They should take the flags down and put up the Christmas lightsA village in Kent has been told by the Reform-led council that, due to safety concerns, they can't put up Christmas lights until they take down all of the unauthorised flags.
Why do they hate this country?
Was it not that Trump says enough stupid things already that the Beeb needed to doctor other quotes
A good piece by Lewis Goodall on the BBC fiasco....
The truth about impartiality at the BBC - by Lewis Goodall
You must log in or register to see images
Put Andrew in charge of the BBC. Not like the old nonce has anything else going on and there’ll be multiple witnesses at all times.I’d dump the BBC if we can sack off the monarchy at the same time. Bin the institutions!
Just what you'd expect from a former employee, the groupthink that pervades the corporation will never change regardless of who is the next DG. So many have said it was a mistake/mishap rather than the reality it was a carefully edited piece distorting what was really said. There was so much media and clips they could have used rather than something that has severely damaged their reputation.
The list of scandals and headlines over the past few years should be the catalyst for a total shake up but I can't see it happening with a Labour government. The fact the only Tory on their board is being lined up for the chop is a definite pointer to just more of the same, I'll bet this time next year we'll still be moaning about the next scandal and then the next...
why was it broadcast a year ago'The only Tory on the Board'? There shouldn't be any political Board members. You don't seem to have read Goodall's full piece, so here's a part which deals with the percieved left-wing bias that Gibb, director of communications for Teresa May and co-founder of GB News, was appointed by Johnson to eradicate....
For what it’s worth, I don’t think they are part of a right wing plot, as such. I genuinely think they think they are saving the BBC from itself. But that is because they suffer from the same affliction as much of the ailing, older British media class, ubiquitous across the lofty, windy diatribes in the pages of the Sunday Times and Telegraph, former BBC anchors and the like: a total lack of self-awareness. They believe their own politics to be neutral, impartial- and other people’s politics to be the aberration, or doctrinaire, a belief egged on by the fact that most of the media agrees with them. Orthodoxies are for other people. Many of these people lecture younger BBC staff as to being too rigid, or subject to groupthink, or unwilling to step outside themselves: it is these people, inside and outside of the BBC who are in my experience most rigid of all, because they are so convinced their politics isn’t really politics, but just some default setting shared with much of the country- when it is not. Worse, they usually claim to do what they do in the name of ordinary working class people about whom they usually know nothing. I’ve written before about impartiality, and that of course, as an individual I wasn’t impartial at the BBC. I had views which I can now more freely express. I had biases- but I actively worked against them in my work, as I was required to do. How many of these people, self appointed guardians of impartiality, actually do the same? They often can’t- in my view because they don’t recognise their inherent partiality in the first place.
In other words, it wasn't that the BBC was too biased towards the Left, it was that it was considered insufficiently biased towards the Right.
The editing of Trump on Panorama was a serious misjudgement, but it was broadcast a year ago. Why should it come to light now?
On the eve of the presidential election.why was it broadcast a year ago
On the eve of the presidential election.
In this country, as it has passed a year since the broadcast, Trump cannot sue.
On the eve of the presidential election.
In this country, as it has passed a year since the broadcast, Trump cannot sue.
He can in America., however it was not shown in America and they cannot get iplayer there. Therefore he cannot claim it had an effect on the outcome.
And in fact it appears that the edit was not known of/ not bought to the attention of the general public until the leaked document last week.
Don't get me wrong ..Panorama were completely wrong in making that particular edit...
But something smells fishy
That’s an interesting paragraph. I take a different message from it to you though* - that true impartiality is impossible in the current world, and that the old school grandees who ran/run the BBC (both as the directors and the ‘talent’) are from the old days, when impartiality was in fact just a reflection of the prevailing liberal middle class paternalistic orthodoxy. Which was maintained because there were very few platforms on which it could be challenged and information was shared and presented by the orthodox. That orthodoxy is now shattered, we live in a fragmented society where anybody can have an opinion about anything, untethered to facts, and all have the ability to share it. The BBC is equally fragmented, having some old schoolers who genuinely believe they are impartial and others who explicitly or implicitly take sides - on Gaza/Israel, Trump, Trans issues, Reform etc etc.'The only Tory on the Board'? There shouldn't be any political Board members. You don't seem to have read Goodall's full piece, so here's a part which deals with the percieved left-wing bias that Gibb, director of communications for Teresa May and co-founder of GB News, was appointed by Johnson to eradicate....
For what it’s worth, I don’t think they are part of a right wing plot, as such. I genuinely think they think they are saving the BBC from itself. But that is because they suffer from the same affliction as much of the ailing, older British media class, ubiquitous across the lofty, windy diatribes in the pages of the Sunday Times and Telegraph, former BBC anchors and the like: a total lack of self-awareness. They believe their own politics to be neutral, impartial- and other people’s politics to be the aberration, or doctrinaire, a belief egged on by the fact that most of the media agrees with them. Orthodoxies are for other people. Many of these people lecture younger BBC staff as to being too rigid, or subject to groupthink, or unwilling to step outside themselves: it is these people, inside and outside of the BBC who are in my experience most rigid of all, because they are so convinced their politics isn’t really politics, but just some default setting shared with much of the country- when it is not. Worse, they usually claim to do what they do in the name of ordinary working class people about whom they usually know nothing. I’ve written before about impartiality, and that of course, as an individual I wasn’t impartial at the BBC. I had views which I can now more freely express. I had biases- but I actively worked against them in my work, as I was required to do. How many of these people, self appointed guardians of impartiality, actually do the same? They often can’t- in my view because they don’t recognise their inherent partiality in the first place.
In other words, it wasn't that the BBC was too biased towards the Left, it was that it was considered insufficiently biased towards the Right.
The editing of Trump on Panorama was a serious misjudgement, but it was broadcast a year ago. Why should it come to light now?
That’s an interesting paragraph. I take a different message from it to you though* - that true impartiality is impossible in the current world, and that the old school grandees who ran/run the BBC (both as the directors and the ‘talent’) are from the old days, when impartiality was in fact just a reflection of the prevailing liberal middle class paternalistic orthodoxy. Which was maintained because there were very few platforms on which it could be challenged and information was shared and presented by the orthodox. That orthodoxy is now shattered, we live in a fragmented society where anybody can have an opinion about anything, untethered to facts, and all have the ability to share it. The BBC is equally fragmented, having some old schoolers who genuinely believe they are impartial and others who explicitly or implicitly take sides - on Gaza/Israel, Trump, Trans issues, Reform etc etc.
If impartiality is impossible does it make the first two elements of the BBC ‘mission’ - inform and educate - redundant? Leaving us with entertain.
Ten, or possibly only five, years ago I would have been very upset to see the demise of the BBC, but now I really wouldn’t mind. It’s news and sports apps are the only things I use regularly (and it seems to me that the Sky versions are virtually identical) its news programmes whether on TV or radio, have declined alarmingly - not just ‘impartiality’ but focus on the personality of presenters, poor interviewing techniques and frequent ignorance of facts, plus use of news bulletins to trail and promote other BBC content.
* Goodall probably wasn’t thinking along my lines either.