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.
I think the ridiculous effort to be ‘impartial’ is why the BBC has been struggling for years now. Impartial doesn’t mean giving equal weight to everything, which is the rabbit hole they’ve have been going down.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.
I think the ridiculous effort to be ‘impartial’ is why the BBC has been struggling for years now. Impartial doesn’t mean giving equal weight to everything, which is the rabbit hole they’ve have been going down.
Plus, it’s at the whim of every government and the threat to pull funding which has been more problematic than ever before, over the last ten years.
No one is questioning the veracity of Prescott's conclusions.You could level that last comment at Prescott too, to be fair!
Yet according to some a "right wing tory tool".BBC clearly in the sights of the pan-global right wing authoritarian takeover, which is obviously now underway.
All my life I have trusted the BBC. I have read newspapers and taken things they say with a pinch of salt as the saying goes. The BBC however was the only news I trusted maybe not always fully, I am not that naïve, but I felt safe with the BBC.
So now my last illusion is shattered. Who do we trust now to tell us the truth? It's a very, very sad day. IMHO :-(
Just because your enemies are right wing bad faith actors with dubious motives does not mean their case has no merit.BBC clearly in the sights of the pan-global right wing authoritarian takeover, which is obviously now underway.
No one is questioning the veracity of Prescott's conclusions.
exactly so, they are cursed by the folly of 'false equivalance'I think the ridiculous effort to be ‘impartial’ is why the BBC has been struggling for years now. Impartial doesn’t mean giving equal weight to everything, which is the rabbit hole they’ve have been going down.
Plus, it’s at the whim of every government and the threat to pull funding which has been more problematic than ever before, over the last ten years.
Things on the BBC I have watched recently:
American Fiction (great movie)
An old Arena documentary about Francis Bacon the painter
Confessions of a Brain Surgeon - a superlative profile of Henry Marsh
Floyd on France
That Sumo wrestling tournament
First couple of episodes of the old Ken Hom series about Chinese cookery - a bit clunky but have already learned a lot
Match of the Day - us stuffing the dippers
Will probably watch the Bryan Magee series The Great Philosophers next.
Just really posting this to as a gentle reminder to people that the BBC isn’t just a news/politics channel.
As for Trump, according to the distinguished historian Timothy Snyder, last time around he made 1,628 false or misleading claims (plus 24 more in an early interview that only lasted 30 minutes) during his first 298 days in office.
So the BBC probably have a lot of catching up to do to compete with his habitual mendacity.
And yes, if it went subscription only, I would pay.
Will add to the list.I recommend the Philosophize This podcast. You will struggle to think of a philosopher that is not covered. I like the way he links the work of the philosophers. A good listen.
I have listened to a few myself. Always download a few for holiday but never get around to them as the missus talks to me as soon as I put my headphones onWill add to the list.
Currently 400 odd into the Rest is History podcasts which are very good.
Michael Prescott is one, check his bio, currently working for Hanover, whose current portfolio includes pharmaceutical companies trying to increase drug prices to the NHS.The BBC has got too big and most likely gone too far in terms of diversification. It must be near impossible to effectively manage output across all of its business.
I don't think it is bias towards one group or another in favour of some political party, position or political agenda. If anything, it has probably fallen in to the trap of trying to please everyone.
Maybe it is about time it is broken up into separate, but state owned, businesses.
People forget about much of the great work they do. They still produce the highest quality news programmes, documentaries and dramas (some commissioned, I know), as well as great education resources.
It is telling that many of those who are among the biggest critics of the BBC are those who do not have the public interest at heart, such as big business, pressure owning tax exiles and far right organisations.
All my life I have trusted the BBC. I have read newspapers and taken things they say with a pinch of salt as the saying goes. The BBC however was the only news I trusted maybe not always fully, I am not that naïve, but I felt safe with the BBC.
So now my last illusion is shattered. Who do we trust now to tell us the truth? It's a very, very sad day. IMHO :-(
It’s right people lost their jobs over this but that panorama programme still told the truth, it misrepresented his speech, not his actions, there’s a reason it didn’t have any complaints at the time and it took a leaked internal memo for it to come to light.