BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

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.

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?

I don't want beyond reproach, that isn't possible, I want them to begin to acknowledge that due to a bias that they struggle even to recognise ( based on class and a form of groupthink, not party politics) they have got quite a lot wrong, as I have said the Trump issue isn't for me the biggest concern within the report, there are many other concerns.

David49- do you believe anything created by or run by human beings can be "beyond reproach"? Is that even possible? On what basis can the BBC be held to your standard or being "beyond reproach"? Beyond reproach meaning such that no criticism, mistake or error is ever made. In this case, that all editing decisions are viewed as 100% correct, 100% impartial by 100% of people's perceptions"?

"Beyond reproach" is a subjective standard- what one person believes is beyond reproach another may not, as this post has shown in spades. This is a concept a Florida court may need to grapple with if Trump pursues his claim to that stage. Being "beyond reproach" also depends on perception and context, with many and possibly polarised, differing opinions, again as shown by the responses on this post. I challenge you to name any other media outlet or broadcaster, anywhere that does perform "beyond reproach and how is that evidenced/measured"?

Neither isa 'beyond reproach" expectation written into the BBC Charter to my knowledge.

There needs to be systems in place to ensure integrity, accountability and audit and peer review of, say editing decisions, to withstand vigorous critique and to guard against systemic bias. That's the best you can reasonably hope for, to strive towards impartiality. Perfection does not exist.

GG- I agree- no broadcaster should be so connected to a political party. I fear for the MAGA and Reform alliance and the right wing Trump propaganda that may follow so as to stir up further division. That may send the UK closer to the rising civil unrest we are witnessing in the US.

The BBC has never been closely affiliated to any political party in this way and long may that remain the case.

Ronib- I'm still interested in your assertion "It’s unacceptable for the BBC to interfere in the affairs of another country by spreading misinformation and why do they?"- are you willing to explain?

Bias is prevalent in UK media with newspapers often openly endorsing particular political parties. During elections newspapers openly endorse one political party over others. The BBC, to my knowledge, has never endorsed any particular party in this way. It's well evidenced that people's perception of bias is tied to their own political identity.

This OP challenges the BBC on truth (facts), bias and corruption allegations. The BBC performs higher than the majority, if not all media outlets on bias and reported facts. Bias and lack of fact reporting, if prevalent, leads to corruption.

I agree we should be aware of the bias and political leanings (bias) of every media outlet. Performance of each can be found on the website Mediabiasfactcheck.com. In this way we be more aware of propaganda. I expect news outlets, despite their various levels of bias, to report facts rather than knowingly publish factually inaccurate propaganda....

The day we stop expecting truth is a sad day for us all.

David49 I agree that the BBC should be impartial and beyond reproach.

As for GB News I was replying to a post by LemonJam and I stand by my post.

GrannyGravy13

LemonJam I do not think that any broadcaster should be so connected with a political party or movement.

GB News is a British broadcaster and should not align itself with any American party.

GB news is about as credible as the Daily Mail, it’s not the BBC, which is supposed to be impartial and beyond reproach

Good point ronib, but the right say left bias, and the left say right bias, about the BBC

If we just recognise the various political affiliations of news outlets that will help decipher the bias. And to stop expecting the truth.

LemonJam I do not think that any broadcaster should be so connected with a political party or movement.

GB News is a British broadcaster and should not align itself with any American party.

Ronib 07.58 "It’s unacceptable for the BBC to interfere in the affairs of another country by spreading misinformation and why do they?".

I won't comment on the assertion that the BBC was spreading "misinformation"- as that assertion has already been addressed many times by multiple Gransnetters sharing their opposing views.

Ronib, BBC Panorama programme, not broadcasted or available in the uS contained an edited speech by Trump, over 3 years earlier. Edits of this same speech had been reported at the time and many times since, globally. Trump did say the words were spoken in the edit, he used the words "fighting or fight" over 20 times in the speech, and the BBC has apologised for its editing error.

So in what way specifically was "the BBC interfering in the affairs of the US"? The Panarama programme was about Trump's imminent election campaign. This was of great interest surely to many, globally at the time. Are you suggesting the programme was in itself "interfering in the affairs of the US' or that the speech as edited, was so partisan or impartial that lead to interfering in the affairs of the US.

It's a topical question.as Trump welcomed a GB News delegation recently, including Farage, to the White House Oval Office. Trump and MAGA support was confirmed for GB news along with backing to support GB news' stateside launch, with a new nightly GB news programme "The Late show Live".

Karoline Leavitt said that GB news shared "the values this administration holds dear: Free Speech, that men can not be women, secure borders- we don't want aliens invading our countries". She confirmed GB news has now been granted access to the White House press briefing room. Howard Lutnick urged GB news to "control that narrative" in the UK. Farage told guests the GB news coverage would "change perceptions of who Trump is " in the UK and Europe".

Alan McCormick, the GB news chairman went further "Britain has been infected by a mind virus that sees no value in place, family, in community, in love of country and these views have been reinforced by an establishment media who have suppressed any alternative view points".

So we now have an overt extreme right wing political alliance between Reform Party Leader and MAGA that will result in overtly promoting in both countries, joined up media reporting of partisan, political views and opinions. Mega and Reform have overtly declared their disdain for and ambition to go against "establishment" media.

What do people think about this?

David49

Casdon

ronib

If the BBC sticks to reporting that is an improvement?

Yes, on issues of fact. It’s important that investigative journalism is still part of the remit of all news channels too, otherwise scandals would not be exposed.

The BBC goes well beyond reporting the facts, on some topics it reports a balanced view, but on many others it has a definite bias, Gaza is just one example, wokery is another, a very liberal agenda.

I agree. However, the BBC has also been responsible for any number of exposés of corrupt and dangerous systems, both in the UK and abroad. Selective viewing and multiple sources is always the answer.

Casdon

ronib

If the BBC sticks to reporting that is an improvement?

Yes, on issues of fact. It’s important that investigative journalism is still part of the remit of all news channels too, otherwise scandals would not be exposed.

The BBC goes well beyond reporting the facts, on some topics it reports a balanced view, but on many others it has a definite bias, Gaza is just one example, wokery is another, a very liberal agenda.

ronib

If the BBC sticks to reporting that is an improvement?

Yes, on issues of fact. It’s important that investigative journalism is still part of the remit of all news channels too, otherwise scandals would not be exposed.

If the BBC sticks to reporting that is an improvement?

The BBC's job is to tell us in this country (and to anyone elsewhere who tunes in) what is happening here and elsewhere in the world. They are pretty good at that.

Is it up to the BBC to force a foreign country to act in a morally responsible manner? Is it not the actual business of that country - the opposition there and its own media?

They would have done better to insert a fade-out and fade-back-in between the two parts of the video and let any continuity be in the minds of viewers.

ronib

As much as I dislike Starmer, I wouldn’t like foreign news outlets to fabricate stories about him. It’s unacceptable for the BBC to interfere in the affairs of another country by spreading misinformation and why do they?

They didn't fabricate that he did say both parts of the speech (the way deepfakers fabricate video of lots of celebrities). They removed what was between the two parts so that one seemed to follow on from the other. That is not acceptable, and they have apologised for it, but don't confuse it with actually inventing that he said both parts.

He DID say what he said, he DID encourage the insurrection, he DID do nothing when asked to intervene, he DID pardon those involved and since then he has sanctioned various unconstitutional and illegal acts.

If this does result in the BBC being sued for slander and destrying his reputation, it seems to me they have a strong defence in asking "What reputation?"

Dubliners and Ulysses are quite racy DAR

Well, reading this thread I agree with Galaxy that quite a few posters seem to equate any anger/annoyance with the BBC for false editing and bias with supporting Trump.
The two things are different and distinct.