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

[meltonblue]

It's not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing with Prescott and Gibbs views, as this is clearly a case of if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Gibbs appointment and Prescott's sentiments are not responsible for the doctoring of that Trump speech, they were not the drivers of the BBC's pro Palestinian stance or their support for gender ideology. The fact that Gibbs and Prescott may disagree with these sentiments is not relevant to the crux of the matter, in fact its only relevance is that clearly its only someone with Prescott's politics working within the BBC that could've exposed all this, so in this instance his politics is clearly a positive in this sorry matter otherwise we'd be none the wiser. You clearly want Prescott and Gibbs removed because of their political bias and see this bias as having some form of equivalence to the matter at hand, but that is plainly a nonsense and seeks to deliberately muddy the waters in order to distract from the matter itself and that matter is the clear and obvious BBC bias that Prescott exposed. In fact where it not for Prescott's politics the far more important matter of the BBC's clear and obvious politics, and after all that's what makes it to our screens, would never have been exposed.



Right wing capture? Prescott and Gibbs were appointed because the BBC was clearly already captured, and not by their ilk and their politics, this is as obvious as the nose on your face, all Prescott has done is his job, he was sent there to expose it and he has exposed it.

The only significance to this matter that Gibbs and Prescott's politics has, or the reasoning behind their appointment, is that without their appointment and without Prescott's politics these matters would never have been exposed.

There is no six of one and half a dozen of the other here and your insistence that there is smacks of desperation.

Your bit in bold is exactly what the counter argument is all about, are you sure you meant to actually include that let alone bold it?!

I’d argue the complete opposite to you. I’d like to hope, as Prescott himself explicitly says himself, that he created that report with no political bias whatsoever. As you say “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck” then you don’t need any political bias to see it’s a duck. There are right leaning other members on the bbc board that clearly disagreed with some of it though and Shah still does too so your assertion that it’s a duck is clearly not held by everyone, that’s like I said just people seeing what they want to see.

I don’t want Gibbs gone because of that report, I have no issues with the report. I disagree with Prescott on his findings on Israel
Gaza and I’d be very wary of anyone that thinks that’s an example of a “walks like a duck”. He’s absolutely entitled to his opinion on it though and it’s an opinion that should be shared with the board like he did do. I want Gibbs gone as someone as political as him should be nowhere near the bbc board, I’d say the same if it was Alistair Campbell there.

The other reason I want him gone is the other issue with your point in bold. These matters didn’t get exposed because of the report, they got exposed publicly because someone leaked it to the telegraph and whoever did that did it knowing full well the damage it would do.

 

[meltonblue]

A difficult question, given there is so little choice of comprehensive news organisations. I am sceptical about most. US is easier due to the growth of independent on line news organisations but UK has few if any of these.
Crazily, the one that comes nearest to fair reportage is The Times. Good old Murdoch!!

I don’t mind the Times. Depending on the topic, the FT is good.

The worst one for me has been the decline of the Telegraph. Only do the crossword in it nowadays!

 

[lloydie]

Your bit in bold is exactly what the counter argument is all about, are you sure you meant to actually include that let alone bold it?!

I’d argue the complete opposite to you. I’d like to hope, as Prescott himself explicitly says himself, that he created that report with no political bias whatsoever. As you say “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck” then you don’t need any political bias to see it’s a duck. There are right leaning other members on the bbc board that clearly disagreed with some of it though and Shah still does too so your assertion that it’s a duck is clearly not held by everyone, that’s like I said just people seeing what they want to see.

I don’t want Gibbs gone because of that report, I have no issues with the report. I disagree with Prescott on his findings on Israel
Gaza and I’d be very wary of anyone that thinks that’s an example of a “walks like a duck”. He’s absolutely entitled to his opinion on it though and it’s an opinion that should be shared with the board like he did do. I want Gibbs gone as someone as political as him should be nowhere near the bbc board, I’d say the same if it was Alistair Campbell there.

The other reason I want him gone is the other issue with your point in bold. These matters didn’t get exposed because of the report, they got exposed publicly because someone leaked it to the telegraph and whoever did that did it knowing full well the damage it would do.

As you say.

 

[meltonblue]

As you say.

Well at least he knows it I suppose!

 

[The perfect fumble]

Your bit in bold is exactly what the counter argument is all about, are you sure you meant to actually include that let alone bold it?!

I’d argue the complete opposite to you. I’d like to hope, as Prescott himself explicitly says himself, that he created that report with no political bias whatsoever. As you say “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck” then you don’t need any political bias to see it’s a duck. There are right leaning other members on the bbc board that clearly disagreed with some of it though and Shah still does too so your assertion that it’s a duck is clearly not held by everyone, that’s like I said just people seeing what they want to see.

I don’t want Gibbs gone because of that report, I have no issues with the report. I disagree with Prescott on his findings on Israel
Gaza and I’d be very wary of anyone that thinks that’s an example of a “walks like a duck”. He’s absolutely entitled to his opinion on it though and it’s an opinion that should be shared with the board like he did do. I want Gibbs gone as someone as political as him should be nowhere near the bbc board, I’d say the same if it was Alistair Campbell there.

The other reason I want him gone is the other issue with your point in bold. These matters didn’t get exposed because of the report, they got exposed publicly because someone leaked it to the telegraph and whoever did that did it knowing full well the damage it would do.

It was you that made the politics of the key players important and I followed your lead, what matters is what matters, not that it was leaked, not that it is damaging, not that there there is disagreement on the board what matters is IT

And the IT is that Trump's speech was doctored, The IT is the BBC Arabic coverage of Gaza, the IT is the silenced gender ideology critics and everything you post is an attempt to avoid what my old dad used to call the bleedin obvious and the bleedin obvious is the IT

The "progressives" forces in the media are doing everything they can to redefine the story, to shine the light on everything but the obvious, this was in the Guardian....

All this and I include your posts, are nothing more than frantic attempts to avoid talking about what the leaks exposed and what they tell us about the mindset at the BBC.

 

[meltonblue]

It was you that made the politics of the key players important and I followed your lead, what matters is what matters, not that it was leaked, not that it is damaging, not that there there is disagreement on the board what matters is IT

And the IT is that Trump's speech was doctored, The IT is the BBC Arabic coverage of Gaza, the IT is the silenced gender ideology critics and everything you post is an attempt to avoid what my old dad used to call the bleedin obvious and the bleedin obvious is the IT

The "progressives" forces in the media are doing everything they can to redefine the story, to shine the light on everything but the obvious, this was in the Guardian....

All this and I include your posts, are nothing more than frantic attempts to avoid talking about what the leaks exposed and what they tell us about the mindset at the BBC.

Let’s just leave it there then, I think you’re just continually proving my initial point now to the point you’re beginning to misrepresent me too.

To reiterate that again, both can be true.

 

[domalino]

I’d like to hope, as Prescott himself explicitly says himself, that he created that report with no political bias whatsoever.

Prescott's political views are completely exposed by him being upset with the term "election deniers" about the US election deniers...the ones who lost over 60 court cases trying to say the 2020 election was won by Trump and of whom several went to prison for falsifying evidence and election tampering for Trump.

Calling them election deniers is a completely factual description of them - they denied the results of the election - and the only people who don't like the term are Trump supporters. It's not the BBC's job to circumvent the correct description of those people to not upset them.

The same goes for the term "reproductive rights". It's a phrase that's been in use since the 1960's, and only since Trump's supreme court overturned Roe v Wade and Project 2025 explictly named banning contraceptive pills as part of Trump's second term policy did Republicans start to oppose the term.

The memo was written from that perspective, and for some reason people are acting as if it's an unbiased journalistic report.

 

[1961_vintage]

I want Gibbs gone as someone as political as him should be nowhere near the bbc board, I’d say the same if it was Alistair Campbell there.

Do you know if there any credible information available that can tell us what are the political leanings of each member of the BBC Board?

I see the politics of this Gibbs fella referred to often but not the others?

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

I repeat....

Pro Palestinian, pro gender ideology, anti Trump.

Doesn't look like right wing capture to me and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Ahhh yes, the pro palestine bbc whose middle east editor is a raging zionist who microamanages all middle east content and has pictures of israeli war criminal netanyahu on his wall. I'll simplify this for you - it's like having pete boyle and angry ginge reporting on every City story and claiming it's pro City. Here he is spunking his pants over mossad:



The centre for media monitoring did a report into the BBC's coverage on the Israeli genocide on the Palestinian people here. Key findings here:

Palestinian deaths treated as less newsworthy: Despite Gaza suffering 34x more casualties than Israel, BBC gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanising victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs 201 Israelis)

Systematic language bias favouring Israelis: BBC used emotive terms 4 times more for Israeli victims, applied ‘massacre’ 18x more to Israeli casualties, and used ‘murder’ 220 times for Israelis vs once for Palestinians

Suppression of genocide allegations: BBC presenters shut down genocide claims in over 100 documented instances whilst making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements, including Netanyahu’s biblical Amalek reference.

Muffling Palestinian voices: The BBC interviewed significantly fewer Palestinians than Israelis (1,085 v 2,350) on TV and radio, while BBC presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more frequently than the Palestinian perspective (2,340 v 217).

 

[meltonblue]

Do you know if there any credible information available that can tell us what are the political leanings of each member of the BBC Board?

I see the politics of this Gibbs fella referred to often but not the others?

No, but you can look at who’s on the board and then look into them, which is what I did.

It’s not just about political leanings though, Gibbs is a lot further than that given he worked for the conservatives and was a proponent of the plan to destabilise the bbc and create a Fox News alternative over here, he helped raise the funds for GB News.

 

[lloydie]

Well at least he knows it I suppose!

 

[meltonblue]

Prescott's political views are completely exposed by him being upset with the term "election deniers" about the US election deniers...the ones who lost over 60 court cases trying to say the 2020 election was won by Trump and of whom several went to prison for falsifying evidence and election tampering for Trump.

Calling them election deniers is a completely factual description of them - they denied the results of the election - and the only people who don't like the term are Trump supporters. It's not the BBC's job to circumvent the correct description of those people to not upset them.

The same goes for the term "reproductive rights". It's a phrase that's been in use since the 1960's, and only since Trump's supreme court overturned Roe v Wade and Project 2025 explictly named banning contraceptive pills as part of Trump's second term policy did Republicans start to oppose the term.

The memo was written from that perspective, and for some reason people are acting as if it's an unbiased journalistic report.

I’m finding it incredibly odd that even if someone does agree with everything in that report, they can’t possibly think there might be other things going on too and yet without irony say “people see what they want to see”…

 

[The perfect fumble]

Ahhh yes, the pro palestine bbc whose middle east editor is a raging zionist who microamanages all middle east content and has pictures of israeli war criminal netanyahu on his wall. I'll simplify this for you - it's like having pete boyle and angry ginge reporting on every City story and claiming it's pro City. Here he is spunking his pants over mossad:



The centre for media monitoring did a report into the BBC's coverage on the Israeli genocide on the Palestinian people here. Key findings here:

Palestinian deaths treated as less newsworthy: Despite Gaza suffering 34x more casualties than Israel, BBC gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanising victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs 201 Israelis)

Systematic language bias favouring Israelis: BBC used emotive terms 4 times more for Israeli victims, applied ‘massacre’ 18x more to Israeli casualties, and used ‘murder’ 220 times for Israelis vs once for Palestinians

Suppression of genocide allegations: BBC presenters shut down genocide claims in over 100 documented instances whilst making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements, including Netanyahu’s biblical Amalek reference.

Muffling Palestinian voices: The BBC interviewed significantly fewer Palestinians than Israelis (1,085 v 2,350) on TV and radio, while BBC presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more frequently than the Palestinian perspective (2,340 v 217).

I believe it was to do with the BBC's Arabic transmissions.

 

[johnnytapia]

I thought that was Rowley Birkin QC at first glance.

KC now?

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

I believe it was to do with the BBC's Arabic transmissions.

Ahh so we in Britain care more about BBC arabic content all of a sudden do we? And that's the marker we in Britain need for branding the bbc as 'pro palestinian' as you put it - completely ignoring the pro israel genocide enabling propaganda the bbc has pumping out in the UK these past few years.

Good to know. Not sure we voted brexit to prioritize bbc arabic content, but good to know how the logic works on the right

 

[meltonblue]

I believe it was to do with the BBC's Arabic transmissions.

The duck analogy is done for then! ;)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I believe it was to do with the BBC's Arabic transmissions.

He's completely unhinged. Don't even try to reason with him.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not my comfort zone, but I’ve checked out, best I could, the libels laws of the UK and Florida and I’d say a claim by Trump in either jurisdiction was completely without merit.

 

[meltonblue]

Not my comfort zone, but I’ve checked out, best I could, the libels laws of the UK and Florida and I’d say a claim by Trump in either jurisdiction was completely without merit.

It’s timed out over here hasn’t it?

 

[domalino]

Ahh so we in Britain care more about BBC arabic content all of a sudden do we? And that's the marker we in Britain need for branding the bbc as 'pro palestinian' as you put it - completely ignoring the pro israel genocide enabling propaganda the bbc has pumping out in the UK these past few years.

Good to know. Not sure we voted brexit to prioritize bbc arabic content, but good to know how the logic works on the right

Also worth pointing out Michael Presccott does not speak Arabic. So he's in no position to assess what was being said himself, and is relying on (at best) second hand reports that he's passed off as his own concerns.