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

[The perfect fumble]

Well, apart from the head of the bbc board and the EGSC! I’m sure Deb Cohen would challenge you about that too.

What people say is less important than what they do.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This wasn't a mistake, this was a piece of deceptive editing, done purposefully in order to paint Trump in the worse possible light, because the BBC has become political.

So yes, Trump has every right to sue. Probably would be a good thing if the BBC suffers a financial cost in order to prevent this type of thing happening again.

My focus is on the real story here, that our publicly funded state broadcaster has become political.

Your answer appears to be that a claim for a billion dollars is a proportionate response.

 

[meltonblue]

What people say is less important than what they do.

She’d say that too!

 

[Vic]

Those are the accusation, if these accusations have no validity I'm happy to be proved wrong but as far as I'm aware they have some substance otherwise why would the BBC director general Tim Davie and CEO of News Deborah Turness have resigned?

That's the issue, from where I'm standing, I'm the only one in here not diving down rabbit holes in a desperate attempt to divert.

Facts matter you know, that Panorama Trump documentary didn't edit itself. The absence of counter arguments to gender ideology on the BBC is an incontrovertible fact, no one at the BBC is denying it. The disparity between the BBC's domestic coverage of Gaza and the BBC Arabic coverage is not being contested, these are the "mistakes" that Davie and Turness have referred to and they're the reason they resigned.

From where I'm standing the sun is shinning, but you it seems are completely in the dark, denial is not a defence and doubling down on denial is not a convincing argument.

Yeah, the BBC Arabic output is biassed. On there, they don't avoid calling Gaza a genocide.

 

[The perfect fumble]

She’d say that too!

Then she'd look a fool, my behaviour isn't under the microscope nor am I bound by a commitment to impartiality.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Yeah, the BBC Arabic output is biassed. On there, they don't avoid calling Gaza a genocide.

Of course they don't and there in lies the dichotomy, from what I gather the BBC wanted their cake and eat it, they wanted to maintain one editorial line for domestic consumption and another for their Arabic audience, consequently their right wing critics pulled their pants down.

 

[meltonblue]

Then she'd look a fool, my behaviour isn't under the microscope nor am I bound by a commitment to impartiality.

Eh? I didn’t mean she’d say that about you! Her whole point is she was allowed to break gender critical stories whilst at the BBC and actually did it rather than just say she did it.

She also said she was attacked far more from outside of the organisation than in for doing it.

 

[meltonblue]

Of course they don't and there in lies the dichotomy, from what I gather the BBC wanted their cake and eat it, they wanted to maintain one editorial line for domestic consumption and another for their Arabic audience, consequently their right wing critics pulled their pants down.

That’s not right either. The right wing critics seemingly had no idea about it, much like they didn’t about Trump either until Prescott’s report came out (well, leaked out).

As per Shahs letter to the culture secretary, the BBC board had already acknowledged the issues with BBC Arabic and had made corrective steps after Prescott had raised it so they clearly didn’t want to maintain it. Whether he didn’t include that in his letter because he didn’t know or for other reasons, only he knows.

 

[The perfect fumble]

That’s not right either. The right wing critics seemingly had no idea about it, much like they didn’t about Trump either until Prescott’s report came out (well, leaked out).

As per Shahs letter to the culture secretary, the BBC board had acknowledged the issues and had made corrective steps after Prescott had raised it so they clearly didn’t want to maintain it. Whether he didn’t include that in his letter because he didn’t know or for other reasons, only he knows.

I have a bit of sympathy for the BBC, its international footprint is enormous, maintaining a consistent editorial line across such a diverse audience is close to impossible, but impossible or not that's what a credible public service broadcaster must strive to do.

 

[meltonblue]

I have a bit of sympathy for the BBC, its international footprint is enormous, maintaining a consistent editorial line across such a diverse audience is close to impossible, but impossible or not that's what a credible public service broadcaster must strive to do.

In this day and age in particular, it’s getting even more impossible.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Eh? I didn’t mean she’d say that about you! Her whole point is she was allowed to break gender critical stories whilst at the BBC and actually did it rather than just say she did it.

She also said she was attacked far more from outside of the organisation than in for doing it.

The Guardian occasionally runs positive stories about City, but it's editorial policy on the club is clear.

Similarly the BBC's editorial policy on gender ideology, though it doesn't call it that, is clear. The BBC has LGBTQ+ policies that focus on both inclusivity in its workplace and its content.

That is a political decision, it is the corporations default position.

BBC ACTION LINE
Main content

Information and Support: LGBT+​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1nYWPTdMtKStFL2ztx1SV11/information-and-support-lgbt

I was accused in here of having an agenda, I've even been accused of being dishonest. I'm neither, I could post a whole bunch of stuff in here that could show in slam dunk fashion just how captured the BBC is in this regard, but with respect, and I mean respect, you wouldn't read it nor I suspect would you change your mind if you did and neither would anyone else in here, so I don't, but more than that that's not why I come here.

I don't know what to make of the stuff that's been leaked to the Telegraph, some of it chimes with me, some of it not so much, but I won't dismiss it simply because it was the Telegraph that printed it. I try, though I'm not always successful, to distinguish the message from the messenger.

 

[meltonblue]

The Guardian occasionally runs positive stories about City, but it's editorial policy on the club is clear.

Similarly the BBC's editorial policy on gender ideology, though it doesn't call it that, is clear. The BBC has LGBTQ+ policies that focus on both inclusivity in its workplace and its content.

That is a political decision, it is the corporations default position.

BBC ACTION LINE
Main content

Information and Support: LGBT+​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1nYWPTdMtKStFL2ztx1SV11/information-and-support-lgbt

I was accused in here of having an agenda, I've even been accused of being dishonest. I'm neither, I could post a whole bunch of stuff in here that could show in slam dunk fashion just how captured the BBC is in this regard, but with respect, and I mean respect, you wouldn't read it nor I suspect would you change your mind if you did and neither would anyone else in here, so I don't, but more than that that's not why I come here.

I don't know what to make of the stuff that's been leaked to the Telegraph, some of it chimes with me, some of it not so much, but I won't dismiss it simply because it was the Telegraph that printed it. I try, though I'm not always successful, to distinguish the message from the messenger.

And that has nothing to do with the point I was making about Cohen or even Prescotts report, they were entirely to do with BBC’s news output and whether it was impartial or not.

Of course they’d say inclusivity is part of their workplace and content, no organisation woudnt. Some people seem to be forgetting that it is still a protected characteristic by law.

None of that stopped what Cohen reported on on the bbc, which aligns with your sentiment on the topic and surely you’re an advocate of? Which other news organisation did similar apart from the Times?

You haven’t been accused of having an agenda, you admitted you did yourself and you clearly were dishonest, people can read previous posts, you know! I’d be more than happy to read anything you put and you seem to be forgetting I actually agree with a lot of Prescotts report and your sentiment, I’m just not going to blindly agree with all of it or ignore the other issues that have arised from it purely because I feel personally emotional about one part of it.

Or are you still having fun with it? In which case, don’t quote me!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Somewhere between $1 billion and $5 billion ffs. Just plucking figures out of the air.

My natural instincts in the theatre of litigation are to try and find a way to settle a dispute. Litigation is expensive, time consuming, emotionally exhausting and tedious. ‘Victory’ can often feel quite hollow, and rarely value for money. There is considerable truth in the axiom that lawyers are the only people who win in such circumstances. If a way to resolve things can be found, then it should be explored, and taken if available, even if it means taking a lot less than you feel you deserve. And it should be a lawyer’s moral and professional responsibility to make his client appreciate this wherever possible.

But sometimes, especially when defending a claim, there is no room for such an approach because it’s a dispute that is existential and to compromise is to capitulate to an extent that is catastrophic. And because the party on the other side is a ****.

This is one such instance.

Tell the **** to go fuck himself and let’s see how big his bollocks really are when it comes to prosecuting this hopeless and utterly meritless claim.

 

[The blue phantom]

Somewhere between $1 billion and $5 billion ffs. Just plucking figures out of the air.

My natural instincts in the theatre of litigation are to try and find a way to settle a dispute. Litigation is expensive, time consuming, emotionally exhausting and tedious. ‘Victory’ can often feel quite hollow, and rarely value for money. There is considerable truth in the axiom that lawyers are the only people who win in such circumstances. If a way to resolve things can be found, then it should be explored, and taken if available, even if it means taking a lot less than you feel you deserve. And it should be a lawyer’s moral and professional responsibility to make his client appreciate this wherever possible.

But sometimes, especially when defending a claim, there is no room for such an approach because it’s a dispute that is existential and to compromise is to capitulate to an extent that is catastrophic. And because the party on the other side is a ****.

This is one such instance.

Tell the **** to go fuck himself and let’s see how big his bollocks really are when it comes to prosecuting this hopeless and utterly meritless claim.

It's a distraction from the Epstein files so he will see this through to the very end even if its near certain he gets fuck all. Thing is he and the Whitehouse will use this now even more in their war on the media. Fake news propaganda etc etc

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's a distraction from the Epstein files so he will see this through to the very end even if its near certain he gets fuck all. Thing is he and the Whitehouse will use this now even more in their war on the media. Fake news propaganda etc etc

I fully expect he will; he is nothing if not tediously predictable. mMy post was aimed at my view about the BBC’s response (which they are required to do one way or the other) to his inevitable MO, which should be to not offer a single penny (or cent) in settlement.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Rusbridger currently on BBC saying that there's a longstanding doctrine that media can't be sued for mistakes, unless you can prove malicious intent.

Paraphrasing a bit, "even with this Supreme Court, that's still in place".

 

[Palerider]

Rusbridger currently on BBC saying that there's a longstanding doctrine that media can't be sued for mistakes, unless you can prove malicious intent.

Paraphrasing a bit, "even with this Supreme Court, that's still in place".

That seems fair to me. If it's a genuine mistake then apologise and move on. If it's a malicious attempt at manipulating opinion based on your own political beliefs then suing is appropriate. Bottom line is that telling the actual truth is the Holy Grail everything else is just opinionated bullshit.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

That seems fair to me. If it's a genuine mistake then apologise and move on. If it's a malicious attempt at manipulating opinion based on your own political beliefs then suing is appropriate. Bottom line is that telling the actual truth is the Holy Grail everything else is just opinionated bullshit.

Quite.

And as others have said that the overall documentary wasn't vehemently anti-Trump, and as a lot of the J6 goons pleaded in court that they were incited by Trump (or something like it), it doesn't look very malicious.

 

[The perfect fumble]

And that has nothing to do with the point I was making about Cohen or even Prescotts report, they were entirely to do with BBC’s news output and whether it was impartial or not.

Of course they’d say inclusivity is part of their workplace and content, no organisation woudnt. Some people seem to be forgetting that it is still a protected characteristic by law.

None of that stopped what Cohen reported on on the bbc, which aligns with your sentiment on the topic and surely you’re an advocate of? Which other news organisation did similar apart from the Times?

You haven’t been accused of having an agenda, you admitted you did yourself and you clearly were dishonest, people can read previous posts, you know! I’d be more than happy to read anything you put and you seem to be forgetting I actually agree with a lot of Prescotts report and your sentiment, I’m just not going to blindly agree with all of it or ignore the other issues that have arised from it purely because I feel personally emotional about one part of it.

Or are you still having fun with it? In which case, don’t quote me!

"They think it's all over... it is now!"

 

[robbieh]

Whatever the BBC have or haven't done, isn't it extraordinary that the President of the US is talking suing them. Can you imagine this in the past? If someone printed something negative about Blair, Clinton, Kennedy, Mitterrand etc in a foreign country I think they would just have ignored it.