The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / BBC Director General Resigns

Comments

  1. I feel that there’s more to the story than is currently being let on – and that Davie has gone for something else. It’ll come out shortly.

    • Yes, this seems to be only one of the criticisms that was made in the report on the BBC’s editorial standards by Michael Prescott, which was leaked to the Telegraph. The others were about alleged bias in the BBC’s coverage of Israel and Transgender issues. He is supposed to give evidence to a parliamentary committee on Wednesday, so maybe it will become clearer if the resignations were necessary.

  3. It’s worse than anyone has acknowledged so far. Consider the following question: why would anyone grant an interview to a BBC journalist when they know that interview could well be edited selectively in order to support a particular political agenda?

    • The obvious agenda is the campaign by the hard right to emasculate any news outlet that has questioned their behaviour – as evidenced by craven liars like Johnson spaffing on about bias. They have been hollowing out the BBC – described by that paragon of principle Cummings as “the enemy of the people” – for years and also went after C4 – it was only terminal ineptitude of Dorries that ensured that withered on the vine.

      The worst thing here is the BBC once again shooting itself in both feet.

        • Of course it matters where they came from – that was precisely my point. It’s being pursued up by those with financial interests in a BBC demise and the popularist bottom feeding politicians that crave less accountability and easier means of punting out their propaganda.

          As to “proof”- if there actually is anything that demonstrates actual bias over ineptitude I’m sure trump will be vindicated in his $1bn law suit and we can look forward to getting our future political insights from the always impartial GB News.

            • Ruddy heck, if that was thought to be ‘skilled’ and to demonstrate ‘precision and intent’ then whoever held that view has no idea what they are doing, and needs to go. Cock-up probability theory applies here I think, implying ineptitude of Olympic scale.

              • I’m just guessing but is it feasible that whoever was handed the job of editing the clip in question was instructed that the edit had to be of an exact duration to fit the time alloted to it and the edit made was the best possible option to achieve that objective. In other words not a deliberate decision to skew the footage to make political coinage but simply a technical decision that was poorly conceived without thinking through the possible ramifications.

                • Yes.
                  Of course the edit was done skilfully. The technicians they employ know how to do that. Someone in Production says “make an edit on this bit” and that’s what they do. Skilfully.

                  Intent is quite another matter and I would opine “not proven”.

            • What’s clear cut is that there was an edit.

              What’s a matter for speculation is the intent behind it. Those that arrive pre-disposed to view the BBC as biased – of which there are many on both the left and right – will simply seize on this as the kind of “gotcha” that helps validate their world view.

              • But the opposite is also true, isn’t it?

                Imagine if GB News had made an equivalent edit to footage of a politician we all actually like? There would be universal umbrage and far less excuse making.

                For what it’s worth, I love the BBC and cannot abide Trump and I find it unlikely on balance that the way this was edited was an accident (although I accept we’ll never know for sure).

                It’s the most inflammatory possible combination of two parts of the speech, sewn together and presented without an obvious join. Almost certainly defamatory. Whoever is responsible has absolutely no business being in or around a news organisation, that much is certain.

                • GB News seem to be able to say anything with impunity. Their stories are often based on wild inaccuracies or downright lies.

                  Trump did incite a riot. No matter how much you dice and slice that hour long speech. The BBC are accused of deliberately misleading but what they said was true.

                  Politician interviews and speeches are edited all the time by every news oulet.

                  The BBC fell into a trap, giving their enemies the opportunity to say gotcha! That was daft.

                  • 😳

                    This is about as far from an objective reading of what’s actually happened here as it’s possible to get.

                    The video isn’t true and it is most certainly misleading. If it’s typical of the news you normally ingest then you’re ingesting the wrong news.

                    Reading some of this stuff from intelligent people genuinely makes me worried about where we’re heading, not least because somewhere out there is a MAGA message board where an evil Tiggerlion with a moustache and a uni brow is making all these same arguments in favour of their own preference to have facts massaged to fit what they already know.

                    • The fact is that in Trump’s tiny mind all news about him – even on Fox News sometimes – is fake. He has sued mainstream media 11 times in the past 10 years, including ABC, CNN, CBS and Simon & Schuster – it’s a nice little side hustle for him. The suees (is that a word?) cave because it’s cheaper than going to court. The Beeb will probably follow suit – I hope so anyway, since it’s actually our money that’s going to be handed over to that p.o.s if they lose the case, and the Beeb will end up more hollowed out than ever.

                      But the man bringing this suit is an inveterate liar, serial fraudster and serial sex offender with no reputation to lose, except in the minds of a dwindling number of boot- and arse-lickers. He incited a riot on Jan 6 in which two of his own people died and an unknown number of officers of the law were severely injured, long-term traumatised and in some cases driven to suicide. His inflammatory words to the rabble could easily have led to the murder of his own VP. Let’s not forget either that he pardoned all the rioters.

                      Whatever strategic errors the Beeb did or did not commit, I for one will not allow myself to forget this. Trump is not the victim here.

                    • Ok, but none of that changes the fact that – per the actual post above – the video is untrue, misleading and terrible news work.

                      You guys seem to feel that accepting this basic reality is a tacit acceptance/endorsement of Trump. It isn’t.

                    • Nope, can’t speak for Mike but I’m certainly not saying the BBC should have edited Trump that way. It was Wrong and opened up the BBC to all these recent attacks.
                      A simple apology and “We’ve severely reprimanded Gladys Witherspoon (and whoever let her near the cutting room.) Ms Witherspoon has recently been appointed our Deputy Chief Arctic Correspondent based in the Lofoten Islands. We wish her well” would have sufficed.

                    • I saw the speech in full. If I were to summarise its message in one sentence, I may well have used the same parts as the BBC. The speech is one long incitement to insurrection. It was the accumulation of months of work. Before votes were cast, Trump was busy claiming the election was rigged. He told the proud boys to stand by. He refused to accept the result, did not co-operate with the transfer of power and didn’t attend the inauguration. He set a pack of lawyers and activists to “investigate” election fraud. He campaigned for republican officials to find votes and not to rubber stamp the result. All the time, he used pugilistic, violent language and unleashed a whole web of supporters with a promise of action on January 6th.

                      His claim that he has been defamed by the edit is clearly nonsense.

                      I also watched the whole Panorama programme and if this is the only part that is inaccurate, the evidence is overwhelming.

                    • OK, but – to keep repeating the point – the section in question is untrue, misleading and (therefore) bad journalism, right?

                    • I was going to say last night what Tig said but decided I couldn’t be arsed and went to be instead.

                      A wise old libel lawyer once said to me: “Always remember, young Mike, the greater the truth, the greater the libel.”

                      This doesn’t mean that the greater the severity of the offence, the greater the damages will be. It means that the closer the accusation is to the truth, the fiercer the reaction of the offended party will be.

                      Trump has proved the truth of the adage in spades.

  4. So not resigning for giving Reform bozos permanent seats on chat shows, news shows, QT etc etc? Shameful.

    Yes, it was a strategic error to put themselves in a position where they’ve been forced to apologise to the Liar-in-Chief. In the context of Jan 6 though, his suggestion to the mob that they go to the Capitol and play nice was as disingenuous as a really disingenuous thing. He was plainly culpable for whipping up the mob, and everybody knows it.

  5. Really, really stupid.

    It was probably only done thoughtlessly in post-production, to save a few seconds of airtime.
    Don’t they watch these things through before broadcast approval?

    Kept as two separate quotes from the same speech (in which he mentioned fighting 20 times) would have put the point over quite effectively and been bulletproof.

    • This. Exactly what I thought at the time. If I can write, “Speaker says this… then goes on to finish his remarks with this exhortation…” why can’t the News team do the same thing on screen?

      I know they have been thinned out to ridiculous levels, and I know that there are now gormless wet-behind-the-ear interns writing shit that appears on screens instead of just fetching the coffees, but this was quoting the POTUS – FFS.

    • All they needed to do was crossfade the two clips to show they were from different points in the lengthy, rambling speech (Does Trump do any other kind?) maybe fade momentarily to black between each clip. But hindsight’s a wonderful thing.

  6. Trump actually said:

    “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

    This was dripping with sarcasm – clearly.
    There was no doubt that he was inciting an insurrection.

    I think the DG could have credibly distanced himself from this. I don’t understand why he resigned.

    • “…, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them”.

      You don’t have to go very far further into his speech at all to catch the drift of those ‘noble’ comments. If only they has edited differently.

  7. I accept that Trump’s motives on January 9th were dangerous and unconstitutional—but editing the speeches so badly that it would have been thrown out of a court is such an own goal.

      • This. A show from a year ago passed without a murmur. This was clearly an ambush by right-wingers on the BBC board with links to The Telegraph. The fact that the three main issues in their complaint are coverage of Trump (“won’t someone think of the insurrection-inciting despots?”), the Trans debate (“end this wokery”) and BBC Arabic, who didn’t run pro-Israeli stories about the Palestine conflict, only the last one holds much water.

        Their idea of ‘balance’ looks more like Fox News than Channel 4 News.

  8. I’d like to know if the editor who made the decision to splice Trump’s comments has been made to resign. I don’t think that, in any line of work, you can always blame people at the top for mistakes made by those running the day-to-day operations.

    But, I’ll qualify that by saying Davie and the other BBC bigwigs should have been more proactive in acknowledging the bad move early on and taking action against whoever was responsible. That would have provided a credible defence of saying mistakes are made in any organisation but that it will quickly own up to them and take steps to prevent a recurrence.

    The worst part of this is that it’s handed ammunition to the full time liars in the White House and the GB News/Reform/Daily Mail types who are always working to undermine the BBC.

  9. A huge mistake to cave in so fully. Yes, admit the error, explain the edit, apologise, but also lean into what Trump did say.

    Now, any time a hapless BBC reporter asks a qustion in the US…guess what!?

  10. He was right to go and fair play to him for doing so.

    At a time when people are increasingly seeking out news sources that only reinforce their own prejudices, pretty much the entire brand proposition of the BBC is its impartiality. If that goes then what’s the point of any of it; it’s like finding broken glass in the baby food.

    Yes, there’s a right wing campaign afoot here, and yes Trump and his cronies do this sort of stuff with impunity. But that’s the ball game here, isn’t it? Not to be dragged down to that level. Not to allow all of our journalists to become campaigners, because it’s more important that news fits our tastes than is actually true. Trump is appalling, but one of his most under-remarked aspects of appallingness is his tendency to drag others down, if not to then at least towards, his level. To make his opponents believe that ends justify means.

    If you reverse the politics of this story – if the BBC had remixed an interview with Joe Biden to make him appear a criminal – I don’t think many people would be questioning the resignation of the Director-General. Or the criticisms being levelled at the BBC. They got this badly, badly wrong, and it’s completely appropriate that heads should roll. In fact, it’s nice to see a bit of accountability – it’s one of the main things that separates “them” from “us”. For now, at least.

    • I quote ” A show from a year ago passed without a murmur. This was clearly an ambush by right-wingers on the BBC board with links to The Telegraph. The fact that the three main issues in their complaint are coverage of Trump (“won’t someone think of the insurrection-inciting despots?”), the Trans debate (“end this wokery”) and BBC Arabic, who didn’t run pro-Israeli stories about the Palestine conflict, only the last one holds much water.
      Their idea of ‘balance’ looks more like Fox News than Channel 4 News.”

      • This is all just spin, isn’t it? Dancing around the heart of the matter.

        I didn’t mention the rest of the Prescott article above, because it’s unproven and I don’t find it particularly compelling at this stage. But the editing accusation is accurate.

        It really doesn’t matter whether people complained at the time, or whether this development will make all the wrong people happy. It doesn’t matter whether right wing news is frequently a load of bollocks. The accusation has been proved correct, the BBC did this and it is unacceptable. Facts matter (still, just about).

        We have to move on from this thing of ignoring reality because it helps the other side. It’s pernicious and it damages our own ability to think straight. We saw it in America last Summer, when Biden’s health was blithely ignored because to acknowledge it was to help the enemy. Look how that ended up.

        The resignation is correct. What the BBC needs to do now is quickly get out of the foetal position and challenge the critics as to whether their own leaders will likewise fall on their swords where fact is manipulated or ignored. We shouldn’t be bemoaning Davie’s decision, we should be celebrating it, because it means the institution still stands for something.

        • Think the BBC are working on 9 hours of programming each and every hour , every day. Mistakes, bad decisions etc must slip through. As someone said above, it is 100% clear what Trump was trying to do that day, the editing was clumsy in the extreme but did it alter the message – no, it did not. The “Independent” report is a million miles away from being independent and part of a right-wing campaign to radically alter how the BBC functions.
          The BBC is far from perfect and attracts just as much left-wing criticism (too much Farage, too pro-Israeli) as it does from the right . It most likely gets things Wrong on a daily basis but ever tried watching Fox or, shudder, GB News?

          • These are all arguments against points I haven’t actually made or raised (what Trump was trying to do/whether people work hard at the BBC/whether the report was independent/whether there’s a right wing campaign to undermine the BBC/whether the BBC is neutral/whether Fox News is worse), so at this stage I’m just going to step out and encourage you to think about the actual point I’ve made above. ❤️

          • But this was not a “mistake”. Spelling somebody’s name wrong, getting a date wrong… Those are mistakes. This was a professional editing job calculated to produce a certain political effect.

            • So then, what Trump was not actually saying was “Let’s all march slowly and peacefully to the Capitol where there we will exercise our democratic right to protest about a result that every single independent adjudicator has since verified as legal and above board and, by the way, don’t whatever you do knock down the doors, kill a few policemen and let me rule as The One True King for ever and ever”?
              Damn that BBC editor, let’s bring the whole thing down …

            • Just for context, so people can make up their own minds, the edit splices two sections of speech some 40 minutes apart to turn:

              “We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”

              Into

              “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country any more”.

              Genuinely mental that someone who works in a news organisation could have done this. We can quibble over whether it’s a mistake or deliberate, and we’ll probably never know for sure, but what it certainly is is wildly unacceptable, no matter how bad Trump is. It’s like something off The Day Today.

              • I work in the media. There is no way that edit was made without someone understanding the significance of it. Thought is, or should be, given to every edit. If you are working for the Guardian or the Telegraph, the thought might be as to how the edit will support your organisations political stance; if you work for a taxpayer-funded, supposedly politically-neutral organisation, you should be considering that in the edit. This has happened as a result of the BBC becoming a political monoculture where nobody has questioned the edit.

            • “calculated to produce a certain political effect”.

              That’s an assertion which has not been proved. There certainly has not been any admission that it was the case.

  11. It’s 2025, everything’s shite.
    Best bet is to laugh at these slapheads (you seen ‘Robbie’ Gibb!), he looks about 348 years of age.

    Glad I’m off to buy a new Beatles record next week.

  12. Undoubtedly another own goal from within the BBC which has further tarnished it’s reputation as a purveyor of impartial commentary on news and current affairs. Sadly it plays into the hands of those who would dearly like to see the BBC diminished or preferably silenced. Many of these individuals and the political and media outlets they are connected with have unsurprisingly seized upon this latest gaff and made hay with it garnering a couple of early scalps and heaping spital flecked opprobrium upon the corporation. It’s a major cock-up, they have earned the scrutiny and must own it. However being criticised over their impartiality and honesty by the likes of Trump, Johnson and Farage amongst others all of whom are dyed in the wool liars of monumental barefacedness along with the right-wing media outfits of Fleet Street who are on a regular basis strangers to the truth is jaw dropping hypocrisy even if entirely predictable. All in all I will continue to place considerably more faith in the BBC than any of that disreputable shower of grifters.

    • “However being criticised over their impartiality and honesty by the likes of Trump, Johnson and Farage amongst others all of whom are dyed in the wool liars of monumental barefacedness along with the right-wing media outfits of Fleet Street who are on a regular basis strangers to the truth is jaw dropping hypocrisy even if entirely predictable.”

      This is the most galling thing about it. Seeing Trump crowing about the head-rolling earlier, gleefully pointing out they had messed with his “PERFECT!” speech will give the vile orange turd and his legion apologists and acolytes months of sanctimonious authority.

      Something very weird has been going on within the BBC. As someone pointed
      out above, we clearly don’t know the full story.

      • There is currently a deep rift between the creative and journalism side of the BBC and the govenorship. This affair has brought it into the open.

        It’s said Deborah Turness’s resignation was received within the corporation with hardly any comment at all. Tim Davie’s resignation was greeted with huge surprise. He was, after all, a Tory political appointee thought to be allied with the Executive Member for England Robbie Gibb who’s been griping ever since his appointment about the BBC’s “liberal bias”.
        This saga has potential to run for a good while yet.

  14. I think Dai’s original point is key here. A terrible own goal, whether the activity that brought it all about was “real” or a false flag style operation encouraged and sponsored by those sympathetic to the frankly ludicrous suggestion that the BBC is too “left wing/woke, (whatever). Despite what I personally believe to be a right of centre bias in the general tone of reporting over many years (Laura Kuenssberg back to Robin Day others before and since) this is an epic own goal.

    The BBC is an establishment broadcaster, with what I assume will now be a take over of the senior roles the GB news/Reform/populist disruptors are in the driving seat and we should all be very concerned about that. If we do not protect the institution we will continue into the “post fact/post truth ” death spiral that seems to be taking us back to the middle age aggressively quickly.

  15. Trump is an odious self-incriminating “see you next Tuesday” and it does not need making up things about him for this to be apparent. You lose moral authority and credibility if you do, though. Same for the other issues. Just because the enemy is partisan, no need to be yourself. as the phrase goes, “we’re better than that … that’s not who we are”. The DG showed he, and the team he let get away with it weren’t. And just before the Royal Charterer is coming up for renewal.

    Down-wiv-tha-kidz Bishop’s son Tim Westwood is on trial 9th december. His serious offence history – with a similar modus operandi – starts in 1986. Frankly, I think he was known to be a wrong ‘un for decades, but got away with it as he was “the talent” (surely the records were?). This awareness will have been common in the business – it always is about dodgy colleagues. So the Beeb have further punches coming.

  16. The BBC has been in a death spiral for years. Bias on certain subjects, letting sex offenders get away with stuff for years, not really giving the viewers want they want, more like what they believe they should have

    It’s a crying shame but Reform will abolish the licence fee and it’s the BBCs own fault and no one else

    • I don’t personally find most of the BBC’s coverage biased. Certainly not when compared to virtually any other news source, and not given the colossal challenge of remaining impartial in an era where audiences seem to demand partiality.

      What I would say is that, as someone who has encountered literally dozens of BBC employees, lived with BBC employees, been to parties at the BBC and acted as an adviser to certain parts of the BBC, I have never personally met anyone right wing who works there.

      Maybe it’s because of the uber-left wing circles I move in (chortle), but it’s a characterisation I’ve found that most of the BBC staff I’ve known have seemed willing to agree with – they don’t see themselves as biased, but they’re willing to recognise that, as with most of the media, it’s an environment where individuals tend to lean left.

      Whether that’s a problem, I don’t know. In fact, it’s arguably entirely natural given the enmity many on the right hold for both that institution and state spending in general. It would be a bit odd to work somewhere you felt shouldn’t exist.

      Anyway, I think the debate about the impartiality of the BBC sometimes confuses (and other times deliberately conflates) the politics of the output and the politics of the people who work there. I would still trust them over the vast majority of other news outlets, although you’d be a fool to get your news from anywhere these days without applying a bit of critical thinking as you go.

      • I’m completely with you on everything you’ve just said. The problem for the BBC is a uniformly left wing culture doesn’t lead to sufficient questioning of editorial decisions with a left wing bias. This isn’t new. What was called the “Guardianisation of the BBC” started back in the Blair years. Even back then I remember Jeremy Paxman calling himself “the last Conservative at the BBC”.

        • Don’t think it will come as a shock that most who work for the BBC are hard-working decent, left-leaning people and that most in the army/police force are hard-working decent, right-leaning people. The BBC has faults, major faults like over-staffing at the top, but is it more trustworthy than any other UK news outlet – of course it bloody is!!

          • FWIW, I think that rather than institutional bias per se, what has brought this latest scandal about has been ingrained arrogance and incompetence. Like the NHS, the Beeb seems to be over-stuffed with pen-pushing middle-managers rather than specialist professionals. John Birt has a lot to answer for

            The warning signs were there with the Bashir cover up and the jaw-dropping decision to shelve the Newsnight expose of Savile as they had lavish Mr Now Then, Now Xmas specials lined up. We’ve now reached a point where despite legal judgements to the contrary, stupid terminologies like “pregnant people” have become permissible in news broadcasts.

            Given the growing number of householders in the UK now refusing to pay the license fee, hypocritical attacks from NI titles and the soft power and trust the broadcaster has built up overseas falling off a cliff, the omens for the Beeb do not look good.

        • If Paxman said that he was wrong – what about Nick Robinson, ex President of the Oxford University Conservative Association?

          Having said that, I’d far rather have my political analysis from Nick than from the countless dunderheads on tabloid right-wing telly channels. Especially when he is part of a large peer group of talented and inquisitorial political journalists of varying persuasions who all work for, or with, the BBC.

      • I know it’s difficult what with all there resignations as some leave and others join but their current tally at the moment is five.

        I think this is a reference to when reform win the next GE however their flagship Council in Kent shows how they will achieve their aims and manifesto by yet more suspensions, more defections to form another party, more uselessness.

      • Next election they will be in and they will do it

        Trouble is the BBC are a bit like the Labour party at the moment. They think they are the good guys so never do anything wrong…

        I don’t support abolishing the BBC by the way, just immensely frustrated how one of our iconic great organisations has been ruined in plain sight…

        • In a bid for power that’s possibly why farage ditched the entire economic programme on which reform contested the last election out went the £140bn worth of uncosted spending and tax cuts.

          I think business knows what would happen if a non-centrist, entirely inexperienced party took power. I refer you back to Kent with reform as the governing party but for how much longer?

        • I have a horrible feeling @Thegp is right on this. I don’t want it to be true and therefore I don’t want to hear talk like this. I am assuming that good sense will prevail and things will be OK in the end.

          We’re doomed.

        • Establishment leftist complacency and smug elitism, as compared to establishment high-Tory complacency and smug elitism, innit? Two cheeks of the same arse, and we’re trapped in the middle.

          • Polanski is coming across very well as an alternative. I watched him on The Last Leg recently. I can’t think of any other politicians who could hold their own so well among a group of comedians and seem so likeable. He actually had the funniest lines in the show:

            Have you ever watched porn by accident?
            “Obviously.”

            On being asked by the disabled guy if he can make hands grow, as reference to Polanski’s younger days’ spiel about enlarging women’s breasts through hypnotism)
            “In the green room you were talking about other body parts.”

        • I’m not convinced. Three and a half years is an age to the next election. There are so many ways that I can see Reform could implode in that time.

          Farage has influenced British politics only through the threat of what he might do, rather than through actually doing anything. I think that way too many, especially in the media, credit with him a potency he doesn’t yet have.

      • In the good old days, libel cases in the UK often used to end with more unsavoury plaintiffs “winning” the case but coming away from court with some derisory amount in damages (a farthing or halfpenny) to compensate for the harm caused to their public image.

        Sadly, would imagine that rather than suing the Beeb in the UK, Orangey will be pursuing them through the US where he has a pretty good track record at trousering large amounts of money from media organizations

        • If the Beeb want to have BBC America or other access and licencing, they’ll need to settle out of court. Unfortunately, the complainants are bang to rights about bias, and it’s been going on for years, and up to now, the Beeb smirked when challenged on it, but carried right on. That the DG and the other one resigned means they can’t bury this, or they would have, like they have before.

            • In reality, the endlessly repeated “left-wing BBC” narrative fits neither the facts nor most people’s perception.
              Much more problematic for right-leaning critics, who always claim to represent the silent majority, is that most of the public disagrees with them.
              In Yougov’s last biannual public opinion tracker, about 20% agree that the BBC tends to favour Labour and/or the left. But the other 80% disagree, including about 20% who say exactly the opposite – that it generally favours the Conservatives and/or the right. The majority (about 60%) fall somewhere in between, either explicitly saying it is generally neutral or responding “don’t know’ – hardly compatible with the idea that it is palpably left-wing.
              These percentages have been steady over time and are similar in other independent surveys. But in the latest one (May 2024), the proportion saying the BBC favours the Conservatives and/or the right has actually increased, marginally, to 25%, while the proportion saying it has a left-wing bias remains at 20%.

              • The BBC “left wing agenda” some how managed to co-exist with Farage being the one of the most frequent guests on Question Time, and the appointment of Robbie Gibb (Comms Director to T. May, Tory Party Comms adviser, rampant Brexiteer, GB News adviser) to the BBC Board. And that’s as well as Richard Sharp (BBC Board Chair and money lender to Johnson), former Times journo Richard Harding as Director of News and Current Affairs.

                But I suppose these were needed to balance out the woke lefty talent on screen like Paxman, Nick Robinson, Portillo, Esther McVay, Andrew Neill and Andrew “Super Injunction” Marr.

  18. If the BBC wasn’t so left leaning, none of this would be happening. And if the other main stations were not similarly inclined, GB news wouldn’t have been conceived. It’s depressing that there’s a need to watch three or four news channels to get a sense of where the truth may be.
    I often read on this board of the BBC getting as many complaints from the left as from the right, and that the station has just about got the balance right. Really?

    • Some on the left are still angry with the BBC for showing, in 2019, the very one-sided Panorama documentary about anti-semitism in the Labour party containing lies that went unchecked, which proved to be instrumental in bringing down Corbyn and enabling Johnson and his Brexit.

      • I think that Corbyn was never likely to win. But if the Labour Party had got behind May’s plan for a watered down solution – instead of the self interested destruction of her government – there would have been no Johnson.

        • “Unelectable” and “never likely to win” were views bandied around a lot at the time. Very much so by the press. Considering he got more votes in the GE than both his predecessor and his successor managed (and more than both Blair and Brown), one has to wonder why that view was so popular.

        • I don’t think we can have this discussion again without boring the masses (as you know, I don’t agree and think The Labour Files videos tell a truer story).

            • Kalamo asked about the BBC getting as many complaints from the left as from the right so I responded citing the most vehement complaint I come across from the left on socials, which regards the BBC’s involvement in bringing down Corbyn.
              I assure you I don’t keep raising the issue (you can check). I think perhaps you just notice because every time it’s mentioned or is relevant and someone interjects with an opinion that has been analysed elsewhere (usually The Labour Files) – with a very different conclusion – I think it’s fair play to say so.

              • You raise the issue of Corbyn and anti-semitism on a regular basis, and every time you do it annoys me, because you’re also the person who has previously posted to the blog materials that were, in your own words, “evidence of an influential Jewish conspiracy against Corbyn”. Which I think is utterly gross, and some pretty important context to any consideration of your views on the subject.

                I have no idea why you don’t just leave the issue alone. It’s well and truly in the past by now, it’s provocative and winds people up, and then it seems to bother you when people disagree.

                  • I’m sure the feeling is mutual, but in the context of this discussion I think mention of your previous posts is entirely apposite and provides a useful framework to judge the merits of your arguments.

                    • If you want a discussion regarding any of my previous posts, please provide a link and hopefully we can discuss them without any personal attack.
                      Offhand, I’d say my perspective in political discussions that touch upon the subject has always been basically that The Labour Files show how Corbyn was brought down (including how accusations of anti-semitism were weaponised) and that not getting behind Corbyn and ensuring a second referendum and stopping Brexit was an enormous mistake.

                      Oh and that Corbyn’s a decent fella who was much maligned.

                    • Labour and anti-semitism

                      Since it’s been requested, this is the thread in case people want to make up their own minds.

                      I’m not looking for a debate on it, because I already know what I think and what will be said. We’ve done this to death many times already.

                      What I would like is for this topic to stop being endlessly raised by someone who has previously said this, along with some other fairly unpleasant and inflammatory shit.

                      I’m not looking for apologies, or mea culpas, or for anyone to see things my way. I’m just asking for the scab to stop being picked at.

                      I’m more than happy to live and let live if we can just stay away from what is clearly an emotive and divisive subject that has previously generated a good deal of bad blood. Alternatively, keep posting about it and I’ll keep feeling compelled to point out that these views, as expressed in the thread above, are not on. I’m afraid that’s just how I was raised.

                      It is not a personal attack to quote a poster’s own words on a subject back at them.

                      And with that, I’m out. I would love it if we never did this again. ❤️

                    • @Gary

                      Again with the Corbyn second referendum nonsense.

                      And again, it’s only right you not be allowed to get away with doing so unchallenged – hopefully for the last time

                      If Corbyn had got off his bony backside and put in a bit of effort during the first referendum, there’d have been no need for a second referendum. Tim Shipman’s All Out War has page after page of stuff about how Corbyn’s lack of support for Remain effectively helped push Brexit over the line.

                    • If anyone thinks my comments about the contents of the video in that thread are inaccurate, they’d have to watch the video to pinpoint their inaccuracies. But that would involve watching the video.
                      I don’t mind being challenged, I enjoy discussion, but I don’t recognise anyone’s right to censor me or shout me down with insults. If a person can’t discuss politics politely, without insult, frankly I think there’s something wrong with them.

                      @jaygee, I agree with you and have said so before. Corbyn’s failure to enthusiastically get behind Remain was my biggest gripe with him. A massive failing. But I still think a second referendum (which was assured) was the best chance of overturning Brexit. And I still maintain he was brought down as a result of a concentrated campaign by various groups, including the right of his party, as evidenced in The Labour Files.

                • @mc-escher – raised responding to K as one of the explanations why some on the left think the BBC is anti-left.
                  If people don’t want to discuss Corbyn that’s fine, and very easily avoided simply by not commenting back. I’m well aware that the discussion is pretty passé and certainly boring, but I’m not in favour of the idea that I’m not supposed to challenge things when I don’t think they’re true – though I’ll happily accept any decision by the Mods as to whether I’m ever out of line in doing so. The first “rule” in the post guidelines says “We’re a community of many types of people, who all have the right to feel comfortable and who may not think what you think, believe what you believe or see what you see or share your sense of humour. Please keep things clean, friendly, and polite. Arguments do happen and the debate can get lively but please – Address the point, not the person.” I agree with that unreservedly and try to abide by it.
                  You mightn’t agree that “someone who has previously said this, along with some other fairly unpleasant and inflammatory shit.=” isn’t insulting but I don’t think you can claim it doesn’t contravene the site’s guidelines.
                  I honestly don’t understand the need to get personal. At all. It’s so unnecessary and unpleasant.

                  PS. I’ve asked BL on a couple of occasions to please ignore my presence on the forum if what I say annoys him, rather than attacking me on a personal level. I absolutely don’t see the problem in doing that.

                  • Describing your comments as unpleasant and inflammatory is not a personal attack.

                    Claiming a “Jewish conspiracy”, on the other hand, is clearly offensive – as you can see from the understandable reaction in the thread posted above.

                    I will continue to point out that you made this claim where you raise the subject. It is entirely germane to understanding your position on the issue.

                    If that insults you, then I’m afraid that your issue is not with me, but with the mirror.

                    • In that thread I wrote:
                      “I wasn’t giving my opinion, but describing what the documentary alleges and shows its evidence of.

                      It alleges that there is a conspiracy that involves the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students, the Parliamentary Friends of Israel, BICOM (Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre) and various other organisations. It shows its evidence of this conspiracy.

                      To describe a film as showing evidence of a conspiracy that involves specific influential Jewish* organisations is a very far cry from making the patently ridiculous claim that all Jewish people are somehow involved in a conspiracy.

                      Of course Al. Jazeera can be accused of bias, but their investigation undeniably captures some controversial conversations on film (including unfounded accusations of anti-semitism made against specific Labour Party members that simply can’t be justified).

                      If there is anti-semitism in the Labour party it absolutely needs to be called out and purged, but on the basis of clear evidence.

                      *Should I refer to them as Jewish organisations or pro-Israel organisations, or Zionist organisations? I’m not sure and I’ll ask you to forgive my ignorance on that one.

                      At the time I felt ignorant, as openly stated, of the difference between the terms “Jewish”, “pro-Israel” and “Zionist” as preferred terms to refer to the organisations spoken about in the documentary (ie. Jewish Labour Movement, Union of Jewish Students, Conservative Friends of Israel, and Labour Friends of Israel). Now I would be far more wary of using the term “Jewish” as it’s become very clear how sensitive some people are and also how willing some people are to use the accusation of anti-semitism to shut down discussion.
                      If you really intend to pursue this line of discussion every time I mention Corbyn, then I’ll probably be repeating all this again. I think it might help if:
                      a. you actually watched the video in question (why not watch it?).
                      b. you explained the full context when quoting me (why limit yourself to only that which supports your accusatory agenda?)
                      c. you were able to be friendly, courteous, respectful etc. and adress the point not the person (again, why not? what does it cost?)

                      Or, alternatively, we could just accept that we have criticisms of each other’s attitude that would best be resolved by ignoring each other’s comments.

                  • Don’t know if this was intentional Gary but in the same comment above you say both ‘I’m not in favour of the idea that I’m not supposed to challenge things when I don’t think they’re true‘ and ‘I’ve asked BL on a couple of occasions to please ignore my presence on the forum if what I say annoys him‘

                    • I don’t mind being challanged without ad hominem attack or accusations. I’m ok with polite discussion of the issue. It’s not difficult to write a “I can’t agree with the contents of that video and think it would have been better not to post it because… ” type comment.

                      Incidentally, if anyone is interested (!!!) but can’t be bothered watching that “gross”, “shit”, “offensive” documentary, you can simply ask AI what the documentary The Lobby is about. I just did and its long answer began: The documentary “The Lobby” exposes several Jewish and pro-Israel organizations operating in the UK and the US, highlighting their influence on politics and campus activity. before going into detail. Now, one can either ignore the documentary as described and not discuss it (but why ignore it?), deny its veracity and dispute its evidence, or accept the evidence presented. I think a discussion seems a healthy way to consider it.

                      Is AI – Perplexity in this case – being unduly gross and unpleasant in its summary, I wonder?

                    • The above is a great example of why discussion is pointless. It’s composed entirely of responses to things I haven’t said and issues I haven’t raised.

                      I haven’t said anything about the video. I’m not interested in the video.

                      I haven’t posted any ad hominems in the thread.

                      I haven’t described the video as “gross”, “shit”, or “offensive.” In fact, I haven’t described the video as anything. And I haven’t used “shit” as an adjective at all.

                      What I’ve said above is that you posted to the blog materials that were, in your own words, “evidence of an influential Jewish conspiracy against Corbyn”. Which is a statement of fact. Because you did.

                      Why is that gross? Because even if the video purported to show what you claim it shows, the description you have chosen (“Jewish conspiracy”) is offensive and inflammatory.

                      A group of half a dozen Muslim organisations attempting to lobby against a party leader is not a “Muslim conspiracy”. A group of half a dozen Black organisations doing likewise is not a “Black conspiracy”. And that’s before you even factor in the utterly poisonous history of accusations of conspiracy against Jewish people.

                      All of this has been pointed out to you previously on both the above thread and on another thread where you “just asked the question” of whether a “powerful Jewish lobby” was silencing voices in the music industry.

                      Like I say, my intention is simply to present the things that you have previously said on this topic (antisemitism, by the way, not Corbyn) that you keep raising. Because it seems fairly important context.

                      And on that note, I really am out. I’ve said what I have to say, and I recognise entirely how tiresome this all seems to become by the third comment down.

                    • So it’s actually the word “conspiracy” that had you looking back through past comments to reproach me with? Must admit, I didn’t realise that. What’s another word to describe people caught on camera making secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful act? Happy to go along with it.

    • I tend to see the BBC as the voice of the government of the day whichever side that is. It also ties itself in knots trying not to seem discriminatory in any way, and it’s not always an easy mix. I’d like some examples of why the BBC is ‘so left leaning’, as I confess that they have gone over my head.

      • I don’t know but they exasperate me. So many issues that don’t resonate with the general public. Compensations for historic wrongs-absurd; an obsession with Donald Trump -mildly unhealthy; and don’t forget that they started the current deplatforming craze by refusing to give airtime to climate change deniers.

        • Finally stopping giving climate chage deniers an equal voice? Colour me shocked. It was the BBC ‘balance’ that weighted the scales to bring on Nigel Lawson on to debate with established climate scientists,
          Andrea Leadsom to exchange expertise with Pascal Lamy over the WTO rules, Patrick Minford as the only economist willing to stand up for Brexit against the overwhelming consensus.

          Would you have given David Irving airspace to deny the Holocaust in a room with Elie Wiesel?

          Maybe a bit of creationism? After all, evolution’s only a theory, right?

          Educate, inform and entertain? Not any more. It’s Confuse, misinform and incite – that’s the future.

          • Well you’re right of course, I just think they needn’t have closed down the debate. Even my local newspaper has contributors from both sides of the argument, so allowing people to make up their own minds. Anyway my attack, such as it is, is tongue in cheek; I’d be lost without it.

                • My point is that the BBC conceived the “this issue is already settled” policy, and other campaigners have also found it to be a useful means of closing down debate.

                  • I am not sure that’s a very good point, though.

                    As I said above, evolution, the Holocaust – are these matters you think should be open for debate? Climate science IS settled among scientists, as are the anthropoogenic causes of the uptick in emissions and greenhouse gases, etc. The consequences are being experienced.

                    And even if you want a debate, then recognize where the balance of informed consensus lies The other examples – Brexit and its economic and trade consequences can be discussed. it’s a soft, not a hard science after all. But don’t go for both-sidesist false equivalence when the overwhelming majority recognize the damaging impact.

                    There IS plenty to discuss about climate change, its impact and how to respond to it, but to give voice to those who deny its actual existence is head-in-sand insanity.

  19. Davie clearly has had enough. He has an impossible job becasue mistakes will always be made and there is an expectation that these are dealt with by resignations.

    The Trump edit is clearly a mistake. It shows something as an evidenced fact when it clearly isn’t evidence. I can’t think of a reason for this edit to have happened that doesn’t include that it supports the narrative that the documentary makers wanted to push.

    The BBC has an obligation to be balanced. That is different from neutral and it would be impossible to be neutral all of the time. Balanced is achievable but in the current political climate, I suspect it is impossible as well.

    Regardless on your view of Trumps behaviour on the 9th January, the editing of this documentary is wrong and misleading. Which is a shame because it undermines the BBC and allows Trump (and his ilk) to continue to use phrases like “fake news” with some credibility.

  20. There is nothing wrong with left-leaning and right-leaning people working productively in the same organisation, even in a news/entertainment organisation. The problem only arises when the pursuit of right or left agendas takes precedence over just doing your f’ing job!

  21. I think the Trump video is only one part of the criticism of the BBC. Leaving aside what Michael Prescott might say, it seems from social media (Twitter anyway) and some of the press that there is a lot of criticism of the BBC for appearing to go along with transgender views and ignoring the opposing views. Both are legitimate opinions, but the BBC should give them an equal airing.

    If this criticism is correct, I think it will be very damaging to the BBC, as it can’t be shrugged off as a one-off mistake, but a deliberate policy to favour an interest group. It also can’t be dismissed as a right wing attack, as many of the gender critical supporters, are what might be called left-wing on other issues. They are also, as has been seen in other areas, quite determined that the law should be followed.

  22. This thread is a good read as always, thanks everyone. I’ll stay out of the “influential Jewish conspiracy against Corbyn” sidebar…

    I’m surprised to see people defending the BBC here because they really, really fucked up on this one. Saying that shouldn’t be taken as support for Trump, or to indicate that I think the BBC has a leftist bias – it’s just shit poor journalism, done for impact at the expense of impartiality, that should have been caught by the first level of management.

  23. Trump cannot bring a case for defamation in a UK court, where he would have had much less trouble proving his case, because there is a one year limitation on bringing defamation cases over here and more than 12 months has expired since the documentary was aired.

    Trump is well within the US limitation of two years to bring his case there, but US law requires a much stronger burden of proof in such cases. The US constitution’s protection of free speech works against him there. He may well not be able to prove the programme was detrimental to his reputation or caused any financial loss to himself. But that probably won’t matter much to him as, win or lose, the BBC will be tangled up in a very expensive procedure they can ill afford.

    Trump can easily afford to lose the case and the BBC cannot afford even to win it. They will have to try and get an out-of-court settlement.

    • As is invariably the case with litigious bullies, any out of court settlement
      is likely to require large cash settlement accompanied by a groveling apology.

      • I think the more interesting possibility here is that he sues and then invites scrutiny of his reputation, and what he’s said since Jan 6th. On the 7th he was full of condemnation – since then all involved have been fully pardoned and cites as heroes and patriots. So maybe he didn’t directly call for insurrection – but it’s a matter or record he has no problem with what they did.

        • The litigation threat feels more political than anything, and at least 70% of what Trump threatens he never actually does.

          If he were to proceed it would appear likely to be procedurally fraught (albeit I have no idea how libel law actually works in Florida), but the argument here is one of the first you’d reach for if you were the BBC’s legal team: how can you simultaneously argue that there was nothing wrong with the 6 Jan riots and that to be accused of having incited the 6 Jan riots is defamatory.

    • I think I heard yesterday that the BBC is trying to determine whether the programme was available in the US and that the decision on how to proceed may hinge on this. IIRC, so far, it appears that it wasn’t broadcast in the US.

    • I can’t see this going to court. The report has been in the public domain for over a year and Trump’s lawyers would have to provide evidence of material and reputational damage within that period. I’m sure that right now he’s being advised against it.

      The only reputational damage here is to the BBC.

        • Dunno but the Trump administration will probably make it difficult for BBC journalists and any business interests such as BBC America. The only option long term, for journalism not aligned with MAGA seems to be to wait for a change of government or for Trump to die, preferably both.

        • There will be no attempt to enforce it in the UK, but the BBC operates in the US and is therefore subject to its libel laws.

          Interestingly, my understanding is that the Panorama programme was never broadcast in the US and, according to the BBC (and I’m sure they’re checking this very carefully) was never available on the iPlayer there.

          Very hard to prove reputational damage in the US if no one there saw it.

                • I repeat (this from Reuters) “The documentary was not broadcast in the U.S. but was available until recently on the BBC’s online streaming platform”.
                  So, in theory. all Trump’s lawyers have to say/prove is “Yeah, not that many people watched it here in Florida but if they wanted to…”

                  • Another important thing to remember is that for the case to succeed malicious intent will have to be proven. Note “proven”, not implied or suspected. Unless there’s a chain of e-mails or a mea culpa, that isn’t going to be possible.

                  • Not sure if that means iPlayer or BBC Select (streams in USA I think. ) If it was only on iPlayer, anyone watching outside the UK would have to have used a VPN so that would cut potential viewing numbers down immediately.

          • There is no iPlayer available in US (without a VPN). There are BBC channels such as News, not sure if Panorama is broadcast on the News channel or BBC World if that still exists

              • Yes, but you are asked if you have a TV licence when using it, I doubt it would count as a US “broadcast” unless if appeared on regular TV. Every TV show in the world is available everywhere if you look hard enough for it.

                    • As I mentioned above US law on defamation requires a very high level of proof, even in Florida, compared to the UK.
                      Even if he has no realistic case Trump might insist on taking it to court, just to make the BBC spend a shitload of money defending themselves while he drags the proceedings out.
                      There’s also the probability that Trump could and would cause difficulties in other ways for the BBC’s business interests in the USA.

                      As someone said above, what he’s really after is a nice cash settlement out of court and a grovelling apology that he can crow about.

  25. I’ve just been reading that the evidence written by Michael Prescott, an independent advisor to the BBC on standards, was shall we say quite picky in the quotes he chose from trump’s speech and didn’t show evidence that he’d omitted certain parts of the speech.
    As there are rules for abridging speeches on television so there are for print if you are abridging a quote, you signify it with an ellipsis. Prescott had not done this.

Leave a Reply