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

[TinFoilHat]

If you have the time google the 'Cognitive Bias Codex' it's fascinating and if you have some more time a bit of a dive into a few of them is often a bit of an eye opener. We're learning more about how the brain works each day and one of the things we've learnt is that incredible things though they are, they generally don't function as rationally as we might like to think.

Thanks for this.

Googled it and educating myself.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Are you serious? GB News open about their slant.
Read their mission statement below:

The People’s Channel​

At GB News, we are deeply proud to be the People’s Channel, a beacon of hope and truth for the entire nation. We stand for more than just delivering the news - we stand for the values that unite us, inspire us and drive us forward as a nation. We believe in the power of journalism to uplift, to inform and to bridge the divides in our society, bringing light to every corner of Britain.

The last sentence must be the biggest lie of all time.

I'm not actually a GB news viewer. My opinion of their slant is informed by the thread on here which is like a sort of outraged highlights reel. I'm sure Fox, MSNBC etc al routinely claim to be bringing the viewer the truth. The beeb is publicly funded so has an obligation to actually do so.

 

[marco]

Hopefully they will cease to exist once Donald has sued their arses, horrible organisation full of freeloaders feeding off the gravy train

 

[Earlyriser]

I'm not actually a GB news viewer. My opinion of their slant is informed by the thread on here which is like a sort of outraged highlights reel. I'm sure Fox, MSNBC etc al routinely claim to be bringing the viewer the truth. The beeb is publicly funded so has an obligation to actually do so.

Neither am I. But surely if that is your mission statement you should attempt to adhere to it.
The truth should not be bent any media body to suit its political agenda.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Neither am I. But surely if that is your mission statement you should attempt to adhere to it.
The truth should not be bent any media body to suit its political agenda.

Absolutely agree, but I'm taking it as a given that the BBC as a public service broadcaster holds itself to a higher standard than GB news etc.

 

[Earlyriser]

Absolutely agree, but I'm taking it as a given that the BBC as a public service broadcaster holds itself to a higher standard than GB news etc.

I'm afraid the days of Lord Reith's statement that the mission of the BBC was to inform, educate and entertain were lost a long time ago. Sad but true.
What they did was unacceptable and those responsible seemingly have paid the price.

 

[TinFoilHat]

 

[meltonblue]

I'm afraid the days of Lord Reith's statement that the mission of the BBC was to inform, educate and entertain were lost a long time ago. Sad but true.
What they did was unacceptable and those responsible seemingly have paid the price.

I’m not sure they have tbh, they’ve lost their jobs due to their response to it, not the actual edit in the first place.The board didn’t want the DG to go.

I don’t get why they didn’t just respond to it in the first place, change the edit as soon as they were made aware and do something about the people who did sign off on it, wouldn’t have created much noise at all had they done that.

 

[JULES]

meh! a few seconds spliced speech, probably just a editing mistake by an off branch company,

well, you made me laugh

 

[domalino]

It’s absolutely infuriating seeing people report this as if it’s actually going to happen, let alone that it would be taken seriously.

He will never file a lawsuit, and if he did, he wouldn’t win. The man incited a riot at the Capitol, the BBC shouldn’t have edited the speech the way they did, but it doesn’t change the fact that Trump actually did do what the edited footage purported he did, just not quite as brazenly.

 

[Earlyriser]

I’m not sure they have tbh, they’ve lost their jobs due to their response to it, not the actual edit in the first place.The board didn’t want the DG to go.

I don’t get why they didn’t just respond to it in the first place, change the edit as soon as they were made aware and do something about the people who did sign off on it, wouldn’t have created much noise at all had they done that.

I suspect it was the rather naive and mistaken view that they could sit and ride it out. They failed to realise the depth of hatred that exist in sections of the media and their desire to destroy the BBC

 

[meltonblue]

I suspect it was the rather naive and mistaken view that they could sit and ride it out. They failed to realise the depth of hatred that exist in sections of the media and their desire to destroy the BBC

Within the bbc too, given someone must have leaked the memo!

 

[rabby]

Fa

Fair play to him if anyone is going to recognise a bunch of biased cunts it's Kelvin McKenzie.

 

[stan bowles]

meh! a few seconds spliced speech, probably just a editing mistake by an off branch company, BBC employs over 21,000 people, they have news and service channels running 24/7, mistakes are going to happen, fuck ups are going to happen. almost a daily basis on GB News and Trump himself. but hey, lets burn the BBC at stake and get rid of one our longest running institutions, how dare we upset the fat orange ****.

Unsurprisingly, you allow your hatred of Trump to miss the main points of this and the series of blunders and fuck ups that occurred. The BBC board first discussed this months ago and considered there was nothing wrong with the Panaroma broadcast and no action needed to be taken. It wouldn't have mattered if the programme contained a speech by Trump, Putin, Mother Teresa or Bob Geldof. Knowingly splicing a speech to link to 2 parts of it, 54 minutes apart, to create a pre-determined narrative was a deliberate false representation and those with ultimate control took no action. Mistakes do happen, you're right- ignoring them when you're aware of them (first raised with BBC bosses in January and then again in May), taking no action and only reacting when a Daily Telegraph article was published, is indefensible.

 

[stan bowles]

Did I say that-no!

However Gibb and the rest of the board are also expected to be impartial especially if it involves any editorial input. His wiki page suggests this is certainly not the case:

In 2020, he led a successful consortium bid to buy The Jewish Chronicle. The consortium's bid was backed by journalist Sir William Shawcross, former Labour MP John Woodcock, and journalist John Ware.Gibb has refused to say who funded the consortium bid, believed to be around £3.5 million. In his declaration of interest on the BBC website, Gibb stated that he owned a 100 per cent holding in Jewish Chronicle Media. Alan Rusbridger, writing in The Independent, made the point that, "the BBC board's own website commits them to 'submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office'. They should restrict information 'only when the wider public interest clearly demands'." Rusbridger continued by saying that Gibb had "flatly ignored my questions about his role as the sole named director of the JC. Nor will he tell anyone whose money is behind the paper he 'owns'"

According to former Chronicle journalist Lee Harpin, Gibb made a habit of coming into the office and checking what stories were topping the news list; Harpin was told the new owners wanted more views "well to the right of the Tory party" According to Harpin, Gibb interviewed candidates for a senior editor position and appointed Jake Wallis Simons.

Gibb departed as a director of the Chronicle on August 20, 2024, passing ownership to Jonathan Kandel, a fellow consortium member, and the ex-Labour peer Lord Austin of Dudley. The people ultimately responsible for the company's debts remained unknown. Gibb retained sole directorship of "The JC Media and Culture Preservation Initiative", a community interest company sharing a correspondence address with The Jewish Chronicle.

Gibb described himself as a "Thatcherite Conservative".

He was an editorial advisor for GB News prior to its launch in 2021

In August 2022, former BBC presenter Emily Maitlis stated that Gibb was an "active agent of the Conservative party" who played a significant role in determining the nature of the corporation's news output.

In September 2024, after The Jewish Chronicle was forced to apologise for publishing a string of fabricated stories about the Gaza war, Alan Rusbridger queried how Gibb could, as a member of the BBC's editorial guidelines and standard committee, sit on a panel and participate in an upcoming review of the impartiality of the BBC's war coverage

In July 2025, Gibb's impartiality was again questioned in an open letter from over 400 media figures to the BBC, which stated: "we are concerned that an individual with close ties to the Jewish Chronicle … has a say in the BBC's editorial decisions in any capacity, including the decision not to broadcast

Save your breath - the board is made up of lefties and right wingers alike who all have their own input. I'm sure Gibb's views carried no more weight than any other Board member.

 

[hampshireblue]

Unsurprisingly, you allow your hatred of Trump to miss the main points of this and the series of blunders and fuck ups that occurred. The BBC board first discussed this months ago and considered there was nothing wrong with the Panaroma broadcast and no action needed to be taken. It wouldn't have mattered if the programme contained a speech by Trump, Putin, Mother Teresa or Bob Geldof. Knowingly splicing a speech to link to 2 parts of it, 54 minutes apart, to create a pre-determined narrative was a deliberate false representation and those with ultimate control took no action. Mistakes do happen, you're right- ignoring them when you're aware of them (first raised with BBC bosses in January and then again in May), taking no action and only reacting when a Daily Telegraph article was published, is indefensible.

Maybe the fact that they didn't receive a single complaint from the very people who fund the BBC ie. the viewers, about Panorama swayed their decision. I'm not defending what they did but this clearly became a politicised campaign and I suspect the timing is key as there may well be more Epstein revelations in the near future that may involve Trump and removing the BBC from the reporting circle eg removing their White House access and replacing it with a more right wing broadcaster may impact how that is reported

 

[JRockBlues]

Somebody needs to superimpose Trump's head on this image

 

[mexico1970]

Maybe the fact that they didn't receive a single complaint from the very people who fund the BBC ie. the viewers, about Panorama swayed their decision. I'm not defending what they did but this clearly became a politicised campaign and I suspect the timing is key as there may well be more Epstein revelations in the near future that may involve Trump and removing the BBC from the reporting circle eg removing their White House access and replacing it with a more right wing broadcaster may impact how that is reported

Christ the Beeb fucked up and this is your take on it ?

 

[meltonblue]

Gibb absolutely shouldn’t be anywhere near the bbc board. He’s on their editorial standards committee too.

 

[mackenzie]

Christ the Beeb fucked up and this is your take on it ?

I think the reasons viewers didn't complain is a good indication that they don't expect the BBC to get up to tricks like this. Our national broadcaster has always been expected to be impartial. I can't believe it's being defended, no matter who the subject of the manipulation is.