Author Archives: Andrew

around 12.40pm:

BBC Suspensions

Number of editorial leaders suspended

Presenter Matthew Amroliwala also mentioned that Stewart Purvis said earlier that there is “a culture in the BBC that needs to be examined”. Well, you’re not wrong there Stewart, but can we trust the people who’re going to do the examining?

This story is also on BBC Views Online, BBC editorial leaders suspended – an article that cries out for a full length fisking. For now though, here are some highlights:

Sir Michael warned that the Trust, which oversees the BBC’s activities and represents licence fee payers, would be “watching very carefully” to ensure the correct sanctions were applied. “We will come back in a year’s time to make sure the BBC is a different place to the one it is today,” he added.

A year? How about monthly or quarterly reviews of progress?

In the House of Commons, Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman said the government were “strong supporters of the BBC”.

There’s a surprise Harriet. The feeling appears to be mutual.

Broadcasting union Bectu has warned that junior production staff should not become targets in the inquiry.

Thank you, junior production staff, for sharing that with us.

Mr Thompson has also ordered an independent inquiry into footage that wrongly implied the Queen walked out of a photo session.

I wonder how independent this inquiry will really be – who’s paying for it?, who’s selecting the panel? and so forth. And how likely is it, do you think, that RDF, the production company, staffed by ex-BBC people, dependent on the BBC for a great deal of its income, will confess to everything, and that the ‘independent inquiry’ will accept that confession? Anyone fancy a bet?

One thing that struck me about yesterday’s events was that Peter Fincham wasn’t mentioned at all. It was Fincham, Controller of BBC1, who showed the faked clip of the Queen to a load of journo-reptiles, exclaiming ‘it looks as though she stormed out’ as he did so. Has ‘the frightened man in a suit‘ gone to ground? I wonder why the BBC’s own pack of journo-hounds aren’t digging him out like they would if this was any other story of corporate deception and incompetence.

(now being rebranded as ‘climate change’ it seems), Gmail’s keyword advertising suggested this website, The Great Global Warming Swindle, promoting a DVD of:

…an expanded and improved version of the film [of the same name] broadcast in the UK on Channel 4. More interview material has been added, covering a broader range of subjects than was possible in the broadcast film.

The producers note:

It would be nice to claim that the explosion of interest was due to the film itself, but the fuss started even before the film was broadcast. The reason, we suspect, is that the coverage of ‘global warming’, on TV, radio and in the press, has been so one-sided and uncritical. In Britain, hours and hours of programmes have been broadcast by the BBC on the subject, much of it scientifically absurd. The very fact that a science documentary dared to challenge the orthodoxy was itself news.

Why? Why have journalists been so craven or biased? How has a theory which demonstrably lacks really solid supporting evidence become an indisputable fact? What of the impressive, much talked about scientific ‘consensus’ which is used to forestall any awkward questions about the evidence?

The film made a humble stab at suggesting some possible answers, but there was limited space for these bigger questions. The whole global warming alarm, we believe, raises serious issues about the way science functions in the real world, about the political bias of scientists, about censorship within the scientific community itself, about the routine practice of scientists drawing false or inflated conclusions from ambiguous or uncertain data, about the manifest failure of the peer review process, about the extraordinary unwillingness of scientists who have invested time and reputation in a particular theory to consider evidence which directly contradicts it, about the elevation of speculation (models) to the level of solid data, and much else besides.

(emphasis added).

The site is fairly minimalist just now, but contains some interesting material. The site, and the expanded version of the film, will be worth keeping an eye on – especially for all you Beeboids out there needing a demonstration of how to produce inquiring and challenging documentaries, rather than your current one-sided propaganda, described by Jeremy Paxman as having “abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago” (see side bar).

The BBC will admit today that it has uncovered irregularities in the operation of its Children in Need charity, The Times has learnt, after an appeal to staff to report instances where viewers were misled in the wake of controversies over Blue Peter and the editing of a programme about the Queen.

The revelation — which will be one of several errors that the BBC is expected to own up to this afternoon after a meeting of the BBC Trust — risks plunging the corporation into its greatest crisis since Mark Thompson took over as Director-General in the wake of the Hutton affair.

The anticipated cluster of admissions amounts to what appears to be a culture of lax compliance in certain parts of the corporation at a time when all the major broadcasters are in the dock amid a series of phone-in scandals.

And, more ominously still:

This morning details were sketchy about the exact nature of the problems surrounding Children in Need but BBC insiders are hinting that the Corporation is bracing itself for a major revelation, the impact of which was more serious that previously thought. There are also expected to be several other instances of phone-in and editing irregularities.

Oh dear. Mark Thompson statement due around 3pm according to Sky News. Would anyone care to bet on how many heads won’t roll today?

Please use this thread for BBC related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.

featured a panel labelled The Big Picture, with a button to ‘Reveal image’. Clicking on the button popped-up an enlarge image pop-up page, featuring singer Lily Allen, with the caption:

Singer Lily Allen signs autographs for school children in London’s Parliament Square as she launches the Make Space Youth Review. The report demonstrates worrying trends in teenagers lives such as antisocial behaviour. (my emphasis)

Would this be the same Lily Allen whose launch video, Smile, featured her:

• singing “but you were f***ing that girl next door”

• paying a friend to hire a gang to get revenge on her ex-boyfriend

• smiling as her ex-boyfriend is attacked and robbed of his cellphone

• receiving the stolen phone and going to a cafe with her ex

• hired thugs breaking in to and trashing her ex’s home and possessions

• slipping laxative drugs into her ex’s drink when he’s not looking

• gloating as the drugs take effect and he notices his scratched records

Strange then that BBC Views Online should omit this from their jolly pop-up report, keen as the BBC seem to be to promote Allen’s career. I wonder if either Allen or the BBC have figured out just where kids get anti-social ideas from…

posted Putting things in order on BBC Views Online’s The Editors blog, where he said:

Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis. For example we sometimes get politicians making complaints about an interview or a particular film.

Uh huh. Where’s this going?

We had a recent correspondence from the Treasury about an item made by the independent film maker Jamie Campbell which threw up precisely these kind of issues…

You mean you’ve had a complaint. I remember the film. It was the one that made it look as if Gordon Brown’s team (ab)used the police to obstruct a journalist rather heavy-handedly, under the pretence of security.

…although in this instance the film didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.

Well that’s alright then. So why are you telling us now?

They were unhappy with the film in general but directed their complaint at how the film portrayed a Treasury press officer claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.

Oh. You’re guilty as charged then.

However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same. Check out the film for yourself here.

So, that would make editing ‘creativeness’ alright would it? Why not show events chronologically then? Or explain in the film about the re-ordering of events and the reason for doing so? Anything else would, at best, appear highly questionable wouldn’t you say?

The sequences to look out for are the incident where the then chancellor’s car arrives when the press officer and Jamie are talking and the incident at the CBI. Chronologically the CBI event happened first.

But what you still haven’t told us is why you re-ordered events. Why did you purposely change the order of events? Presumably there was a purpose. What was it?

Watch for yourself and let me know if you think the meaning is remotely affected by the order.

Okay, we will. So far one comment has made it onto Robbie’s post, from a Mike S., who wrote:

I enjoyed watching this film when it first aired on Newsnight and I remember being appalled by the police being used to obstruct Jamie at the CBI.

It seemed obvious to me that the press officer had remembered him from the car incident. Involving the police in this way (when she already knew who Jamie was) seemed an unethical escalation of tactics on her part.

However, viewed in the correct chronological order my impression is different. The CBI incident was Jamie’s first meeting with the treasury press officer. Suddenly it seems much more reasonable to have asked the police to check him out.

If the film had shown these events in the chronologically correct order my view of the press officer’s behaviour (and by association Gordon Brown) is significantly less negative.

To conclude, the order did make a difference to me.

Oh dear. I’m sure Mike S. won’t be the only person who views the film in a different light now. By the way, just why did you re-order the events? You still haven’t told us…

The Daily Mail has also picked up this story. Simon Walters writes BBC in row over doctored TV footage with Gordon Brown. Here are a couple of extracts from his report:

Mr Brown’s Treasury officials complained to the BBC, claiming that as well as doctoring the film, Newsnight wrongly accused the Press officer of abusing her position and used a hidden camera to trick Mr Brown’s head of security into making indiscreet comments.

In the film, Mr Campbell is first seen on friendly terms with Gordon Brown, shaking him warmly by the hand. But later, the journalist vents his frustration after Mr Brown’s ‘absurd’ Press officer, Balshen Izzet, blocks his way when he tries to question Mr Brown as he arrives at an event.

In the next scene, Mr Campbell mocks Mr Brown’s speech to a CBI dinner and conspiratorially suggests ‘the same Press officer catches sight’ of him and summons police.

In fact, the CBI dinner at London’s Grosvenor House Hotel took place first, on May 15, and sources say police had no choice but to confront Mr Campbell as he was not known to Mr Brown’s entourage. The handshake did not actually occur until the following day – while the incident with Ms Izzet occurred on June 4, nearly three weeks later, when Mr Brown met British Muslim leaders in London.

A source close to Mr Brown said: ‘Newsnight doctored the film to make it appear as though the Press officer called the police because Mr Campbell had clashed with her earlier that night. ‘It is totally untrue. The events happened two weeks apart and in a different order. Newsnight changed it to make it more damaging.

‘Ms Izzet did not call the police as Mr Campbell alleged. And to dupe one of Mr Brown’s policemen into giving a TV interview is not on. The BBC should not be employing “gonzo journalists” on serious programmes like Newsnight.’

Hmmm. The other side of the story is quite revealing. Here’s the BBC again:

A BBC spokeswoman said: ‘We have acknowledged that the sequences in the film were not shown in chronological order. There was no intention to deceive anybody. The commentary does not suggest that the two are chronological and that one led to the other. The sequences would have had the same meaning if we had run them in the reverse order.

Okay, but that still doesn’t explain why events were re-ordered does it?

‘It has been suggested that the film maker may have employed dishonest tactics in using a hidden camera. The camera was visible at all times and the film maker was completely open about his intentions.’ Another BBC source added: ‘The film was a bit unconventional, but we did not intend to be unfair to civil servants or show any disrespect to Mr Brown and we do not believe that we did.’

Well, it sounds, and appears from the film, as if the police officer was unaware he was being recorded, doesn’t it, so it would seem underhand to film the officer whilst holding the camera as if it wasn’t in use, wouldn’t it, unless there were strong reasons to justify tricking the officer.

This does all smack rather of being a good (Fri)day to bury bad news – get the confession in first, play it down a bit, deny it would have made any difference anyway, hope it will all blow over by Monday, etc.

But the thing I still don’t understand, even if the BBC view of events is correct, and they are innocent, is just why they re-ordered the sequence of events then. What was the point of it, if it wasn’t to change the impression given by the film? It wasn’t edited by the same butter-fingers at RDF that ‘made a mistake’ with the footage of the Queen was it?

I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this one.

Thanks to commenters pounce and jg for links.

Rod Liddle’s column in The Sunday Times leads on the BBC:

Cue meltdown at the corporation. A frightened looking man in a suit, Peter Fincham, was wheeled out to apologise for having inadvertently misled the press and was gleefully attacked live on air by his underlings on Newsnight and breakfast news and repeatedly told to resign. And Jana Bennett, the BBC’s director of vision – whatever the hell that means – let the genie out of the bottle by calling for producers to inform her of any other programmes that may somehow have misled the public. Oh dear…

Ten years ago it looked as if the royal family was on its way out; an unloved anachronism. Today which publicly funded institution looks more confident and secure: the monarchy or the BBC?

Read the whole thing, including Liddle’s delicious boot in the nuts delivered in passing to that twit Keith Best, who would do well to slink off and get a real job out of the public eye.

Meanwhile, apropos of the fisking we did waaay back on Wednesday of Beeboid Richard Black’s pathetic article, ‘No sun link’ to climate change, toeing the BBC line on climate change, the Sunday Telegraph has former BBC science correspondent, Dr. David Whitehouse, responding with The truth is, we can’t ignore the sun, where he lays into the same sloppy BBC article, their one-sided approach to reporting climate science and the Royal Society paper on which the BBC article was based. He concludes:

My own view on the theory that greenhouse gases are driving climate change is that it is a good working hypothesis – but, because I have studied the sun, I am not completely convinced.

The sun is by far the single most powerful driving force on our climate, and the fact is we do not understand how it affects us as much as some think we do.

So look on the BBC and Al Gore with scepticism. A scientist’s first allegiance should not be to computer models or political spin but to the data: that shows the science is not settled.

If only the BBC still had reporters like David Whitehouse, inquiring and inquisitive, free from toeing the BBC’s long accepted line on the subject.

from today, Who are the car bomb suspects?, in which the BBC tells us:

Eight people were initially held over the failed car bomb attacks on central London and Glasgow. Three men have now been charged, a woman has been released without charge and four men are still being held.

Details have been emerging about their backgrounds.

Strangely, in such a long and detailed article, complete with supporting quotes from people who know the suspects, e.g.:

“I can’t even remotely imagine [Dr. Mohammed Asha] being involved in extremist activities or terrorism.”

…there is no mention of what linked and motivated the suspects, no use of either a certain ‘i’ word or a certain ‘m’ word, something that is rather, er, fundamental to their backgrounds. Good old BBC – telling us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as usual.

The first train wreck is revealed by the ever vigilant (and ever wonderful) News Sniffer Revisionista as it catalogues eighteen versions, 0 to 17, of BBC Views Online’s original Queen walks out of photo session fabrication page.

Watch as the intial version is padded out with more so-called details, with a ‘Tantrums and tiaras‘ section being added, moving revision by revision to the inevitable train wreck at the end, with the mealy-mouthed Beeboids grovelling apologetically, spinning away to downplay the damage and pass the buck as they go!

Highlights include:

• Version 6– where the opening paragraphs:
  

  The Queen is seen storming off after a run-in with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a BBC documentary.

  Leibovitz tells the Queen she thinks her shot will look better without her crown but the Queen says: “I’m not changing anything” and walks off.

  …suddenly become:

  The BBC has apologised to the Queen after clips implied Her Majesty walked out of a photography session with Annie Leibovitz during a documentary.

  “In this trailer there is a sequence that implies that the Queen left a sitting prematurely,” the BBC said.

  “This was not the case and the actual sequence of events was mis-represented,” the statement added.

  “The BBC would like to apologise to both the Queen and Annie Leibovitz for any upset this may have caused”.

• Version 7 – where the second paragraph is spun to accuse the Queen of having “an altercation with Leibovitz”– which is clearly not the case – another BBC fabrication. 
• Version 8 – where the ‘altercation‘ spin is removed, and a dollop of new spin is added, including this gem:
  

  The BBC said the clips for the trailer were “not intended to provide a full picture of what actually happened or of what will be shown in the final programme”.

  Oh yeah, like we believe that!

   

• Version 17 – where another dollop of spin is applied as:
  

  The BBC has apologised to the Queen for wrongly implying she walked out of a portrait session with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a documentary.

  …is amended to become:

  The BBC has apologised to the Queen for mistakenly showing footage that wrongly implied she walked out of a portrait session during a documentary.

  …did you spot that addition? You’d think Peter Fincham would have known what pressing ‘Play’ would do in room full of journalists, wouldn’t you? There’s more:

  The footage, revealed to the press on Wednesday, was not intended to be seen and was shown in error, the BBC said.

  Ah yes, that chestnut – it was all a mistake – we edited the clips to switch them around and fabricated the Queen’s alleged storming out quite by accident – could happen to anyone, don’tcha know!

Courtesy of BBC Top Gear, here is our second train wreck – an apt metaphor for this week’s events, as we see the BBC’s remaining credibility stalled on a railway line, with the engine of public opinon approaching…

Oh dear Peter – ifthat clip’s accurate it looks like your car(eer) and the BBC’s reputation will need a bit more than a patch-up and a respray…

(I wonder how they got hold of it!), here is an unexpurgated 43 second clip of the BBC’s preview trailer, including the now infamous switched around clips wrongly portraying the Queen as ‘storming out’ of a photo shoot:

The silly music and the cinematic voiceover hardly speak for the BBC’s confidence in the ability of their programmes to sell themselves, do they?