Two top leaders at the BBC resigned on Sunday amid an escalating scandal over impartiality and bias that plunged Britain’s public broadcaster into one of its biggest crises in recent years.
The BBC’s most senior executive, director general Tim Davie, and the chief executive of the news division, Deborah Turness, both quit after the leak of a deeply critical memo that, among other things, revealed that the BBC had misleadingly edited a speech by Donald Trump to make it appear that he had directly called for violence on January 6.
Good.
That’s called having integrity and that’s becoming increasingly rare.
Yeah, wouldn’t want to make it seem like Trump encouraged the January 6th riot. That would be so irresponsible and inaccurate. Who could imagine that Trump was 100% behind and encouraging of the January 6th riot? He never used coded language pushing for it heavily.
Vlad Vexler’s comments were along these same lines.
Like, it was bad journalism to splice the start and end of the speech. BUT the speech itself interwove “protest peacefully” with “fight like hell” intentionally to make it hard for a soundbite clip to pin down.
What they should have done is not play his speech at all, but instead talk to legal experts about the evidence in the insurrection case against him.
‘We fight like hell’ isn’t much of a code!
This is a coup by Conservative appointees within the BBC. They should be sacked for this.
These ex-BBC reporters agree with you: The News Agents: Inside the BBC: What really went on
Episode webpage: https://www.thenewsagents.co.uk/
Cartoon about the BBC currently sucking up to the far right: https://tech.lgbt/@Natasha_Jay/115524226654011092
Naughty CNN! Trump did indeed say to ‘we fight like hell’ as you can see in the full transcript on news sites that haven’t surrendered yet, such as AP: Transcript of Trump’s speech at rally before US Capitol riot | AP News
Any one hour documentary pretty much has to edit that rambling dumpster fire of a speech. The BBC’s main mistake was not to make the edit clearer.
This was probably worth an apology. Was it worth the leader resigning? Probably not. The right-wing media succeeds in hunting another witch. I hope it backfires and Labour appoint someone further left.
Here’s what he said with more of the transcript, since everyone seems to be afraid of anything larger than 5 second sound bites:
And again, most people would stand there at 9 o’clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something’s wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
That sounds like encouraging a riot to me.
Sounds like? It is and it did incite a riot.
The BBC had a statement ready explaining and apologising - they should have added a graphical effect to highlight that it was joined.
It should like the board of the BBC blocked it’s release though.
The problem is the politicalisation of the board rather than anything else
It was an egregious distortion, similar to the one which forced the resignation of the Controller of BBC One in 2007.
“Distortion”? Trump was behind the riots. Anything that conceals that fact is the distortion.
The BBC board is dominated by Conservative placeholders appointed during the 14 years of Conservative government. They are highly partisan despite being paid for by licence-holders. Balance must be restored.
The Tories hate trump too.
How can you tell? It looks like a bad edit. This is not like the 2007 incident of editing things out of order to fake someone leaving an appointment angrily, then making an indiscreet comment on the faked event.
It shunted together two paragraphs in Trump’s speech that were 50 minutes apart to make it sound like he explicitly told people to attack congress. There’s no editorial justification for that.
Well, except for the fact that he did tell people to do that.
They should have used that clip instead.
But he did say ‘we fight like hell’. The bad edit just made it seem clearer than Trump’s speeches ever are. If there had been an edit flash (where the screen briefly goes grey between clips) and ideally a couple of snatches of speech from in between, there would have been no credible complaint. This seems more like wanting history to be neater than it usually is, not an attempt to change Trump’s fundamental message, no matter how much he’s backpedalled it since.
The BBC board did this to lick Trump’s ass, as can be seen by Trump’s gloating after the “resignations.”
Appeasers of fascists shouldn’t hold public office.
This seems to me a sign that the rest of the world will not be able to help us, as they suffer from the same illness.
It’s because billionaires have such an incomprehensibly large amount of money that they can literally buy entire countries. Fascism won’t stay contained to the US/UK
That depends entirely on what we do.
To be honest we Brits sent you lot away already carrying it. No way we didn’t still have it or get it back from you. The UK is at best a couple years behind, as always.
We’re supposed to have Ofcom to investigate stuff like this.
Good news, bias has no place in state sponsored journalism at all
You have read what this “biased” article was about, haven’t you? The article was about the point that Trump caused the Jan 6 insurrection, which is only criticised by rather demented people.
It’s not just about the article, it’s about malicious editing of videos and timelines as well. The edit is extremely egregious and should not be something done at all by any self respecting journalism publication
Oh my.
The left and cancel culture is out of control! Oh wait.
So dumb. More fuel for the fire. Just let Trump burn himself down.
