Let’s talk about BBC

[briantrumpet]

It was not - Dear Listener - a great listen. I shall not be consuming subsequent performances.

Given all the correct restrictions on reporting UK court cases, and the not-like-[US]-TV-court-dramas nature of them, I guess that's not surprising. And probably just as well, given courts are there to try to establish whether someone is guilty or not, not provide material for TV & radio 'series'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It does seem inappropriate, and in bad taste, to be running the series as the trial runs. No doubt there'll be numerous The Fall of Russell Brand tv shows in the coming months. You only have to look at the satellite channels to see the hundreds of true crime programmes so there must be an appetite for it, though with Brand there's probably a schadenfraude element.

 

[briantrumpet]

It does seem inappropriate, and in bad taste, to be running the series as the trial runs. No doubt there'll be numerous The Fall of Russell Brand tv shows in the coming months. You only have to look at the satellite channels to see the hundreds of true crime programmes so there must be an appetite for it, though with Brand there's probably a schadenfraude element.

I think it's absolutely fair (and correct) to report on it. But I'm still not at all comfortable with it being marketed as a 'series', like some fictional drama, hawking for audience.

 

[Psamathe]

I think it's absolutely fair (and correct) to report on it. But I'm still not at all comfortable with it being marketed as a 'series', like some fictional drama, hawking for audience.

My worry is that it's a continuum and reporting can then slide into blow by blow accounts and I wonder if the nuances become important in a trial. Paused, witness confidence, the entirety of the exchanges when questions are asked. When we get isolated "highlights" we miss all that and jump to our own innocence/guilt decisions but on very limited information through the filter and any bias of a 3rd party eg would we be happy to form our opinions of Fǎrage based on highlights selected by and presented by Chris Mason?

 

[Pblakeney]

My worry is that it's a continuum and reporting can then slide into blow by blow accounts and I wonder if the nuances become important in a trial. Paused, witness confidence, the entirety of the exchanges when questions are asked. When we get isolated "highlights" we miss all that and jump to our own innocence/guilt decisions but on very limited information through the filter and any bias of a 3rd party eg would we be happy to form our opinions of Fǎrage based on highlights selected by and presented by Chris Mason?

Chris Mason would be happy, and Farage.

 

[matticus]

It's the framing and marketing that's the problem: using the brand of Brand as a salacious way to get listeners to tune in for each 'episode'. Quite correctly, the title doesn't assume guilt (as that would be illegal), but selling rape trial coverage on the back of celebrity in this way seems tasteless at minimum. I can't imagine them doing that, say, with Peter Sutcliffe, advertising coverage of his trial as a 'series' of episodes.

OK, I do see what you mean. To a large extent I agree. Where I may disagree is that I don't see it as being much more brazen/salacious/exploitative than all past media coverage of these kinds of trials.
I'm pretty sure I could find some Daily Mail "serious news reports" of trials that splash sordid details around to sell papers, with much less journalistic integrity than the Radio 4 "Episode" that you are enraged by.
potayto, potahto ??

 

[briantrumpet]

OK, I do see what you mean. To a large extent I agree. Where I may disagree is that I don't see it as being much more brazen/salacious/exploitative than all past media coverage of these kinds of trials.
I'm pretty sure I could find some Daily Mail "serious news reports" of trials that splash sordid details around to sell papers, with much less journalistic integrity than the Radio 4 "Episode" that you are enraged by.
potayto, potahto ??

Yeah, you're probably right about that, and maybe it's inevitable that the BBC follows the US trend of trying to make real trials into 'entertainment' by wrapping it up like this (and following the public's thirst for 'celebrity' stuff), but I'm not comfortable with it, as I think it is reasonable to hold the BBC to a higher standard than the Daily Mail.

 

[Psamathe]

.... and maybe it's inevitable that the BBC follows the US trend of trying to make real trials into 'entertainment' by wrapping it up like this (and following the public's thirst for 'celebrity' stuff)

One aspect that worries me about all this daily podcasting and special series detailing blow by blow accounts (from many sources) is how this might impact the victims. Whilst the courts have given them anonymity, certainly sometimes that doesn't stop social media from hypothesising maybe identifying or maybe mis-identifying. But either way it turns what is meant to be justice for what happened to them into a celebrity scramble for ratings.

The victims have already been very brave coming forward, appearing in court (even behind screens, etc.), reliving the experience and being subject to challenges over the events. To turn it into a celebrity contest for downloads can only make it harder for them and discourage other victims from coming forward in such cases.

 

[matticus]

Talking of tasteful coverage:

 

[matticus]

With a poppy, just so you know they care.

 

[Pblakeney]

Talking of tasteful coverage:
View attachment 17961

The good people of Liverpool have it right.

 

[briantrumpet]

At what point does the BBC realise/accept that Reform isn't a government in waiting, and that the BBC doesn't need to pander to them at every turn? Report it, sure, but like this, still?

 

[Pblakeney]

Will the real opposition please stand up? We're gonna have a problem here.
We need one, and it isn't Farage, or Badenoch.

 

[briantrumpet]

At what point does the BBC realise/accept that Reform isn't a government in waiting, and that the BBC doesn't need to pander to them at every turn? Report it, sure, but like this, still?

View attachment 17980

Apparently they got 41 minutes of advertising time live coverage on BBC1, when they apologised it was going over to iPlayer. I don't really know why they bother with the expense of GB News when the BBC is doing it for them.

EDIT - it was BBC News, not BBC1. Apologies.

 

[Pblakeney]

Apparently they got 41 minutes of advertising time live coverage on BBC1, when they apologised it was going over to iPlayer. I don't really know why they bother with the expense of GB News when the BBC is doing it for them.

BBC is the publicity department, GB News is the clubhouse.