… Peter Rippon, editor of Newsnight, has responded to the complaints about how an audio clip of President Obama’s inaugural speech was spliced, had its order altered, and then was rejoined to make a new sentence never actually spoken by Obama.
The original post in Harmless Sky can be read here. My B-BBC post on the subject is here.
Mr Rippon writes,
We did edit sections of the speech to reflect the elements in it that referred to Science. The aim was to give people an impression or montage of what Obama said about science in his inauguration speech. This was signposted to audiences with fades between each point. It in no way altered the meaning or misrepresented what the President was saying.
I don’t think Mr Rippon’s response answers the objections raised.
Point one: fades, what fades? Listening to the audio clip there is a change in the quality of the background sound at the first splice point, which I initially heard as a faint sound but now think is just a discontinuity. No one who was not listening specifically for the break point would ever think it was anything other than a continuous flow of speech. Fades are meant to, you know, fade.
Point two: there is not even that at the second break point – it runs smoothly on.
Point three: what about the alteration of the order? Someone just offering up a montage of phrases doesn’t mess with the order such that a new, coherent (but never actually spoken) sentence is created.
Point four: the meaning was altered and TonyN’s original post in Harmless Sky explained very clearly why. He wrote, “Paragraph 16 does not refer to climate change in any way, but to economic and infrastructure problems. The reference to harnessing the sun, wind and soil could as easily refer to energy security as global warming.” But in the BBC version it does appear to refer to global warming.
I would add that in the original sentence as spoken by Obama, “We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost”, the fact that science being restored to its rightful place is immediately followed by a reference to healthcare gives me the strong impression that it was meant to refer to lifting restrictions on the federal funding of research into embryonic stem cells. The BBC version, “We will restore science to its rightful place – roll back the spectre of a warming planet”, makes it sound as if the restoration of science to its rightful place refers to President Bush’s alleged scepticism over global warming. This interpretation is reinforced by the whole tone of Susan Watts’ blog post and video essay: “But in climate change and other key challenges of science, Bush wouldn’t listen to the scientists. He didn’t like their view of the world, and he didn’t like what they were saying.”
Blimey, that sounds like something aimed at ten-year olds. I am not Obama’s biggest fan, but at least when speaking in his own words he sounds like he is addressing adults.
Assuming that you are not Jonathan Boyd Hunt – who is one of a very rare breed; a REAL journalist – then I suggest that you visit Jonathan Boyd Hunt’s website at
http://www.guardianlies.com/Cont…m/ Contents.html
There are few things in this life that I am absolutely 100% certain about, but one of them is the certainty that Neil Hamilton is an honourable man and did not take “cash for questions” and was not guilty of “Tory sleaze”.
David A | 25.01.09 – 1:08 pm | #
David A, I agree with you 100% on the above. The BBC will however ignore the NuLab sleaze.
mwl writes: “And I was able to show you were wrong.”
And in the process prove you are nothing but a miserable apologist for the miserable BBC.
More BBC covering for Labour: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7849990.stm
The ‘L’ word appears precisely once, halfway down the page, in connection with only one of the Crooked Lords of Labour.
The story is that four out of the five Labour crooks approached were amenable to bribery, as contrasted with zero from other parties.
Whoops, wrong thread sorry.
Letter for the BBC.
I do not have a television in ….
[Spliced out to give an impression you want]
…my garage but I do have one in..
[more splicing, back to orinal]
my house. Do I need a licence ?
Is Rippon lying about the fades?
If so, that’s serious.
GCooper | 25.01.09 – 3:59 pm | #
Indeed. And that you’re talking sh1te!
fewqwer:
the word ‘Labour’ is in the very first sentence of that link.
I know there are people looking hard, and hoping, for BBC bias at every opportunity, but sometimes you look too hard or see what you want to.
I’ve just been watching the BBC 24 news coverage about the lords and it wasn’t biased in any sense.
The problem is that when you waste time trying to point out bias for EVERY story, like in this case, you see things that aren’t there, and therefore your own credibility is hurt in cases where actual bias does exist.
Thats just my two cents.
Tom | 25.01.09 – 2:19 pm | #
Original Robin | 25.01.09 – 4:36 pm | #
Delicious, both. Kudos.
However, and sadly, we are dealing with an entity which is ‘unique’.
Much as I’d like to lob this, and much more back at them come the next fee demand, there seems to be no sensible method of protest available.
That this situation has been allowed to develop is a failing of others, and my MP will know it when soliciting my vote.
Gus Haynes
Do you seriously think I would have missed the word ‘Labour’ in the very first sentence? I ctrl-F searched the page to make sure before posting.
There are now 8 versions of that article on Newssniffer.
You clearly don’t know much about the BBC’s MO if the possibility of a stealth edit didn’t even occur to you.
fewqwer | 25.01.09 – 7:19 pm |
You clearly don’t know much about the BBC’s MO if the possibility of a stealth edit didn’t even occur to you.
Funny you should say that. I started to look for this in Newssniffer, but got distracted looking at a couple of other BBC reports on the issue. In one of then, Nick Clegg’s condemnation appears, then disappears, then re-appears, and a statement from Lady Royall (Baroness Royall in another report) about how Lords members must “abide by its high standards” vanishes completely.
Then there’s the apologia from the BBC, explaining how Lords rules ‘technically’ do permit them to get other members to alter laws in exchange for cash.
eers, the code says, must “never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”. Any peers trying to amend proposed laws in return for cash would be breaking the rules.
Sounds pretty straightforward, no? But immediately following is this:
However, there are concerns that the existing rules are not clear enough and contain potentially dangerous loopholes. If a peer asked another member to put down an amendment to a bill, in return for cash from a third party, this would “technically” be allowed. But this would raise real questions about their actions and about parliamentary standards.
How is this possible? Is the BBC just speculating, giving the Labour peers an out?
It’s fascinating to watch the BBC mind at work via the microscope of Newssniffer.
You have to wonder if the BBC’s hacks have yet worked out that it exists!
Yes and we all remember the way that idiot Harrabin did the stealth edits on his ‘green’ story that got him in trouble with some made lefty bird.
Martin:
Did you watch the YouTube video by Glenn Beck concerning the Roger Harrabin / Jo Abbess email exchange, as per your previous comment?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=216v5AoQcFQ
I like Glenn Beck’s summing-up comment of the Harrabin cave-in:
“You can control the language and you control the debate. You control the debate and you control the media. You control the media and you win the war.”
Great quote, in my opinion.
David A | 25.01.09 – 11:28 pm | #
I love Glenn Beck, he always has great quotes. It was he who said:
“The bottom line is this: success and money — it’s not finite. This is America. That’s not a zero-sum game. There’s as much as you feel like working for it. You know, you’ve got to — you got to look at money and success as the ocean. It doesn’t hurt the ocean to back a dump truck up to it and take a bunch of water out of it. There’s more. Stand in line, go get it. Let’s stop thinking about pieces of pie, and remember that if you wanted to look at it as pie, this is America. We’re a freaking bakery. Bake more. Make as many pies as you want.”
Just to be mischievous I contacted Barak Obama at the White House where President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history. To send questions, comments, concerns, or well-wishes to the President or his staff, please use the form below:
I informed him of the controversy, directed him to http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=147 and Biased BBC and asked his opinion.
I wonder what will happen if 30 or 40 concerned citizens (OK, I’m not a citizen) were to push his attention in that direction? 😉
B-BBC will be informed of any reply.
SFA will happen Degee, unless of course your concern comes with some kind of huge payout for the Light Worker 🙂
Mailman
I notice this story has the top two links on the Junk Science page, so it may get some more coverage on the other side of the pond.
http://www.junkscience.com/
It would be interesting if it was brought to the attention of the staff of the man himself.
Although I suspect that Obama wouldn’t mind this misrepresentation by the BBC, he’s seems like Blair, content to let every one go away satisfied with their own impressions of him so long as it keeps them happy.
The cable news network CNN has sacked its science team, and one of the consequences has been a number of embarrassing programmes about how the exceptionally cold weather in North America this winter contradicts global warming and supports the idea that we are actually due for or a period of global cooling, if not a full-blown ice age.
“And tonight, last year, one of the coldest years in American history. Is it evidence that global warming is being overstated?
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-connor-sceptics-scientists-and-global-warming-1513375.html
Pack your bags, Mr Harrabin.
Jason:
Thanks for that interesting quote from Glenn Beck. Is the quote taken from YouTube and if so, do you have a link?
deegee:
I’m about to use your White House link to the President’s office concerning the BBC’s outrageous “smoking gun”, cut-and-paste exercise.
The BBC destroyed it`s credibility long ago, we are now in the computer age, anyone wanting any sort of factual unbiased information will go on line, the BBC is a joke, (http://wattsupwiththat.com/), global warming what global warming, certainly not in the past 10 years.
I have received a reply, of sorts, from the BBC Trust:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=153
It looks as though we are going to take the pretty route to a proper response. but we will get there!