desensitized43 Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 BBC Chairman resigned. Surprised it's taken this long. The stench of being associated to the most corrupt and dishonest politician in the land is something he just couldn't escape. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Genie Posted April 28, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted April 28, 2023 When does Rishi’s wife start her new job? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 28, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted April 28, 2023 4 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: BBC Chairman resigned. Surprised it's taken this long. The stench of being associated to the most corrupt and dishonest politician in the land is something he just couldn't escape. Doesn't really matter, it's not just him that is a stooge, there are others and they'll just appoint another anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 15, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2023 Another belter from the completely unbiased BBC. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 15, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2023 2 hours ago, BOF said: Another belter from the completely unbiased BBC. No . Whoever that person is, is putting across a political viewpoint. There's no balance to it, and the BBC is required under its charter to be impartial. Complaint rejected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 15, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted May 15, 2023 The BBC has it stipulated in its charter that it can only be impartial when it concerns making old lefties look like commies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 15, 2023 Share Posted May 15, 2023 3 hours ago, BOF said: Another belter from the completely unbiased BBC. Obviously this wasn't broadcast live by the beeb then. If you're going to make excellent political points like this then make sure you're going out live. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted May 15, 2023 Share Posted May 15, 2023 1 hour ago, blandy said: No . Whoever that person is, is putting across a political viewpoint. There's no balance to it, and the BBC is required under its charter to be impartial. Complaint rejected. That might be the justification, but I'm not convinced its the reason, nor am I convinced that the terms of the BBC charter and their obligation to be impartial as an organisation tie their hands in terms of broadcasting what is clearly one person's opinion at an award show. "Ok, we either need to cut this, or make sure whoever wins the next one is a tory, who's up next?", "Well, there's a lot of rainbows, sir..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 15, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2023 14 minutes ago, Davkaus said: "Ok, we either need to cut this, or make sure whoever wins the next one is a tory, who's up next?", "Well, there's a lot of rainbows, sir..." "Ok, we either need to cut this, or we will have to put in balance piece about the other angle, which will detract from a clip of an awards ceremony and turn it political, which is not the point of this story" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted May 15, 2023 Share Posted May 15, 2023 3 minutes ago, blandy said: "Ok, we either need to cut this, or we will have to put in balance piece about the other angle, which will detract from a clip of an awards ceremony and turn it political, which is not the point of this story" If it was a discussion show produced by the BBC, I'd probably agree to an extent. When they're broadcasting a live event, surely their remit is to cover the events that occur at said event, not create an artificial sense of balance because the actual events aren't consistent with the balanced portrayal they'd like to engineer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 15, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2023 1 minute ago, Davkaus said: When they're broadcasting a live event They weren't broadcasting it live - at least the version posted clearly wasn't live, for very obvious reasons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 15, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2023 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: If it was a discussion show produced by the BBC, I'd probably agree to an extent. When they're broadcasting a live event, surely their remit is to cover the events that occur at said event, not create an artificial sense of balance because the actual events aren't consistent with the balanced portrayal they'd like to engineer. That clip isn’t from the live broadcast I don’t think, it’s from a later version at least, if not a news clip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 15, 2023 Share Posted May 15, 2023 Even when its live i think thwre is a 5 second delay from "live" if that makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted May 15, 2023 Share Posted May 15, 2023 (edited) 28 minutes ago, blandy said: They weren't broadcasting it live - at least the version posted clearly wasn't live, for very obvious reasons. Very poorly phrased on my part (so I'll forgive the condescension ), I was more getting at it's an independent non-scripted, "live" (regardless of broadcasting mechanism - and I'm just abusing the term again here to try and reflect what I was trying to get at) event. It's not typical BBC output, it's them going and broadcasting an independent event, which, I would have thought, puts far less obligation on them to adhere to impartiality, when it's not really an event in their control, they don't invite people, or decide who speaks, they're just covering the event aren't they? The beeb's attitude to "balance" is one I'm never particularly reassured by, but I understand there is a bit of discretion/flexibility about how firmly impartiality must be enforced - as came out in the Linekar crisis when the argument was made that non-political presenters shouldn't be held to the same levels of impartiality as sports presenters. This is a fairly insignificant moment to me so fairly easily justified to cut someone's speech a bit short, I was just not convinced by your idea "well it's not politically balanced, cut it" when it comes to broadcasting non-political news/discussion shows, and that's where my point came from about surely it ought to be their duty to reflect the reality of the event that they're covering more than to mould reality to fit their impartiality standards. To make it an extreme example; say next year every single acceptance speech is shitting over the government. Do they cut them all "to be impartial"? I'd argue it gets to a point, quite some way before that extreme scenario, where it's not impartiality, it's abusing their editorial control to change the narrative; impartiality in this context should mean them representing the event they're covering so that viewers get an accurate reflection of what occurred at the BAFTAs, not ensuring that there is a balanced set of views at the event. Either way, I got bored of my own argument before I finished the post so I'll leave it there Edited May 15, 2023 by Davkaus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 15, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2023 33 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I was just not convinced by your idea "well it's not politically balanced, cut it" when it comes to broadcasting non-political news/discussion shows, and that's where my point came from about surely it ought to be their duty to reflect the reality of the event that they're covering more than to mould reality to fit their impartiality standards. Fair enough. My take was they were covering an entertainment industry bauble awards ceremony And as such, editing down the whole extended yawnfest/ lovey love in to a less sickly, media consumable clip for people who like that sort of thing. Snipping out luvvy political comment is not evidence of bias at all, to me. And as I said, it also upholds impartiality and potential complaint about only showing one side. Other perspectives are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 17, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 17, 2023 On 15/05/2023 at 16:44, blandy said: No . Whoever that person is, is putting across a political viewpoint. There's no balance to it, and the BBC is required under its charter to be impartial. Complaint rejected. Fair enough. At first glance it looked like despite the person admonishing all sides on the matter, the Beeb not liking 'their' side being a part of that. I understand the distinction. Complaint withdrawn m'lud. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 17, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 17, 2023 24 minutes ago, BOF said: Complaint withdrawn m'lud. How dare you be all reasonable on the internet! Honestly I don’t know what the world is coming to. Thank you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 17, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 17, 2023 22 minutes ago, blandy said: How dare you be all reasonable on the internet! Honestly I don’t know what the world is coming to. Thank you. You do see how long it took me to compose myself between responses? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted July 3, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted July 3, 2023 Why do the BBC keep airing Sunak's opinions about cricket? It's a rhetorical question of course, and the bolded part can stand alone, but it's annoying as ****. I don't care he has to say about anything, let alone elite sport. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 3, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted July 3, 2023 Katya Adler referring to an 'ATM machine'. Tsk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts