Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
But having that funding model increases the likelihood of bias and agenda, because you're going to listen and parrot what the people giving you the money want.
But having that funding model increases the likelihood of bias and agenda, because you're going to listen and parrot what the people giving you the money want.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.
At least im not forced to fund ITV news or Sky news or Fox news etc etc.
Very interesting opening remark you make, what "team" would you be taking one for i wonder?
Did they show him saying something that in fact he didn’t? Did they make it look like the speech was intended for something different to what it really was?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.
At least im not forced to fund ITV news or Sky news or Fox news etc etc.
Very interesting opening remark you make, what "team" would you be taking one for i wonder?
...and then released a song with them, pardoned them and released them from prison.Didn't Trump say in the aftermath, of those who partook in the deadly assault that "We love you all, but it's time to go home now"?
Not exactly unequivocal condemnation of an assault on democracy hey?
I think when people talk of getting rid of the BBC, which is essentially what you're saying if you want to get rid of the license fee, its very much a case of be careful what you wish for.But having that funding model increases the likelihood of bias and agenda, because you're going to listen and parrot what the people giving you the money want.
Did they show him saying something that in fact he didn’t? Did they make it look like the speech was intended for something different to what it really was?
The answer to both questions is no.
Why do the edit at all then?
because his word salad rambles can last for hours
Because they didn’t want that episode of Panorama to last three hours probablyWhy do the edit at all then?
The sheer irony of this when the Telegraph, who pushed this story, have been functioning as a Tory propaganda paper for years.This story is not about Trump.
It's about systemic bias in reporting and the wider output of the BBC. They need to address that or they're in cyclical crisis mode and probably on the way out.
Absolute bollocks.Did they show him saying something that in fact he didn’t? Did they make it look like the speech was intended for something different to what it really was?
The answer to both questions is no.
it was an edit of words 54 minutes apart
Because they didn’t want that episode of Panorama to last three hours probably
That can also be true. Two things can be true at once.The sheer irony of this when the Telegraph, who pushed this story, have been functioning as a Tory propaganda paper for years.
Not particularly. To give this some context the speech was on 6th January 2021, there isn't really much dispute apart from some hardcore MAGA supporters that the speech was inflammatory and contributed to the capital riots on 7th January 2021 . While there are some MAGA supporters who dispute that there are others that praise him for encouraging what occurred and his actions since in praising those who took part and pardoning them.I’m also failing to see the issue with this, though admittedly I haven’t seen the programme. Did the edit meaningfully alter what was actually said?
If we’re hopping aboard no editing being allowed then the news every night will be 15 hours long.
The program in question was broadcast on 28th October 2024 so its taken a year, and a leaked memo, for anyone to even mention the edit. You would expect with the speech in its entirety being readily available if there was a big issue it would have come to light quickly.Donald Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech is widely linked to the Capitol breach: investigators, many defendants, and several analyses conclude the speech contributed to the events by repeating false election claims and urging action that many attendees interpreted as permission to march on the Capitol. Defenders cite lines urging peaceful protest and dispute claims of direct incitement, while legal scholars and prosecutors point to the crowd’s reaction and subsequent acts as critical context for assessing criminal liability.
Whatever its shortcomings, and it has plenty, the BBC is still one of the most impartial media organisations we have. People have laughed at this statement without offering a single example of one that does a better job in this respect.That can also be true. Two things can be true at once.
Of course the RW media have it in for the BBC. Doesn't give the BBC a free pass. The arrogance of the BBC commentariat marking their own homework is breathtaking.
What a rebuttal, I’m floored.Absolute bollocks.
Of all the things you can accuse the BBC of, not being sufficiently tough on itself wouldn’t be up there for me.The arrogance of the BBC commentariat marking their own homework is breathtaking.
LINOFor once I find myself agreeing with a Labour MP:
BBC has ‘whole history of bias’
Graham Stringer, a Labour MP, called on the BBC to acknowledge that Mr Davie and Ms Turness resigned because of the corporation’s failings over bias and not because of a stitch-up.
He said: “The fact is the biggest danger to the BBC is the BBC. It’s got a whole history of bias, which it’s just failing to acknowledge. They’ve been the home of Europhiles, going back to the 1999 elections when there was an independent report on their bias in the European elections.
“You can see all the biases from biological nonsense about men and women, to Hamas and Gaza. There’s just so many questions that they are just failing to answer and blaming the Mail and The Telegraph is not going to get them there.”
I'll just leave this here, purely for you and no one else.What a rebuttal, I’m floored.
Haven't you just proved my point, though...
Whatever its shortcomings, and it has plenty, the BBC is still one of the most impartial media organisations we have. People have laughed at this statement without offering a single example of one that does a better job in this respect.
That didn’t take long! Not so concerned then I guess.I'll give it a try and see.
Pick a lane Grendel, the BBC either has a problem with impartiality or it doesn’t.And to preserve that reputation this had to be dealt with
Pick a lane Grendel, the BBC either has a problem with impartiality or it doesn’t.
They haven’t shown him saying words he didn’t say and haven’t misled the audience about the motivation behind the speech or rally.
People are just upset that Trump’s words inciting violence were broadcast because it upsets their revisionist history that the election was actually ‘stolen’ and the rioters did nothing wrong.
You can’t be looking very hard then.I can’t find a single person associated with the media defending this position.
You can’t be looking very hard then.
Explain how it distorts it. My point all along has been that his speech was designed to whip his support up into a frenzy. That’s what he did.You are all over the place.
I can’t find a single person associated with the media defending this position. I was listening to Tessa Dunlop the historian and a fervent Trump critic and she said it’s a disgrace.
It’s editing a speech to distort it.
Explain how it distorts it. My point all along has been that his speech was designed to whip his support up into a frenzy. That’s what he did.
People are upset at the evidence being there in front of them.
Read the transcript of the entire speech (as already posted) and you tell me what his intent was.He said we are going to “walk down the capital with our congressmen and women and cheer like hell” - he said that didn’t he?
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?