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

crooky said:
What was the reason for:

- Not playing the theme song?
- Not showing team lineups and formations?
- Not having commentary in the games? (I'm sure they could've used some of the official Premier League commentary used on the international feed if they'd asked nicely)
- Not showing stats such as shots on target, possession, corners etc at the end?
Click to expand...
All of that requires extensive production work, and the production team were on an unofficial strike.
 
Tugay One Cup said:
That would be a good point if the news was just twenty silent minutes of images of people looking upset in Istanbul, people looking angry in Tel-Aviv, people looking gormless in London and a quick glance at the weather map.

But it isn't. Otherwise, yeah, you might as well just look it up online.
Click to expand...

They don’t want you thinking for yourself when they can put their angle on it ;)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
There is no clear implication at all. Your argument is predicated on the basis that the holocaust was an inevitable corollary of the Nazi regime in the 1930s. It was not. It was, however, an inevitable consequence of right thinking people not doing enough to stop it, and allowing it to grow in confidence and morph into the genocidal machine it became. There are potential parallels here if people do nothing to stop the clear and obvious erosion of our liberties.

It’s probably best not to accuse someone of being disingenuous, without exploring what their view is founded upon first. You shot your load far too soon, pal.
Click to expand...
If people actually studied the period they would know after the beer haus putsch failure they actually toned down their direct antisemetic message to appeal to non nazis while masking it with such language as a cancer within our nation or sickness and concentrated on all imigrants, the intelligencia, comminists and trade unions, changing their language to subtibly mention the jewish dispora.

this was the language of the 30s to win majority power, demonising all, what followed on came out of growing in power, confidence and the success of their invasions and occupations, which led to germans who even 5 years earlier would have baulked at such nationistic fever to conform, the propoganda of 1933 were a pre-curser to what came to pass and any government echoing such language is on a dangerous path if not challenged on it.
 
Last edited:
mattcity5 said:
The implication is fairly clear yes.but is it wrong to worry about the future?

Did the Germans in 1933 who listened to their government and accepted what they were doing expect what it would lead to? I doubt it very much. But they accepted what their Government did and look where it ended up.

It's right to remind people about this and it's right to be cautious. Pointing out comparisons with 1930s Germany is about caring about minorities as well as refugees and hoping that this horrific lot in charge don't go further down that road.
Click to expand...
If Lineker has concerns about the future he should make his argument by setting those out.

He shouldn’t indulge in lazy tropes that minimise the evils of the Nazi regime. Presumably, Lineker’ concern isn’t that the UK government will shortly begin rounding up Jews and sending them to gas chambers (unless he is entirely unhinged). So it is not appropriate to invoke the Nazis and therefore ultimately the holocaust as a parallel, and doing so only serves to minimise those events.
 
Chris B said:
If you talk about Nazis in the 1930s there’s a clear implication of where it leads. Don’t be so disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Firstly, there isn't; that's inference on your part. If I tell you a young lad from the academy reminds me of Messi, and you then repeat to all and sundry that we have a player in the academy as good as prime Messi, then you've manipulated my words and blown a comparison out of all proportion.

Secondly, the language used by the Tories with this policy is repugnant. It's used to get the hard-right nationalists onside before the GE and simultaneously distract from the real issues plaguing the country; the objective of the bill (which is flagrantly illegal, btw), is to gets large swathes of knuckle draggers blaming all the ills of this country on "foreigners".

Mission accomplished for the party of compassion.
 
Palerider said:
If Lineker had taken out the '1930's Germany' reference then I think there would have been little fuss. His use of over the top inflammatory language is just political mischief making which is fine when among friends but not so for the BBC where neutrality is it's whole DNA. If the multi millionaires Sugar and Lineker want to preach politics then fine, do it on commercial stations, not the politically neutral BBC.
Click to expand...
He did it on Twitter not the BBC.
 
Tugay One Cup said:
That would be a good point if the news was just twenty silent minutes of images of people looking upset in Istanbul, people looking angry in Tel-Aviv, people looking gormless in London and a quick glance at the weather map.

But it isn't. Otherwise, yeah, you might as well just look it up online.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the news channel “euronews” does a segment of exactly that. It lasts no less than a minute and it’s called something like “no words”.

It’s fine enough, but if you wanna know what you’re even looking at you still have to listen to the real program shown a minute after.
 
Chris B said:
He minimised it by comparing the description of some limited measures to stop illegal migration into a country with one of the worst crimes in human history. The two aren’t comparable and to imply they are equivalent is to minimise one and exaggerate the other.

Yes, he said the language in the 1930s, not the actual holocaust, but the implication was clear. After all, the nazis aren’t regarded as one of the most evil regimes in history because of their language in the early part of their reign. It was clear the line of argument he was making was to equate the current actions of the government with those of Nazi germany. That is an absolutely risible comparison that is offensive and beyond contempt.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it is an appropriate comparison, at the right point in time. It isn't the first either, and shouldn't be the last. And he should have every right to make it.

By the same logic, you are now 'minimising holocoust' by exaggerating his comment to that extent.
 
paska said:
It started in Germany with dehumanising language, which was Lineker’s actual point, but even if you don’t agree with Lineker’s point surely he had a right to make it and doesn’t deserve suspending for it?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with him making it & I agree with the premise of his argument but he needs to make it better when using a platform that encourages outrage.
The bbc has dehumanised people for ever, it’s a national broadcaster used for propaganda otherwise they’d have sold it off with the gas & water.
 
Chris B said:
No, I don’t think so. Minimisation of the evils of the holocaust is a standard antisemitic trope. As with Andrew Bridgen this kind of false equivalence is often widely condemned.
Click to expand...
Where has he minimalised the evils of the holocaust?

Surely by highlighting what he has, he’s trying (in a small way) to warn against it happening again. And how could that possibly be described as an antisemitic trope?

Maybe it’s those who are complacent and lazy about history repeating itself who display more obvious signs of subconscious antisemitism. Casually dismissing the parallels with the erosion of liberties and where it could end up.
 
skillman said:
Exactly. But last nights (shit)show didn’t prove they’re not particularly needed. Or at least didn’t prove a revamp is needed.

What they showed last night you can get on Sky’s YouTube channel. That last night wasn’t worth paying a TV licence for.
Click to expand...
I'd would think that 95% of televised broadcasts aren't worth paying for. The TV licence is like one of those hotel bills which include spa treatments and the like, all of which might be included in the price, but none of which you are inclined to use.

Much of the so-called BBC flag ship (I prefer the term 'flag-shit) programmes I find unwatchable - Eastenders, Strictly, MotD, and more and more BBC programmes are being filled with faux emotion rather than education, entertainment and information! If the BBC were a subscription channel I'd keep the subs for servicing my bikes, paying for my coffee, the pies 'n Bovril at The Etihad.
 
I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of boats, the conservatives, or the BBC because I skew to the left of most people here and I'm not sure there's much to discuss really.

But I will say that Match of the Day isn't really for hardcore football fans who go to the games and post on football forums. It's for a much, much more casual viewer. It's a magazine format, punditry is required to talk people through basic interpretations of the law rather than intensive tactical analysis. I tend not to watch because by the time the evening comes around I've watched half of the games, usually attended one of them, and have already read and watched highlights on others. Most people aren't like me or us.
 
west didsblue said:
It’s not an unremarkable immigration policy in 2023 that is being compared. It’s a disgraceful policy that criminalises asylum seekers for being asylum seekers. You’re the one trying to minimise the contemptibility of this government proposal.
Click to expand...
It’s not so different from the policy Australia had in recent years. Hardly the precursor the next holocaust. Anyway, I’m not particularly interested in the policy which will probably end up getting thrown out by legal challenges anyway.

My point is simply that it is antisemitic to minimise the holocaust. Lineker has done that here, in a minor way, but he has done it none the less. This isn’t a unique standard I’ve invented for Lineker. I’ve highlighted the recent example of Andrew Bridgen. Look back to past years and you’ll find plenty of other times minimising the holocaust is considered antisemitic.

At the end of the day, Lineker has done that here in a crass unthinking way. It more ignorance than malice and I don’t think he needs to be sacked over it, but a word and perhaps some education would be helpful.
 
Coatigan said:
I disagree. I think it is an appropriate comparison, at the right point in time. It isn't the first either, and shouldn't be the last. And he should have every right to make it.

By the same logic, you are now 'minimising holocoust' by exaggerating his comment to that extent.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same.

I’m finding his invoking of the holocaust as a means of criticising Lineker quite contemptible and I can’t be arsed discussing it with him any more as he seems to be a bit of an idiot.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Where has he minimalised the evils of the holocaust?

Surely by highlighting what he has, he’s trying (in a small way) to warn against in happening again. And how could that possibly be described as an antisemitic trope?

Maybe it’s those who are complacent and lazy about history repeating itself who display more obvious signs of subconscious antisemitism. Casually dismissing the parallels with the erosion of liberties and where it could end up.
Click to expand...
How do you remain polite to massive morons like this?
 
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