The BBC. Bias is one thing. Lies and manipulation of facts entirely different.

Wyllow3

It happened everywhere, didn't it? I recall so very well its growth and development.

I think its a social/historical phenomenon we can look back on and ask,

"why did something really, really good that begun with gay rights turn into an extreme gender related situation"

Because men in frocks who are strident activists don’t want to be told ‘no’. Their innate testosterone fires them up into what amounts to a form of bullying. In my opinion.

Well of course, FGT, that goes without saying, I don't think anyone would disagree with you about aggression of that sort!

I also think that to focus on this is a bit "look at the Squirrel". Your O/P has nothing to do with trans issues and trying to interrupt my narrative of GB new's anti Muslim rhetoric

as you have praised them.

I suggest we focus firmly on the main points, what do we do in the media when something very untoward occurs, who is to be held responsible, and what should be done

So, this morning a lecture from Karoline Leavitt, President's Trump's press secretary.
Accusations: 'This purposefully dishonestly, selectively edited clip by the BBC is further evidence that they are total, 100 percent fake news.'
And the response is?

The BBC is not 100 percent fake news, but with this clear example of selective editing that is at present totally ignored by Tim Davie, it is difficult to defend.

I note the latest attempt at deflection is that this is an orchestrated campaign by the Daily Telegraph.

The point is, the evidence is there, deny it as much as you like.
The fact that so many posters on here are apparently happy to defend lies from a public institution is deeply concerning.

I used to smile when Trump first used the term ‘fake news’. Now it’s not so funny….
Great post eazybee

Yes, it happened

Yes its wrong

Yes it will be addressed and the thread invites us to say "how"

Yes it happens in a lot of the media, and must be addressed by this in any media outlet it occurs in by its owners/managers

Particularly, I have to say, the use of partial quotes which are very widely used particularly in the Red Tops

(Plus Actual Fabrication
Racism, which is not legal)

As regards Trumps, his actual lies should equally be addressed by all the media when there is a news item about him. After all, he is POTUS, one of the most powerful men in the world, and must be scrutinised.

Ask, does your favoured news outlet do "Reality Checks" on Trump? Ask yourself

I don’t think there’s many fans of Trump on here, but this concern about the BBC isn’t just about him.

Anything Katherine Leavitte has to say I take with a huge pinch of salt.

I don't think anyone has said that lying in the press is acceptable.
Lying by anyone is not acceptable but we hear lies every day from politicians but have to hope our news is honestly given.
I am disappointed in the BBC but don't believe as some do that all their news is lies. There are some excellent reporters working for the BBC.

The concerns covered Trump, race, middle east, and the gender debate. It just happens that as he is president of the USA lots of the attention focussed on the trump issue, but it actually covers a range of issues.

Sorry didn't see Oreos post but saying it twice doesn't hurt

Disappointed about the BBC, but the media and sadly, our politicians are guilty of organising the truth to fit what they want to say.
The thread about ‘would you take a story to the press’ has some good examples.

Perhaps I’m totally naïve but this really shocked me. I believed Clive!

Yes, this concern is mostly about the BBC, but other 'news' outlets deserve similar scrutiny.
That post about GB news's racial bias is also important, because GB News is a main source for many people, and is preferred by some of our own Posters, as stated on other Threads.
As Foxie and others have said, mix and match your sources for more accurate coverage.

Wyllow, I will it repeat again.
My posts are not about Trump and the lies he may or may not have told, but the deliberate manipulation by the BBC of a recorded speech he made, apparently to distort its meaning. I saw that speech live and was deeply shocked by it.
But however appalling that does not give anyone the right to alter it.

It is the veracity of the BBC as a national institution that is of concern; nothing to do with red-tops, reality checks or partial quotes elsewhere; those are different issues.
It is the BBC's deliberate alteration of a recorded and broadcast speech of historic importance that is of concern.
If they alter that, and people don't care,what else do they alter?

Someone mentioned The Telegraph upthread, so I thought it was worth a wee google.
AI claims that The Telegraph has 'mixed' score for factual reporting due to 'poor sourcing of information and some failed fact checks'.

That's interesting eazybee, you have seen the live footage, have you also had a chance to see the altered version?

Are you really trying to tell me you are not concerned about other national media outlets, Easybee?

Frankly, I am far, far more concerned about GB news - a national broadcaster - who is so racist over a long period of time spouting their view as "the truth" than one (of course serious) event on the BBC.

Or - and this is far more widespread - and more damaging in my personal view given the extent of it - any media who use "half quotes" so as to totally change the meaning of that quote by the politician concerned

Oreo

Doodledog and any other posters who think this is about the BBC and Trump, it isn’t.Trump is just awful and lies as easily as breathing, but this is about the BBC whether an in house report or something commissioned by them tells the whole truth and doesn’t show bias.It’s come to light in the last year that the Beeb has either given the green light to this behaviour or has just been very lazy in any scrutiny of it.There has to be some answer by Tim Davie on this, it’s not going to go away.

Excuse me?

Where did you get the idea that I think 'this' is about the BBC and Trump? Or that when I expressly said I am 'not making excuses' I was excusing what has happened? I don't think (and never said) that 'this' will go away. Please don't put words into my mouth or ascribe motives I don't have. I offered a (possibly naive) way to deal with the impossibility of holding one person responsible for all the output of something the size of the BBC. I would hate the BBC to lose its licence, as if it did the entire media would be funded by vested interests of one form or another.

My first point, made by others too, is that comparing the BBC and Trump is comparing apples and pears, and my second is that yes, the BBC has been atrociously biased in its presentation of trans issues, but as an explanation, not an excuse I think it's important to look at the way Stonewall operated, which was to infiltrate large organisations and build policy. Their power is waning (thank goodness) but it will take time for their legacy to work through.

Matt’s take today!

I am not trying to tell you anything, Wyllow.

The point of this thread is the manipulation and lies by the BBC with specific reference to a particular speech made by Donald Trump.
This is like trying to mark an essay where the student refuses to address the question and persists in pursuing their own agenda, connected but not relevant to the particular subject.
You are perfectly free to start a different thread on a topic which interests you.

The BBC has been accused of ignoring a second memo alleging bias in its reporting of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Sir Vernon Bogdanor, the author of the memo and a constitutional expert, has called on Tim Davie to resign with “immediate effect” as director-general of the BBC.

The eminent academic, a former professor of government at the University of Oxford, said the broadcaster had “ignored internal reports” that had made allegations of distortion and bias in its journalism.

100 BBC staff complained of pro Israel bias in the Gaza war. They wanted an explanation from Tim Davie.
Time he went.

Media outlets and Politicians who tell lies, why would anyone claim to admire them?

The start of this Thread, which was a Poster calling out lies by the BBC, has grown and developed to embrace other media sources.
That's the dynamic and appeal of Gransnet.
You can be constantly amazed, and educated, and for some Posters, it would seem, annoyed, by the range and diversity of the posts.
Threads that are simply echo chambers, no matter how worthy the subject, fade away.
Happened recently to the Sudan Thread.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Matt’s take today!

Alors, quelle surprise. 🙄 🤣

Oh come on!
Matt jokes are always good 😁