The BBC | Tim Davie resigns as Director General over Trump documentary edit (p 187)

argyle said:
He didn't compare the Conservative's to the Nazi's.

He said the language surrounding their new policy is not dissimilar to the language in Germany in the 1930's. That of immigrants 'swarming and invading.'

That you've seen this as a left wing vs right wing thing is exactly what the Government wants with their culture wars.
Click to expand...
The reference was clearly intended - he chose to make it - and, again, he could have expressed his opposition to the government’s proposals in a thousand different ways. Had he done so no one would really have batted an eyelid.

I’m afraid however that once you start making references to Nazi Germany, then people will naturally and rightly object, and again he should have retracted the comment. It’s not a question of left vs right, it’s about not making stupid and inappropriate comments, particularly if you’re being paid out of the public purse.
 
Brewster's millions said:
The reference was clearly intended - he chose to make it - and, again, he could have expressed his opposition to the government’s proposals in a thousand different ways. Had he done so no one would really have batted an eyelid.

I’m afraid however that once you start making references to Nazi Germany, then people will naturally and rightly object, and again he should have retracted the comment. It’s not a question of left vs right, it’s about not making stupid and inappropriate comments, particularly if you’re being paid out of the public purse.
Click to expand...
He didnt say the word nazi , he said the language of 1930 germany
 
MCFC1993 said:
Once again though, it's the more vulnerable people in society that the Government/BBC has affected with this awful decision.

No football coverage on the TV or radio all weekend on the BBC because of this.

That means older people who can't use the internet, people who can't afford Sky/BT, people who have to use radio to take in a live game etc...all lose access to the most popular sport in the country on the public funded service.

Now I know there are plenty who can skirt around this but there are many who can't, plenty like to slag the coverage off but it's still massively important to so many.

The boss at the BBC feels it is acceptable to remove Lineker because of his opinions whilst publicly supporting the Tories and Boris Johnson, make it make sense.
Click to expand...
You're mixing up sense and 'common sense'.
 
cleavers said:
So tomorrow night, no presenters, and no pundits, just more football.

Seems like win win to me, I rarely watch the biased shit these days, but I might watch tomorrow (though our result will be the biggest influence).

As the thread title says "ignoring the lineker stuff", so please take any political bollocks to a different thread.
Click to expand...

Really? No interviews, no replays no analysis and probably little sound if the crowds chant against the BBC and it will all be done and dusted in less than an hour. It will be shit - look forward to the responses on here tomorrow when everyone has sampled these dubious "delights"
 
law74 said:
It was perfectly acceptable for him to highlight Human Rights abuses in Qatar during the World Cup both on Social Media and on the BBC but when he highlights proposed Human Rights abuses in the United Kingdom by the party his director general and governor bankroll it becomes a problem about "impartiality"
Blatant hypocrisy from the propaganda wing of the self-servatives.
Click to expand...
There are two takes on this perfectly valid point. Either sports presenters should be allowed to voice views outside of the game or they shouldn’t. Personally I am in the former camp as long as they are not using their public sector platform, a tweet or an interviewer asking their opinion is fine. This is a free country and free speech is an important bedrock of that.
 
There will always be the creative ways of editing but there will not be the extra bias slant that does come from the pundits.
 
Honestly delighted with the changes. Haven’t watched MOTD in years. Will tune in tonight bar a city defeat.

Far too many people on tv/social media queuing up to tell us how to live and what to think. More content less waffle is welcome.
 
PPT said:
I thought the presenters were contractually obliged to present and do what they get paid for? So if they don’t fulfil their contracts then cancel them. All of them. Immediately. Then bring in some new ‘talent’ and some new blood on acceptable salaries. The viewing figures of MOTD would not change one iota either up or down if Lineaker and his cronies didn’t present it and someone else did. People tune in to watch the game and see the goals. Not to watch Shearer to repeat his bog standard ‘analysis’ every week. The sooner the BBC and the presenters realise this the better for all concerned.
Click to expand...

Most are freelancers and not slaves so can't be forced to do anything. I've done freelance work - at one place it was so shit I had enough and at the end of the day said I was going and wouldn't be back. Nobody came and dragged me out of bed the next day. No legal action was taken against me - not worth their time and money to do it.

New talent? Where do you think they are hiding at the moment? Listen to local radio and see how amateurish they are - maybe they can employ most of Talkshite's staff - I am sure you'd appreciate the delights of MotD presented by the boiled bollock ( would have to be on earlier though can't see them keeping him sober until midnight ) with Twatterface on commentary.

Rather like the BBC you haven't thought that one through.
 
Bottom line is. If the salary from the BBC to present the show was £70,000 per year.
There would be no shortage of ex player applicants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top