All those resources, all those journalists, all those editorial guidelines…
The BBC’s Newsnight programme once again wraps itself in glory as the Sun tells us:
BBC’s Help for Heroes slur
Grovelling apology for flawed report on charity
THE BBC will today broadcast a humiliating network-wide apology for smearing Help for Heroes on Newsnight.
An “investigation” by the flagship show last August accused the troops charity of misspending its cash. It cost Help for Heroes more than £100,000 in withdrawn donations, The Sun can reveal.
After a major internal probe, chiefs accept the scandal-hit programme’s coverage was “misleading and unfair”. They agreed the 216-word “sorry” will go out on all media that aired the report — on Radio 1 at 5pm, on Radio 2 at 5.45pm, on Newsnight on BBC2 at 11.20pm — and online.
The BBC seem to believe that to solve the many problems with Newsnight they need to employ a Guardian journalist who attempted (and failed) to get Americans to vote for John Kerry. Nothing could possibly go wrong now.
After the Savile/McAlpine troubles, Paxman was blaming the fact that the BBC News division was run by “radio people”, who didn’t understand how TV shows needed different production values. I guess he’ll be pleased that the “biddable” Rippon wasn’t restored as editor, but I wonder how he feels now?
If Hugs is really the Charlie Checkpoint exchange offering from the BBC side, their loss of a ‘radio person’ will be The Guardian’s gain, given its amazing reach in that area.
What is lost in all this incestuous jargon is that few seem interested in seeing any ‘getting it actually right, professionally and objectively’ people installed at the top, as opposed to yet more over-priced agenda-safe placepeople.
If I was an actual ‘news’ journalist at either the world’s most trusted propaganda monopoly or its sister print arm, I’d be feeling less than inspired by all this.
As DavidP asks in the earlier thread, Newsnight part-timer and fan/excrement interface deputy frontperson Mr. Mair or Jon ‘Sony Award’ the Humph must be sharpening the BBC ‘how do you live with yourself?/nasty piece of work’ scripts as we speak. Or maybe time for a new boy in town?
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-spot-of-bother.html
This seems worth repeating too..
As Mrs. Merton may ask, ‘So, Tony, what was it that first attracted you to…’
http://order-order.com/2013/05/16/katzs-top-notch-lefty-credentials/
As young Mr. Grace may say, ‘You’re all doing very well’.
Or, not.
I didn’t realize it was Katz who directed that appalling Guardian campaign to try and influence the election in the US. So now the BBC sees fit to bring someone like that in to run their flagship programme? Charming. Cue a lurking journalist to tell me all is well, Katz is a professional who will leave his opinions at the door, and I just don’t understand how news works.
BBC-NUJ = ‘Newsnight’ = ‘The Guardian’ & Mr KATZ.
“Guardian man is new chief of Newsnight, replacing former editor who was forced out after Savile report was dropped.
“Ian Katz was the deputy editor and head of news at the left-leaning paper.
“New BBC director general Lord Hall took close interest in the appointment.”
By PAUL REVOIR
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325228/Guardian-man-new-chief-Newsnight-replacing-editor-forced-Savile-report-dropped.html#ixzz2TSnBMkiz
And the latest pro-Labour Party ‘Tweets’ from es-‘Guardian’, Allegra STRATTON, Political Editor, BBC ‘Newsnight’:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/allegrastratton/
And of course Katz has the approved views on the EU and climate change:
“All Katz are grey in the night” [Proverb].
No need for a conspiracy or directive from the top if they all think the same way anyway.
Not to off on a tangent, but would these mysterious ‘other agencies’ happen to include public bodies by any chance? In particular, another three-letter acronym ‘Great British Institution’?
Why so coy now when they were so vocal back when they thought they could use it to slime ‘Help for Heroes’?
And Murdoch closed down the NOTW when the shit hit the fan…
BBC & Newsnight?…..nahhhh, just keep on plugging away with it’s hate and bias.
So who’s the nasty news media again?
NI, or The BBC?
Reading the item and “apology” on the BBC website I just find the arrogancy of this organisation breathtaking.
Why?, because they can’t just admit they got it badly wrong, apologise and leave it at that, they have to add arrogant self-justifying comments in along with it.
Utterly, utterly pathetic.
Note, The Bureau for Investigative Journalism were working with Newsnight on this. The same organisation who were involved with Newsnight in the McAlpine affair.
I do hope that the BBC are no longer working with this organisation (?)
Good point I was wondering why the self styled.Bureau for Investigative Journalism did get a mention in the apology.I seem to remember that this ‘investigation’ was all their work as well.
Still no explanation as to why the worlds ‘biggest news gatherer’ was farming out work to this common purpose outfit.
Are they still being funded by the left wing internationalist
Potter foundation and working out of the city of London visa factory?
their last investigation seems to have been a ground breaking (according to them) report on US drone attacks
Is that the source of the BBC’s report on same?Did the
Bureau get a credit?
Well, he seems to have recovered well after calling it wrong…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/more-men.html?
Seems, in the end, it may all have boiled down to the Benjamins.
Not quite sure what settling for the cheaper option says, market rate-wise. Pay peanuts, get risk of allergic reaction?
There’s also a post about bikes, currently topical…
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/wheels.html?
Must be the Spandex.
Two questions immediately spring to mind :
1. Is it true to say that the Newsnight team are a bunch of liars; if so where are the sackings?
2. Are Help for Heroes now able to sue the bbc for loss of contributions? If so, shouldn’t any awarded costs come from the pay packets of those who made the false claims?
Another Guardian journalist hired by BBC for Newsnight.
The previous BBC director general Mark Thompson admitted there has been a ‘massive’ left wing bias at the BBC that he’d witnessed over 30 years ago, but indicated nothing, nor could he, that anything had been done about it since then.
We here, as well as many other sites, record the continued left wing bias exhibited by the BBC on a daily basis, in direct contravention of their charter. In my opinion it is this bias, continually pushing poorly thought out policies that has created much of the problems that we endure in the country. We are within a structure where the most incompetent and vision-less personnel are in the hierarchy, and are kept there by sticking to and promoting this mindset.
We have seen a glaring example recently with the vile Oxford Muslim gang that preyed on young girls. This is not the first gang of its kind, but one of several that have come to light in various parts of Britain over the last few years. The fact that they could continue their actions for so long was because police and social services did not want to ‘offend’ the Muslim community by bringing it to light.
Is the fact that in every article concerning the abusers from the BBC, not one refers to them as Muslims unless an outside party, like a judge, made reference to it, create the PC world that our public servants don’t want to step outside?
Not only have they completely failed the victims, and enabled their abusers, but they don’t even see why they should now resign.
Instead of considering that their approach to this and many other issues might not be the correct one, and try to get other views, the BBC is so arrogant and full of their own self-importance, and so used to the fact that nobody will do anything about it, they don’t even bother with the pretence of being balanced and impartial, as the following article highlights.
Just what is needed, another left wing Guardian journalist to promote the BBC world view and agenda.
😈
The corporation admitted that the Newsnight coverage, which accused the charity of wasting millions of pounds of donations, was ‘misleading’ and ‘unfair’. The BBC’s editorial complaints unit said there was no evidence to suggest any shortcomings on the charity’s part.
The BBC also admitted today that interviews with two people on the programme were edited in such a way as to ‘misrepresent’ their views.
In the apology to be broadcast tonight, the BBC said: ‘Following an investigation by its Editorial Complaints Unit, the BBC now accepts that its coverage was misleading and unfair to Help for Heroes.
Most here will remember how BBC coverage of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict actually put the lives of our armed forces into further risk. At one point the Navy switched to Sky news because the BBC was so pro-Islamic and anti the values of our society, until the hierarchy forced them to switch back.
So now the BBC actually vilify a charity that is working to better the lives of servicemen fighting to uphold our values, including those who have been injured or maimed.
Since the Newsnight team knew that they had purposefully distorted the views given by the Charity representatives, why did they need an investigation to admit their wrong doing?
Why is the BBC still allowed to continue? What needs to happen for the public to create such an outcry that the government will have to do something?
If only the bBBC had done something really serious, like hacking a child’s mobile phone, they’d have been closed down by now.
Yes, strange isn’t it how Newsnight and the bureau of investigative journalism have a series of atrocious catastrophic stories beneath their belt showing clear evidence of manipulation of fact, the lowest possible standards of journalism and an apparently partisan outlook
McAlpine
Savile
Help for Heros
and yet there is no outcry from hacked off and other self appointed media watch-dogs.
How did the editor manage to approve the HfH story when as the investigation says
“THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO BACK NEWSNIGHT’S CLAIM”
Clearly constructed lies that meet a ‘narrative arc’ or ‘set the news agenda’ are perfectly acceptable.
At least the red-top papers that the BBC hates so vitriolically concentrate predominantly on the bonking scandals of spors personalities and minor celebrities. If the evidence was collected in an unacceptable way – well fair comment punish them – but at least they don’t tend to print stories where there is NO EVIDENCE at all.
I suspect some of the ‘journalists’ involved had an inherant dislike to the charity, its objectives and above all its supporters so they decided to trawl for some dirt and when there was insufficient evidence then they just made some up.
And the BBC constantly tells me that it is the last bastion of the finest traditions of British broadsheet journalism and all other competitors have to be muzzled because they can’t be trusted not to behave badly.
Forget Leveson, we need a public inquiry into the way in which the BBC and its fellow travellers set such as the and define the news agenda and the news narratives that dominate this country’s media.
The BBC truely has become the Ministry of Truth
Sorry some stray text and terrible typing as usual. IATM
They (the bureau) also did ‘cutting edge’
investigation into election fraud for C4.
Apparently Zak Goldsmith bought his
election team T-shirts out of his own pocket! But they were completely uninterested in wide spread postal fraud by some ‘men’ in support of the labour party (no agenda there then)
The resulting studio interview left john Snow looking like a complete dick.
I haven’t noticed their by-line on Algezera lite since then, perhaps beeb pay better.
Yeah 🙄
Just creating the environment where children could be sexually abused and tortured for years, with nobody willing to go against the PC ‘minority’ multicultural ethos led by them, pales by comparison to phone hacking.
Sarcasm aside, where’s the celebrities coming forward to raise the profile of this story? They must be waiting for ‘Children in Need’ to make the BBC look like they really care.
Perhaps these well remunerate incompetents could personally reimburse Help For Heroes for the donations lost as a result of their ̶i̶n̶a̶c̶c̶u̶r̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶p̶o̶r̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ lazy smearing. Nah…thought not. Bastards.
“This unfair impression was reinforced by our coverage of the story in other outlets”
Yeah – I bet it was. I’m sure they really went to town on this one. Let’s be honest – it’s a military centred charity – not really the BBC’s cup of tea – all ‘right-wing patriotism and ghastly tabloid style jingoism’.
What’s the betting they pursued this one with absolute vigour and barely contained glee. Bastards.
Can they not sure for defamation/ loss of income?
surely that should have been sue.
Pity the beeb didn’t make much of Anita Roddick’s use of Indian child slave labour for making Body Shop ingredients. But then she was “green”, which also accounts for the lack of coverage after her exposure, when she kicked the orphans into the street.
The IRS boss has resigned, on orders of the President, so this no longer matters, right, BBC?
Broadening IRS Victims Include Pro-Life Advocates, As Congress Investigates
In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent “Ms. Richards” told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood. Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.
Remember, kids, even though it seems like a laundry list of His Agenda, it’s only a handful of rogue agents doing this, and the President has taken swift and decisive action. He’s promised to clear this out once and for all. Line drawn under, moving on. His political enemies are only going to make a mountain out of this molehill, so you can safely go back to ignoring this like Mardell admits he did with Benghazi.
I watched the start of Newsnight tonight, these apologies are usually shown at the top of a programme. But nothing…and I turned over to watch QT.
Apparently the apology went out at the end of the programme, at a time when fewer would be watching, breaking all of the established conventions. Their apology was obviously made with no real sincerity
Can anyone really trust these bastards?
Can we just cut through the bullshit here, picking up the point made earlier by It’s all too much (9.50).
If there was no evidence to back up Newsnight’s claim, then:
Someone working for newsnight made a claim on the basis of… what?
Personal opinion?
For a laugh?
Because they have the IQ of an orang-utan? (With apologies to any orang-utans who may visit this site and be offended by comments that may be perceived as derogatory to other, entirely respectable species).
Please explain why you spend taxpayers money on employing retards.
Please let us know, in the public interest:
If there was no evidence, WHY DID YOU BROADCAST THE CLAIM?
If there was no evidence, and you still broadcast the claim, WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO CAME UP WITH THE CLAIM?
Disciplined? Reprimanded? Slapped on the wrist, limp or otherwise? Promoted? Told to be more subtle in his or her attempts to undermine British servicemen and women?
In the words of another publication, I think we should be told.