here is a BBC Newsnight interview of Peter Fincham, Controller of BBC One, the man who presented the fabricated clip of the Queen to journalists on Wednesday, saying, according to David Silitto’s report, “yes, it looks as though she stormed out”, as he did so.
BBC Newsnight: Peter Fincham interview
BBC Newsnight interview of Peter Fincham, Controller of BBC One
Full post still to follow.
Peter Fincham to my eye appeared to be smirking like the boy who let off the stink bomb in class. The action resulting in back slapping by all those who support his actions and who will close ranks around him so that he is not held accountable for his actions.
Robin Aitken was a senior journalist at the BBC who realised that the corporation expects all its staff to sing from the same left of centre, pro EU and anti USA hymnsheet. He has written a book – and this is not a plug for said book – but for info only – entitled “Can We Trust the BBC?”
[Moved to a new open thread – though as with the monarch, there is never not a current open thread. It’s just not always right at the top! :-)]
This navel-gazing story was given the usual carpet-bombing treatment on BBC1 news at 10 last night.
Then they moved on to the latest episode of the Gordo-love-in. Somehow forgetting to mention another postal strike.
As Stephen Pollard says:
One day we’ll no longer be forced to hand over a cheque to the BBC on pain of imprisonment. Until then, enjoy watching it squirm.
Albeit not having to pay the BBC tax, it’s still very enjoyable watching them squirm. Good stuff.
Here’s another small brick out of their wall – blogolob.
When you go to the cinema to watch a film, you’ll undoubtedly see trailers for other movies. These trailers will “tempt” you using clips of the other movie that will almost certainly not appear in chronological order.
The film companies mess around with the movie’s timeline to “sex up” their offering.
Why should TV land be different? It isn’t.
To say that the Beeb’s trailer was some mistake or accident stretches credibility to breaking point.
This sort of thing would be standard practice to the editor(s), only this time they hadn’t fully considered the consequences of their actions.
If Fincham won’t resign, then he should be sacked. If you all read your terms and conditions of employment, “Bringing XXXX into disrepute” is at the top of the list of dismissable offences. If this doesn’t qualify, then what does? Time for some leadership from the BBC Board Of Governors… (Don’t hold your breath).
From the website of RDF (the other player in this debacle)…
“RDF Media is one of Britain’s leading independent television production companies, responsible for hit shows such as Wife Swap, Faking It…”:lol:
Charley
“Bringing XXXX into disrepute”
The problem with mis-information is that most of it sticks. The perceptive amongst us can see through the story but unfortunately many will be in denial of the truth and prefer the sensational hype. Start a rumour and before you know it escalates out of proportion.
This is what the BBC has been doing for years. It plants one sided versions of the news in viewers/listeners minds which they take for granted as the truth.
With the recent terrorist trials the BBC has included moderate Muslim talking heads, meanwhile many Muslims have a different view –
“In the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings I remember having a passionate discussion with some friends about who was responsible for the attacks. It’s the work of the security services; I can put my life on it! one said. In fact, I think they’ve killed off these guys, planted their stuff on the trains and then just blamed it on the Muslims again. Then came a timid voice of opposition. I don’t think they’d kill their own people, I mean Tony Blair isn’t that evil. I think Mossad had a hand in it.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2072587.ece
needless to say the BBC has not highlighted this aspect of Muslim thinking.
This is what the BBC has been doing for years. It plants one sided versions of the news in viewers/listeners minds which they take for granted as the truth.
True. And very few people have the time or the inclination to go back over news they’ve already heard and seen. Most people might be vaguely aware that there was some problem with the accuracy of the story but the original will generally stick, especially if it was in visual form.
BBC propagandists know this very well. It’s pernicious on their part.
Dunno if anyone has noticed, but The Editors blog has a post up on the issue of the slight to Her Majesty the Queen, as they are careful to call her while in apologetic mode:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
I sent them something which wasn’t exactly a love letter and got this:
In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I’ve enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience.
A few minutes later I reposted it and it went through, apparently.
I don’t know since they claim to have received 19 comments but only one appears on the blog. Well, it’s the weekend and they are extremely slack over a weekend, seemingly unwilling even to shove a few bleary-eyed students in there on shifts to sift through comments. Maybe the editors really do go through the comments themselves – though this was contradicted by the ex-BBC guy with his own blog, Martin Belam, who passed through here a while ago, joined us in trying to get an anti-Semitic comment removed from The Editors blog, and was amazed when it was still there even after numerous complaints through numerous BBC channels:
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my_biased_view_of_the_biased_b_4.php
Whatever the BBC says about RDF, that company was SUBCONTRACTED to the BBC.
The rules on subcantracting are that the service or product is still yours and you take responsibilty for it,for example a cake manufacturer may buy in the filling for his pies, but he is still responsible to the general public if a decomposing insect is found in one of the pies.
The other rule is you can sue your subcontractor for any damages, loss of earnings etc that his product/service caused to your final product/service.
So if the BBC are still a victim of a mistake caused by RDF, they can sue that company.