BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

As for who to vote for in a GE, I see how all the parties behave nearer the time.
Plus who the Leader is at the time.

I take virtually no notice whatsoever of any manifesto.
They are not worth the paper they are written on.

Why people still quote those, I have no idea.

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

Maremia

So Led by Donkeys is in the right, but on the left.

Some people think that GB News is correct in its view, that is their prerogative.

I am currently unable to support any political party in the U.K.

My DH asked me yesterday who I would vote for in a GE if one were to be held soon (though I do think that is highly unlikely)

It was a difficult question to answer.

It is Maizie, and I totally understand where you are coming from GrannyGravy13 but, frustrating as it is, we do need to be patient and watch how things develop.

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

Maremia

So Led by Donkeys is in the right, but on the left.

Some people think that GB News is correct in its view, that is their prerogative.

I am currently unable to support any political party in the U.K.

My DH asked me yesterday who I would vote for in a GE if one were to be held soon (though I do think that is highly unlikely)

It was a difficult question to answer.

I have voted in previous GE for our incumbent MP, as they have been exceptional locally.

Now I am mindful of the overall political mess the U.K. is experiencing, and I have no idea.

GrannyGravy13

Maremia

So Led by Donkeys is in the right, but on the left.

Some people think that GB News is correct in its view, that is their prerogative.

I am currently unable to support any political party in the U.K.

My DH asked me yesterday who I would vote for in a GE if one were to be held soon (though I do think that is highly unlikely)

It was a difficult question to answer.

You don't need to just yet GrannyGravy13.

Maremia

So Led by Donkeys is in the right, but on the left.

Some people think that GB News is correct in its view, that is their prerogative.

I am currently unable to support any political party in the U.K.

DaisyAnneReturns

Allira you can and in many cases must be able to be "truly impartial". Impartiality has to be systematic and disciplined and is often used to create the sort of ethical and professional stands required to run a company like the BBC, in research or to ensure justice in the law. It’s about consistently avoiding your bias influencing your decisions.

Bias is human and natural. It can be based on anything from ignorance to great knowledge, environment, experience or learning and probably many other things besides but, in order to be impartial you have to recognise and understand your own bias so you can be fair in a situation that requires impartiality.

I agree, they should but how many in positions of power (not the political arena, obviously) manage that?
Even sub-consciously, their bias may well come through.

That's why having people from different backgrounds is important to provide a balance.

So Led by Donkeys is in the right, but on the left.

Eloethan, like you I hadn't heard of this latest "closeness" created by Trump for an opposition group in the UK. Thank you for highlighting Lemonjam's detailed and informative post.

Also anti Brexit.

Led by Donkeys, despite allegedly being non-political is on the left of centre in its bias along with being anti populist.

Started by Greenpeace activists and funded on the whole by crowdfunding and donations.

Applauded by some, derided by others.

Allira you can and in many cases must be able to be "truly impartial". Impartiality has to be systematic and disciplined and is often used to create the sort of ethical and professional stands required to run a company like the BBC, in research or to ensure justice in the law. It’s about consistently avoiding your bias influencing your decisions.

Bias is human and natural. It can be based on anything from ignorance to great knowledge, environment, experience or learning and probably many other things besides but, in order to be impartial you have to recognise and understand your own bias so you can be fair in a situation that requires impartiality.

I think Lemonjam has made some very good observations. Although I was well aware Reform and GB News have a right wing agenda, I did not realise the degree of their interconnectedness with the US's current administration.
I think if we are talking about biased news, the BBC is the least of our worries.

I am pretty sure that if we examined all the political footage and commentary across the decades, we would find many examples of editing and visual representations that could be questioned. For instance, I recall that on, I think, Newsnight, the commentary about Jeremy Corbyn was accompanied by an accompanying illustration of JC wearing a Russian hat with murky red mist behind him - it didn't take a genius to work out what was being suggested. Although complaints were made, there was no great media hoo ha and, from my recollection, no apology. Of course, Corbyn and most ordinary people, are not in the position to mount very costly legal suits and hire teams of expensive lawyers.

Maremia

Thanks Maizie D. For any who require further information about Robbie Gibbs, who is suspected to have orchestrated the whole blow up, then look for the video produced by Led by Donkeys.

The Lead by Donkeys film is very good. As usual

Allira

Maremia

Thanks Maizie D. For any who require further information about Robbie Gibbs, who is suspected to have orchestrated the whole blow up, then look for the video produced by Led by Donkeys.

Oh, is he? Interesting.

I suppose no-one can be truly impartial but his previous history is well-documented.
If people from a wide political spectrum are employed by the BBC then that is probably the best we can hope for because, even if people have not been involved in politics previously, they are bound to have their personal political views, all of which makes impartiality difficult.

I would agree with you, Allira, about the 'wide spread of political views'. I also think that it is impossible to appoint personnel without political views because everyone has them. But they are supposed to leave those views at the door and endeavour to minimise their bias in the name of impartiality. Which is why, perhaps, it's not appropriate for government appoint those with known strong political views (for instance, Gibb made no secret of his politics and his declared 'mission')

One feels that a government, in doing so, is expecting the BBC to be a 'government' broadcaster rather than an impartial public broadcaster.

Maremia

Thanks Maizie D. For any who require further information about Robbie Gibbs, who is suspected to have orchestrated the whole blow up, then look for the video produced by Led by Donkeys.

Oh, is he? Interesting.

I suppose no-one can be truly impartial but his previous history is well-documented.
If people from a wide political spectrum are employed by the BBC then that is probably the best we can hope for because, even if people have not been involved in politics previously, they are bound to have their personal political views, all of which makes impartiality difficult.

Thanks Maizie D. For any who require further information about Robbie Gibbs, who is suspected to have orchestrated the whole blow up, then look for the video produced by Led by Donkeys.

DaisyAnneReturns

Maremia it would help if you let us know which comment your posts relate to? At the moment you appear to be having a conversation with yourself.

I know what she's talking about. There has been a great deal of murmurings about and outright criticisms of Robbie Gibb's political bias over the years since he was appointed a BBC governor by Johnson in 2021.

He is a strong Thatcherite (pro privatisation?) and declared that his mission at the BBC was to get rid oof 'woke'. Woke being a nebulous and vaguely designed concept (replacing the equally nebulous 'political correctness') and has been weaponised in the right v left culture war.

He was press secretary to Theresa May, her 'Alistair Campbell' as it were (and who would approve of Campbell being a BBC governor?), was very much involved in the setting up of GB News, a channel that no-one could possibly call 'impartial')
And, which I think is germane to Prescott's accusation of the BBC being anti semitic in its Gaza coverage, he led the consortium which purchased the Jewish Chronicle and at Companies House was the only person named as director of the company which owned it for a couple of years. (In fact, curiously for a media operation, the actual owner of the paper is still unknown).

It was Gibb who placed Prescott, a friend, on the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board and it is noticeable that, despite his assurance of being 'non partisan' the complaints in his report tend to have a right wing bias.

Various former BBC journalists and producers have spoken of Gibbs appearing to have blocked programmes which might be critical of the then tory government and it is remarked that as he is one of the few governors with journalist experience it is possible that the other governors give more weight to his opinions than is merited.

this is based on things I have read; I might well be accused of a left wing bias. But make up your own minds.

Maremia it would help if you let us know which comment your posts relate to? At the moment you appear to be having a conversation with yourself.

How 'impartial' is Robbie Gibb?

eazybee

Impartiality is written into the BBC charter, and the BBC have clearly shown bias.
They could be above reproach if they had acted on Michael Prescott's report, reprimanded the person or persons responsible for the doctoring of Trump's speech and investigated the other matters of concern.
Instead they ignored the Report, ignored the crisis and when compelled sent an insultingly lame half-hearted apology .
It was not a mistake, neither was it an error; it was a deliberate distortion of a recorded speech, and for what purpose?

Impartiality is indeed written into the rules of production for the BBC. However, no person is unbiased. This broadcast showed bias which, had it been explained as how some people hear what Trump said, and allowed to be challenged by other views on the speech, would still have kept it within the impartiality rules. The two words are not interchangeable. That's why Judges can judge. They may have a personal bias but they follow the law. The law is a set of rules. Perhaps it is the BBC's rules that are the problem. They may well be as often their only answer has been to produce Nigel Farage. That really isn't impartiality.

Also, has anyone seen the whole piece. Was it explained? Did they give the alternative argument? I have no idea. Does anyone offering their opinion on this thread know?

Trump has just given the world the phrase to use to excuse 'wrong doing', and the BBC just has to use it back to him.
'Things happen' was what he said when discussing his important guest MBS's involvement with the kidnapping, murder and dismemberment of the journalist Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Turkey.
'Things happen'

They're pretty good at investigating vape crime as well.

BBC have apologised for Princess of Wales being introduced as Kate Middleton in a 11th November live broadcast, all the BBC has to do is say ‘sorry’

If they carry on ignoring the report, it wont bode well.

Unless the final decision is biased as well.

In which case, I think the writing would be on the wall.