There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Davies plus CEO both resigned
Donald Trump lies at the centre of it
Still some honour in this country
Donald Trump lies at the centre of it
Still some honour in this country
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 165
|
By:
Davey not Davies
|
|
By:
Lisa Nandy thanked Tim Davey for his service!
|
|
By:
Who gives a toss?
They will be replaced by Anti English "Pinkos" |
|
By:
Neither of them acknowledged the real reason for their going in their "resignation statements".
Awful stuff. |
|
By:
“… the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
― Thomas Jefferson, Memoirs, Correspondence And Private Papers Of Thomas Jefferson, Ed. By T.J. Randolph #Prescient ScrapTheLicenceFeeScrapTheBbc |
|
By:
Another rat leaving the bbc ship.
|
|
By:
Does this mean that we can no longer believe a picture or video that Panorama ever tells us? The sanctimony. Deplorable.
|
|
By:
... Why isnt Trump Suing the Baws off the BBC ?? Or I might have missed something.
I wonder what " BBC Verify " made of it. ? |
|
By:
I only saw the cut and shut speech today, extraordinary.
BBC propagandist filth. |
|
By:
Was a great Broadcaster Back in the day , sad to see its demise
|
|
By:
Doesn't matter who the bosses are. The organisation is rancid from top to bottom.
|
|
By:
Tim Davie was appointed by Boris's government as a Conservative to get the woke BBC under control so it is ironic he has been forced out over this.
Panorama, accused of doctoring Trump's 6th of January speech, was made by an independent production company and not by the BBC itself. |
|
By:
Tim Davie was appointed by Boris's government as a Conservative to get the woke BBC under control so it is ironic he has been forced out over this.
Not really, since it has gotten a lot worse. Usually if leaders fail, they move on to another organisation to fail at. Taking a big payoff with them. Panorama, accused of doctoring Trump's 6th of January speech, was made by an independent production company and not by the BBC itself. The executives were told that they broadcast a distorted speech. A distorted speech from quite an important person, over quite an important issue. And did absolutely nothing about it. Not accused of, proven. (nice stab at defending the bbc tho!) |
|
By:
Honour? Hiding for six months then when found out slinking away without justifying their very poor conduct is honourable?
Sry mate, not with you on this one. |
|
By:
It is all part of the same cabal of thought controlling. The BBC decided we should form a certain opinion so deliberately lied to us in a media vehicle otherwise and previously trusted.
Orwell called it Newspeak. |
|
By:
Loyal 855 post is a very good question
|
|
By:
What nobody on here, on in the media, seems to have realised is how this issue perfectly shows the sheer madness of the UK.
So, no doubt, the BBC must know by now what silly little young journalist, or band of journalists, edited the film of Trump. Hence, you would think the people concerned will now be subject to a Human Resources disciplinary procedure that SHOULD result in their sacking for gross misconduct - no guarantees there, though, give the rancid state of the human rights obsessed BBC. Yet, before the disciplinary procedure is complete - or even started - the bosses are resigning!! So much for a disciplinary procedure where innocence is presumed until guilt is proven. Would it surprise me if the resignation of theses bosses is seen as putting a bias on any disciplinary hearing and thus the journos are able to keep their jobs due to the BBC fearing they have violated their human rights? No, it would not. Now, I have no sympathy for the journos here and hope they are sacked, nor do I have any sympathy for the two bosses who have resigned. But all of this shows just how mixed up and subject to social media pressure the thinking of so many now is in the UK. The journos involved should be subject to a disciplinary and then sacked. After that, the two bosses resign. That's the sensible way to work things but common sense is long gone in the UK, replaced by PC stupidity, woke thinking and the inability of anyone to accept something when they do not agree with it (in this case, BBC journos who do not like Trump) But, to end, perhaps none of what I have said could not happen because the journalists responsible were freelancers and the BBC do not want us to know how they are spending money in that way? Like I have said before on here, I used to love the UK and was proud to have been born here. Now, at 65, I hate it. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Lmao, from the 'man' who models himself on Jay Cartwright.
Dear me. |
|
By:
You’ll have to explain what ‘Jay Cartwright’ is sh1tto? Is this based on entertainment for fcukwit bob a jobbers?
|
|
By:
The Knight, I feel like you've missed the point completely. This wasn't a mistake, or something slipped through the net created by some sort of junior intern. The BBC have decided that Trump is the devil incarnate. So to them, distorting the truth is on the table. The ends (or desired ends), justify the means. Not just Trump, but any given topic where the BBC has decided what is right and what is wrong. Israel, Islam, trans, 'climate change', Brexit. This is deeply cultural, their only concern is that they got caught out. I suppose one word for it is brazen. Brazen people are rather arrogant and casual. Eventually they get bitten on the arse, no matter who they have batting for them.
|
|
By:
We both know you know.
|
|
By:
The Knight - if you applied the same standards to Social Media, there would be no Social Media.
In fact if you applied the same standards to any other media outlet, there would be no other media outlets. The BBC has done something very stupid; it has distorted some facts. Other news outlets and millions of individual people (including all the usual suspects on here) spend all day every day broadcasting things that are stupid and deliberately distorting the facts. Where is the public outcry? If you can find me any media outlet that hasn't published untruths, "fake news" or deliberately distorted the facts in the past 7 days I'd be amazed. You could argue that the BBC is publicly funded - but either directly or indirectly, all media is publicly funded. I'm not a BBC fanboy but in a world that's rapidly becoming distorted by the owners political bias, ideological bias, lies and disinformation, from where would any of the people on here recommend that we get our news if we want it to have any semblance of the facts? Perhaps somebody that has posted on this thread could give me a laugh and name their most favoured unbiased news outlet? |
|
By:
There won't be a disciplinary, there won't be any sanctions, there wont be any suspensions. Therefore, there will be no tribunals. Everyone who put that episode of Pana together were doing what they were tasked to do.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
A bit like Kuenssberg is a Tory plant
 Or the QT audience is representative of the voting population. lol |
|
By:
Only you know weird uncle, don’t forget that.
|
|
By:
unbiased news outlet
no such thing exists |
|
By:
Feel like knocking the license fee demand in the head after this episode.
|
|
By:
TM. There is nothing wrong with biased news as long as the purveyor does not claim to be unbiased.
The Guardian, GB news and many others are merely echo chambers for people who think similarly. I find that rather tedious and as I am unaware of any unbiased news outlet I seldom bother at all. Our three main news channels are like triplets spewing out left wing narratives. The boss of ITV was previously boss at the Guardian. Do you think she changed her political opinions when she got the job, or further infected ITV news and drama with them. |
|
By:
Cider10 Nov 25 11:00Joined: 29 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 64,521 | Blogger: Cider's blog
unbiased news outlet no such thing exists So where would you recommend as the best option. What do you buy, read or watch to get your "news"? Name some names please. |
|
By:
The Management...a great pity that there isn't 'no social media'! I really do not understand your arguments. Yes, there may well be bias all over the place but if that is the case then when someone is caught out like the BBC has been, it must still lead to punishment! A lot of people now drive around uninsured but that does not mean that when some are caught they should escape punishment.
Cider...do you really think the whole of the BBC is bias against Trump then? No, I cannot have that and maintain some little twerp did a stupid thing. The lack of a proper management structure at the BBC - no doubt due to woke and everyone being 'touch-feely' - meant the edited film was never checked, Of course, if you are correct then the whole BBC staff should resign from top to bottom. At 65, though, I am too old to believe all of these constant conspiracy theories out there - not least of all because life has taught me that, on the whole, people are simply not clever enough to execute large copnspioraces properly! |
|
By:
Yes I do. Very very rarely do I view any bbc content at all. Nowadays, only for betting purposes. So it was related to the US election, ergo Trump. Their coverage of US politics is overtly biased. Pro Biden//Harris, against Trump. Nakedly so.
I also watched their coverage of the last local UK elections. I will get another laugh in May, assuming some of the elections are allowed to go ahead. |
|
By:
Interesting that people who ingest their bias are still unaware of it.
|
|
By:
saddo - same question to you as the one that cider failed to answer at 11:11:
So where would you recommend as the best option. What do you buy, read or watch to get your "news"? Name some names please. |
|
By:
I'm off out now (hoping to avoid the fictional gangs of undesirables lurking on every street corner), so take your time - but grateful for a reply by the time I get back.
|
|
By:
I've already answered that, there isn't one,
I don't bother and don't miss it. You didn't answer my question though. The boss of ITV was previously boss at the Guardian. Do you think she changed her political opinions when she got the job, or further infected ITV news and drama with them. (think Tom Bradby and his talking eyebrows) |
|
By:
For the hard of hearing, I don't recommend an unbiased news outlet as it doesn't exist.
Source material (where possible). For example, with the Trump speech you'd watch the whole thing unedited. Forbes put a lot of content like that out, just the raw material. |