Let’s talk about BBC

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/TalkTV/status/1987834996057584078?t=2uSDeZ6GeBXMbxeZKStGAQ&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

No, they're not going to hire another one


View: https://x.com/LBC/status/1988161170297991182?t=wH8lALX-s3JOMGOj3uwJpQ&s=19

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

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.

It did change the context but Trump used the word "fight" 18 times in that speech to a crowd he had initiated and spent days tweeting to ahead of January 6th, including telling them it would be a "wild rally". The January 6th committee hearing also showed he edited the speech to add the line “We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

The BBC edit, in my opinion, emphasises an undercurrent of Trump's speech. I agree that is an editorial decision but I think it is a justified one, if your journalistic argument is that Trump was trying to incite and you acknowledge he used the word fight a lot then that is a reasonable judgement. People will make the argument that the BBC shouldn't be making editorial decisions like that, but all media outlets do so. There is also the argument, particularly with someone like Trump who is a compulsive liar, you can't just publish what he says verbatim as it is almost entirely contestable, you have to be granted some leeway to try and determine his motivations within reasonable boundaries.

 

[monkers]

I want one billion dollars in gold bars.

 

[First Aspect]

It did change the context but Trump used the word "fight" 18 times in that speech to a crowd he had initiated and spent days tweeting to ahead of January 6th, including telling them it would be a "wild rally". The January 6th committee hearing also showed he edited the speech to add the line “We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

The BBC edit, in my opinion, emphasises an undercurrent of Trump's speech. I agree that is an editorial decision but I think it is a justified one, if your journalistic argument is that Trump was trying to incite and you acknowledge he used the word fight a lot then that is a reasonable judgement. People will make the argument that the BBC shouldn't be making editorial decisions like that, but all media outlets do so. There is also the argument, particularly with someone like Trump who is a compulsive liar, you can't just publish what he says verbatim as it is almost entirely contestable, you have to be granted some leeway to try and determine his motivations within reasonable boundaries.

I'd suggest looking at some non BBC assessments of the editorial judgement on this.

My view is that the only thing worth the license fee is BBC news and it's various activities online, and the radio. Personally I would be happy to let a reduced licence fee pay for the BBC, C4 and others to continue to do this, against the tide of half informed crap on the internet, and let the rest of BBCs not very entertaining content fight amongst the rest of the commercial offerings.

given that in the long term factual content is pretty much keeping the BBC alive, I don't understand why they outsource flagship news content and put the entire organisation at risk. It is poor governance.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I'd suggest looking at some non BBC assessments of the editorial judgement on this.

Would be very interested to if you have some to share? Most of what I have seen has been more centred on the resignations and the internal wrangling's of the BBC, have not seen much in the way of objective journalistic analysis of the actual edit.

 

[CXRAndy]

I want one billion dollars in gold leaf.

View attachment 10990

Corrected for you

 

[matticus]

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.

This suggests that you haven't actually seen the output from our other major news outlets.

 

[First Aspect]

Would be very interested to if you have some to share? Most of what I have seen has been more centred on the resignations and the internal wrangling's of the BBC, have not seen much in the way of objective journalistic analysis of the actual edit.

I listened to a fairly long interview with someone on Today, yesterday. Can't remember who she was, sorry, but it seemed convincing and balanced to me. Will have been between 7.30 and 8.30.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I listened to a fairly long interview with someone on Today, yesterday. Can't remember who she was, sorry, but it seemed convincing and balanced to me. Will have been between 7.30 and 8.30.

Ta, will have a listen for it.

 

[laurentian]

Just to try to understand something here:

Could I ask where people would (or do) go for unbiased, factual journalism if they couldn't (or don't) access the BBC in its various formats?

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Just to try to understand something here:

Could I ask where people would (or do) go for unbiased, factual journalism if they couldn't (or don't) access the BBC in its various formats?

Guardian, Private Eye, Reuters, The I Paper to name a few. Obviously the Guardian has a focus but its actual journalism seems fairly rigorous to me. I also like the News Agents podcast, I don't always agree with them but their choices of news to cover and the discussions are well balanced.

 

[First Aspect]

Just to try to understand something here:

Could I ask where people would (or do) go for unbiased, factual journalism if they couldn't (or don't) access the BBC in its various formats?

Channel 4. And I select news articles from a feed that, where possible come from Reuters and the like. The radio - even music channels receive news to put in bulletins that can give an initial indication on what to listen out for elsewhere. LBC. I don't sign into things and try to decide cookies to reduce the filtering. I try to gauge the output from the Guardian, Telegraph, CNN and LBC on occasion. I could go on.

So, a range, basically, upon which I form an opinion of my own.

 

[Psamathe]

My view is that the only thing worth the license fee is BBC news and it's various activities online, and the radio.

Trouble is that budget seems to be forever reduced for news and passed to sport, Strictly and the high profile mindless entertainment that the commercial stations would love to make. I'd always considered the justification for the license fee and a "Natioal Broadcaster" was to make/broadcast those programs that would otherwise not be made. Yet BBC has instead been disproportionately spending on those programs that directly compete with the commercial broadcasters.

When I do end-up watching BBC News I don't find it particularly informative (eg compared to C4 News). Newsnight used to be very good, just what I believe the BBC should have been doing but they massively cut the budgets and turned it into a low cost waste of time.

But that moves the discussion on to the license fee.

 

[cookiemonster]

Just to try to understand something here:

Could I ask where people would (or do) go for unbiased, factual journalism if they couldn't (or don't) access the BBC in its various formats?

Byline Times, The New World, The News Agents, Novara.