to have their words edited in a way to deliberately make them look bad? Regardless of who they are or whether we like them or not? Regardless of whether the editor/producer felt the edit represented the truth about Trump?

I don't pay the Mail et al a fee to keep me informed so I can't really have the same expectation. Unfortunately the BBC are no longer in a position to claim moral superiority over other outlets.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I think the idea it was a simple editing error is founded on the notion that the BBC is still what we all believed it was - authoritative, fair, balanced - and rigorous in checking its output. The other points raised in the memo show that isn't the case. I don't accept the info put out by GB News uncritically but then I'm not paying them £175 a year for it. I think the BBC should be held to higher standards so I can treat their output with confidence.

I thought it had been stated that the editing was an error of judgement, which it was. It was not a simple error, e.g. "oops, my finger slipped" but a very bad error in judgement that such a change was acceptable. It was clearly partial in that they wanted to make Trump's statements on that day seem even worse than they were. That he was inflaming the situation is clear and the programme should have let Trump's words stand on their own without exaggeration. It's right that these two resigned, but so should the journalist/producer who made that Panorama programme.

Sadly no news source, whether TV, newspaper or social media/internet, can be treated with complete confidence, just as the politicians they write about or the sources they use can be completely trusted. People all suffer from inherent biases, including journalists, but they should overcome these when producing news output and the BBC as the national broadcaster should be questioned even more than clearly politically and commercially motivated channels and news providers, whether broadcast or internet.

 

[Rusty Nails]

And to what standard should we hold the President of United States?

Judging bythe words and untruths that come out of his official Press Secretary's mouth so easily, not a very high standard at all.

 

[Ian H]

I thought it had been stated that the editing was an error of judgement, which it was. It was not a simple error, e.g. "oops, my finger slipped" but a very bad error in judgement that such a change was acceptable. It was clearly partial in that they wanted to make Trump's statements on that day seem even worse than they were. That he was inflaming the situation is clear and the programme should have let Trump's words stand on their own without exaggeration. It's right that these two resigned, but so should the journalist/producer who made that Panorama programme.

Sadly no news source, whether TV, newspaper or social media/internet, can be treated with complete confidence, just as the politicians they write about or the sources they use can be completely trusted. People all suffer from inherent biases, including journalists, but they should overcome these when producing news output and the BBC as the national broadcaster should be questioned even more than clearly politically and commercially motivated channels and news providers, whether broadcast or internet.

You should never be in a position to rely on one single news source. There is no such thing as unbiased reporting - there can't be. A reporter can (you might say should) attempt to be objective and balanced, but no two people are going to agree on what those things are.

 

[icowden]

I thought it had been stated that the editing was an error of judgement, which it was. It was not a simple error, e.g. "oops, my finger slipped" but a very bad error in judgement that such a change was acceptable. It was clearly partial in that they wanted to make Trump's statements on that day seem even worse than they were. That he was inflaming the situation is clear and the programme should have let Trump's words stand on their own without exaggeration. It's right that these two resigned, but so should the journalist/producer who made that Panorama programme.

Strong disagree. They needed to edit a rambling one hour speech into something a) comprehensible and b) short. The error was in making the speech look like it hadn't been edited. They should have made clear that it had been condensed and was covering key points.

 

[CXRAndy]

The BBC doctored the videos, spliced two phrases together to say something completely different.

Cold calculating. If this brings about the end of the BBC I will not shed a tear. I dont pay the licence either.

 

[Pross]

Strong disagree. They needed to edit a rambling one hour speech into something a) comprehensible and b) short. The error was in making the speech look like it hadn't been edited. They should have made clear that it had been condensed and was covering key points.

No the error was in doctoring a speech that was ‘very good, perfect’. What they should have done was extend the programme so the viewers could appreciate the full oratorical masterpiece.

 

[First Aspect]

It was the motivation and effect of the editing that was over the line. What he said immediately after the first part and immediately before the second part did change the context.

Fwiw there is a pretty good argument that Trump was reckless that day, and I am personally convinced beyond any doubt that he was trying to get the election overturned (and may do so again) by encouraging a demonstration. However the edit to impute motivation of actual violence was over reaching significantly and I very much doubt that had the legal cases progressed that would have been proven. They may not have even attempted to.

On another point above, it's true that no one should rely on a single news source, but I think with the BBC there must be a degree of certainty regarding the basic facts, because they are state funded.

If they want to be biased and have rambling opinions pieces then fine. But it can't be both.

 

[CXRAndy]

Excellent personal opinion piece