David Attenborough suppressed

Oreo, you mean about the rapid cover-up insisting that the BBC never intended to show the episode, only to have it as a 'bonus' on iPlayer?

This would appear to be news to the production team. Why not show it as part of the series anyway? BBC series have come in blocks of 6 weeks for as long as I can remember because the broadcasting year breaks like that. So why a series of only 5 of one of the BBC's most successful, most watched and most lucrative assets.

I will take a lot of convincing yet that this decision over an episode that is critical of the environmental destruction caused by industrial farming and maintaining shooting estates for "sport" isn't driven by powerful landowning interests close to the government. And I don't give much credence to rushed-out press releases issued when the BBC is in a spot of bother.

I note in passing that Paul Dacre owns a Scottish grouse estate.

Everyone watches iPlayer so it’s hardly a cover up or hidden in any way at all.

If you want to see the programme look on iplayer. No suppression.

Everyone does not watch iplayer.

I'm very surprised at this reason given. Think it would enrage those on the left wing more. Countless gov have brought in disastrous policies towards the production of food, in this country, the blame being laid at the Farmers, by people such as Attenborough. The damage is now trying to be turned around, yes by Farmers.

Oreo

Read the other thread on this subject before getting outraged.

Both say the same, and they both outrage me!

Well said, Freya.

It'll take more than the Beeb to 'suppress' David Attenborough. I don't believe he is suppressible except perhaps by death, like the rest of us. But he will live on in his programmes.

Most people can watch I player if and only if they have a smart TV, but thats not the point. Unless you are a specific Attenborough fan, or have another programme you have "bookmarked" to watch, most people turn the TV on so's to see "what's on" on the listings. Ditto online on the Radio Times Website.

The Attenborough programme will disappear from the listings, won't they? Its really disingenuous to say "but people have access".

What makes me really sad it that the defenders of this decision seem to be backing the reasons the programme was taken down/moved.

It's a programme that explores the effect of big business and financial interests n the climate.

It was those interests that "pulled" the programme.

Are people really happy with that?

Why not show this on main steam? The reason given does not stack up.

Why would they make an episode that wasn't intended for showing, and five episodes in place of the usual six sounds odd.
I think the BBC are scared about loosing the licence fee.

The licence fee is paid to them by individuals, not by the Government. Which individuals do you think would find David Attenbororough's programme offensive and stop paying their fee?

Jane71

Why would they make an episode that wasn't intended for showing, and five episodes in place of the usual six sounds odd.
I think the BBC are scared about loosing the licence fee.

I gathered from upthread somewhere that the sixth so-called "episode" was made by the RSPB and other groups, not by the BBC.

The BBC needs to develop some backbone and see off politicians of both Right and Left. Both major Parties have pressurised the BBC and it needs to be called out.

This is all surmise, speculation, Chinese whispers as to how this extra added episode was made, by who, and where it was going to be shown.If it was made by the BBC and was originally intended to be shown on BBC1 and it was sidelined then that truth will come out.Until it does I’m ok with it being on iplayer.

The BBC could show the whole Wild Isles series on iPlayer only, and there's a lot of very good BBC content these days that's only for streaming. That's probably the future. But there are still a lot of people who only have Freeview and anything by David Attenborough is a high-profile, high-status media event. So why deny part of it to a big slice of the TV audience because it would make some farmers angry? I understand that part of the controversial episode is devoted to farmers who are working alongside nature instead of in conflict with it.

Jane71

Why would they make an episode that wasn't intended for showing, and five episodes in place of the usual six sounds odd.
I think the BBC are scared about loosing the licence fee.

There arent always 6 episodes in every drama on the BBC

Or any type of programme, be it drama, comedy or wildlife.

Sounds like an own goal to me, as the episode will be available on i-player, which begs the question why on earth would you remove it from terrestrial? Totally pointless, and will probably increase i-player viewings enormously, so the result may well be much wider viewing rather than the so-called "suppression". Mind you, if they rethink and then decide to also remove it from i-player that will be a whole different ball game, and will certainly pandor to those who are profiting from practises which are harming the environment.

Maybe that was the idea micmc47 to show the last one on iplayer to appeal to a younger audience as well as anyone else.

"As well as" is fine, "instead of" is not. There should be a wider audience for such programmes, not a narrower one.

Just watching Paul Whitehouse and the 2nd programme about the state of our rivers.Pulling no punches about the run off from farming and how its affecting our waterways and wildlife.So why not show the final episode of DAs Wild Isles ? I shall certainly watch it on Iplayer.

Orea - There aren't always 6 episodes in every drama on the BBC

Please don't twist my words Orea. I said its usual: quite a different thing.

I think it was announced that it would be available on I Player. So people have to actively seek it out, which seems very much like preaching to the converted.

It reminds me of the film Don't Look Up which was ostensibly about the catastrophic collision with earth of a previously unrecorded comet, warnings of which were ignored by most individuals and organisations, including the media. Some felt it could be re-interpreted as symbolising the media's current reluctance to treat the earth's climate crisis with any real sense of urgency.

In this instance, although many people insist the BBC has a left wing bias, such a decision appears to be influenced by those on the right who question man-made global warming and the need to take strong measures to protect the environment.

I generally find Fiona Bruce's interventions in Question Time to be useful and fair. But I agree that her remark that Stanley Johnson, who Yasmin Alibhai-Brown had described as a "wife beater", had "only broken his wife's nose once" was mind boggling and totally inappropriate.

Freya5

I'm very surprised at this reason given. Think it would enrage those on the left wing more. Countless gov have brought in disastrous policies towards the production of food, in this country, the blame being laid at the Farmers, by people such as Attenborough. The damage is now trying to be turned around, yes by Farmers.

Attenborough has contributed to the hatred of farmers but has gone over the top and it’s not balanced it’s not reasonable.

We dont have thousands of the population dying of food poisoning and even now our food is the cheapest on the planet. The one major health risk associated with food is obesity which leads to diabetes, yet most of the population ignore that.