BBC expected to apologise for doctoring Trump videos

MayBee70

So why is it still ok for newspapers to print blatant lies on their front pages?

It isnt!

MayBee70

So why is it still ok for newspapers to print blatant lies on their front pages?

It’s not, they should be held to account for any lies printed.

Two wrongs or ten, dont make any of it right.

But nobody resigns over it. Sometimes a couple of sentences on a back page apologising but that’s it. By which time the lies are believed by everyone.

I think this one is surprising[and i feel actually shocked], is because,[if you are able to see the before original part of the speech, and what it was changed to, I would], because it was so changed. By the BBC.

MayBee70

But nobody resigns over it. Sometimes a couple of sentences on a back page apologising but that’s it. By which time the lies are believed by everyone.

Some things are a matter of interpretation.
And viewpoint.

But I take your point.

Whitewavemark2

I re- watched the BBC edited speech by Trump.

I watched the whole of January 6th live, at the time, and the message I took from Trumps speech on the day, was exactly the same as the edited BBC piece, as did the murderous mob who caused mayhem and insurrection as Trumps behest.

All media from tv, radio to all newspapers edit. It’s what they do. At the time it was not questioned although people would be aware of the edit.

It was the message that was important in this instant which was “fight like hell”

It was shocking at the time and continues to be so, however much push back from the Trump supporters. History cannot easily be re-written, when it is so shocking as Jan 6th

An "edit" quite like this one?

Really?

^Making a fuss about an edit which in no way alters the truth of what happened at the Capitol is opportunist political point scoring.6

Did it not?

I do not think the meaning of what he was saying was altered at all. That was clear at the time and is clear now.

Really?

I dont tend to listen all the way through long speeches.

But I do expect them to have all the words in the right places and right order.
Perhaps such things dont happen any more??

Crikey.

The corporation's CEO of News, Deborah Turness, has also resigned!

Reacting to the resignations of Tim Davie and Deborah Turness, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said:

“Tim Davie’s and Deborah Turness’s resignations must be seen as the beginning, rather than the end, of a process of renewal. Deep cultural change will be necessary to once again restore trust in one of our nation’s most cherished institutions.”

And to think the BBC had the brass neck to hold themselves up as the adjudicator of truth with their Verify section!

Wonder what the golden goodbyes are? Pensions?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

And to think the BBC had the brass neck to hold themselves up as the adjudicator of truth with their Verify section!

Do you want to see all media outlets held responsible for the accuracy of their documentaries and news output FriedGreenTomatoes2?

The whataboutery on this thread is just unbelievable.
Of course most people would endorse all media outlets being held to account for the accuracy and transparency of their news output. That people feel some outlets haven't been held to account does not excuse the BBC from its responsibilities, especially as it alone amongst UK media outlets is publicly funded by compulsory licence.

The whataboutery is no less relevant than either the inane comments or the witch-hunt Rosie51. Has anybody suggested that the BBC is not accountable for what happened? Some of us see beyond the BBC and apply the same level of scrutiny to other media outlets, that is all.

^ Has anybody suggested that the BBC is not accountable for what happened? Some of us see beyond the BBC and apply the same level of scrutiny to other media outlets, that is all.^

But it sort of isnt.

Because often, the first part is never acknowledged.
Not just by you, but some others as well.

I have got now that I just guess the first part, in things like this, to be true.

Well enough on here are absolving the BBC of any wrongdoing at all Casdon. Post after post saying "well that's what Trump meant so it didn't change anything" And those of us who want honesty, integrity and transparency from the BBC (as well as all the other media outlets) in all areas, not just this transgression are accused of sympathising with Trump not the people who died or were injured in the rioting. An especially low (and inaccurate) blow.

Do you need it spelt out, fancythat? I think saying that I think all media outlets should have the same level of scrutiny as the BBC makes it clear that I think the BBC should be scrutinised. I object to the level of Gransnet debate about it and other news topics being pitched at a tabloid headline level, and people objecting about when others want to discuss the issues in more detail, or more broadly, that’s all.

Do you need it spelt out, fancythat?

Definitely.

Yes, agree that all media should be held to the same amount of scrutiny.

Which newscaster should we check out next?

the same level of scrutiny

Surely that’s what Ofcom are for Casdon?
So far not a peep about others.

Casdon

FriedGreenTomatoes2

And to think the BBC had the brass neck to hold themselves up as the adjudicator of truth with their Verify section!

Do you want to see all media outlets held responsible for the accuracy of their documentaries and news output FriedGreenTomatoes2?

Of course. Otherwise I’d be biased.

Well I complained to the Press council about a totally fictional headline in a major newspaper that said an action had been taken when actually the exact opposite had taken place.
The answer was that the fiction (deliberate lie) was corrected further on in the article so it was not inaccurate as a whole and merited no retraction.

When I took it further to protest that social media comments showed that most people had only read the headline and now believed that was the truth, my complaint was rejected again.

So yes all media should be held to account. And I’m pleased that there has been some action to deal with the BBCs manipulation of facts.