Grendel
Well-Known Member
Who in any media capacity agrees with you? I’ve not actually seen anyone defend it.
Why am I not surprised you think so
Being upset with him being shown saying something he said given what happened right after is just a bit odd in my opinion
Countless Trump interviews have been favourably edited in his favour without comment by his sycophants on here.I don’t care much for Trump so ‘being upset’ is a little OTT. I am concerned about how people consume media/information these days though and it appears more and more that as long as it aligns with their thinking on a subject, it doesn’t matter if it’s wholly accurate/factual. We’re on a slippery slope
Countless Trump interviews have been favourably edited in his favour without comment by his sycophants of which I am the biggest.
It's obviously not good to mislead by way of the edit but we're talking about something here that was years after the event and not exactly presenting something that was a million miles away from the truth.Countless Trump interviews have been favourably edited in his favour without comment by his sycophants on here.
For people who already have an axe to grind with the BBC and have their noses rammed up Trump's arse it's a wet dream.It's obviously not good to mislead by way of the edit but we're talking about something here that was years after the event and not exactly presenting something that was a million miles away from the truth.
Yet this has people up in arms, people who I suspect did not take similar issue to the Newsnight having to issue an apology after stating Corbyn had never apologised for anti-semistism in the Labour Party or the numerous errors in Panorama's 'Is Labour Antisemitic'. Just two of I'm sure many examples that spring to mind
So you are OK with politicians speeches being cut & pasted in whatever way the BBC wish to portray someone so they appear to have said something they did not?Being upset with him being shown saying something he said given what happened right after is just a bit odd in my opinion
The entire speech was designed to whip up the insurrection. I know we want a revisionist history of the election and the riots he incited but getting someone at the BBC to resign because his words were broadcast isn't the way to achieve it.BBC director general Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness resign over Trump documentary edit - BBC News
"BBC director general Tim Davie and CEO of News Deborah Turness have resigned over a documentary about Donald Trump
The Telegraph had published details of a leaked internal BBC memo suggesting Panorama edited two parts of Trump's speech together so he appeared to explicitly encourage the Capitol Hill riots of January 2021
In a statement, Davie says: "There have been some mistakes made and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility" - read it in full
"The whole board respects the decision," the BBC chair says
The leaked memo came from Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the broadcaster's editorial standards committee. He left the role in June
Davie's departure after five years as boss follows other separate BBC controversies in recent months, including of its Glastonbury coverage"
Nandy says BBC must 'uphold highest standards' but warns against 'sustained attack' on corporation
The culture secretary tells MPs the BBC "has faced criticism from all sides", as Donald Trump threatens to sue for $1bn over a documentary edit.www.bbc.com
I guess BSB's judgement is flawed.
The entire speech was designed to whip up the insurrection. I know we want a revisionist history of the election and the riots he incited but getting someone at the BBC to resign because his words were broadcast isn't the way to achieve it.
As are you it seems. The complaint is that this editing 'made it look' like Trump was encouraging the insurrection. The point of the rally and his whole speech was to do just that.Still missing the point
Its a dream for anyone who wants their news reported truthfully, and without any political bias or agenda.For people who already have an axe to grind with the BBC and have their noses rammed up Trump's arse it's a wet dream.
Yes the problem there is that if the news contains things you don't agree with you assume it's because of bias rather than because that's how it is. By most measures the BBC is about as impartial as it gets.Its a dream for anyone who wants their news reported truthfully, and without any political bias or agenda.
So I fully welcome this outcome.
Now let's get rid of the licence fee.
Then we should hold ALL news sources to account. I very much doubt that the BBC is the only corrupt news outlet, but its well known for its bias, so I think that the Trump speech edit was just the final straw.Yes the problem there is that if the news contains things you don't agree with you assume it's because of bias rather than because that's how it is. By most measures the BBC is about as impartial as it gets.
All you can do is deflect, I am not arguing about Trump I am arguing about the lack of ethics at the BBC.The entire speech was designed to whip up the insurrection. I know we want a revisionist history of the election and the riots he incited but getting someone at the BBC to resign because his words were broadcast isn't the way to achieve it.
Lack of ethics? Which news organisations in the country are more reputable in your view?All you can do is deflect, I am not arguing about Trump I am arguing about the lack of ethics at the BBC.
As are you it seems. The complaint is that this editing 'made it look' like Trump was encouraging the insurrection. The point of the rally and his whole speech was to do just that.
So what is?That’s not the issue
There are too many people at the BBC who believe it's okay to lie for their political or religious beliefs who think they are ethically, morally and intellectually superior to everyone else.So what is?
Ah, because they reported things contrary to your Covid conspiracies?There are too many people at the BBC who believe it's okay to lie for their political or religious beliefs who think they are ethically, morally and intellectually superior to everyone else.
The BBC is broken, I lost most of my trust in them 5 years ago, of course I knew even then they were prone to misrepresenting the truth when it suited and that's historically been the case from it's inception.
You may have similar tendencies or simply lack true wisdom.
So what is?
Doctored a speech-did they depict him saying words he didn’t say?They doctored a speech - it’s something that is a direct breach of guidelines. It was obvious he had to go.
It is unacceptable and what makes it really annoying it that it was completely unnecessary. Even if you play the speech in it's entirety it still comes across as someone trying to encourage an insurrection.Whatever people’s view of Trump they should find this as totally unacceptable. I expect to have to take everything I read on social media and even normal media/press with a pinch of salt….everything’s an opinion piece these days, even when it should just be reporting. But the bbc ?!
‘The episode of Panorama, broadcast eight days before last year’s presidential election, appeared to show Trump urging his supporters to march with him on Washington to “fight like hell”. In fact, he said he would accompany them “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. The “fight like hell” comment came later in his speech.’
Trump speaks enough shit not to have to make stuff up. Makes you wonder what other stuff on different subjects they might have ‘tweaked’
When the likes of Fox and GBN get even close to the standards the BBC currently reach, then we can talk about organisations being truthful and without political bias or agenda.Its a dream for anyone who wants their news reported truthfully, and without any political bias or agenda.
So I fully welcome this outcome.
Now let's get rid of the licence fee.
You must be very concerned about the rise of GB News?Its a dream for anyone who wants their news reported truthfully, and without any political bias or agenda.
I'll give it a try and see.You must be very concerned about the rise of GB News?
Someone's got to take one for the team, might as well be me.Its a dream for anyone who wants their news reported truthfully, and without any political bias or agenda.
I think Boris rocketed into the news when he chose to front Brexit. That was clearly a politically motivated career move. Nothing to do with the BBC's coverage. Every news source covered him almost every night because he literally became the news.When the likes of Fox and GBN get even close to the standards the BBC currently reach, then we can talk about organisations being truthful and without political bias or agenda.
Don't forget it's the likes of the BBC giving Farage far more airtime than his polling suggested he deserved as to why he's so prominent. And why Boris went from being just another right wing hack to a major media personality.
Im struggling tbh, there's examples of bias everywhere you look unfortunately. But it goes to a completely different level when im forced to pay for an organisation who re-edits a world leaders speech to fit their own agenda.Someone's got to take one for the team, might as well be me.
Where are you going for your news that is without any political bias or agenda?
He became more into the public notice after appearing on HIGNFY. He was already well known far before Brexit, being London MajorI think Boris rocketed into the news when he chose to front Brexit. That was clearly a politically motivated career move. Nothing to do with the BBC's coverage. Every news source covered him almost every night because he literally became the news.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?