Scrutable

murmur wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:23 pm Am I the only one who thinks that Corbyn should have made just the one stipulation before agreeing to the TV "debate" with Johnson? Namely, live fact checking with a section at the end devoted to the outcome of said checks?

FFS, you know there's a problem when lifelong Tories, like Peter Oborne have begun to list the leader's lies.

I think you've missed the most damning, and worrying, thing Peter Oborne has written about this...

I have talked to senior BBC executives, and they tell me they personally think it’s wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics. Is that a reason for giving Johnson free rein to make any false claim he wants?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ying-media

That is appalling.

Yes. If true, that would constitute an abrogation of the most basic function of journalism.

The BBC's job is not to uphold faith in politics, it's to report on it not just honestly but scrutinously.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:49 am Yes. If true, that would constitute an abrogation of the most basic function of journalism.

Yes. It's so clearly appalling that it makes me wonder what they really said. I mean, even if that was what you thought, you'd find a less clearly terrible and indefensible way to try to justify it.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:49 am Yes. If true, that would constitute an abrogation of the most basic function of journalism.

The BBC's job is not to uphold faith in politics, it's to report on it not just honestly but scrutinously.

Does it apply cross party? Is this just applicable to the Conservatives?

It is appalling.

Martin Y wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:27 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:49 am Yes. If true, that would constitute an abrogation of the most basic function of journalism.

Yes. It's so clearly appalling that it makes me wonder what they really said. I mean, even if that was what you thought, you'd find a less clearly terrible and indefensible way to try to justify it.

Yes I am also unsure that they would word it that blatantly.

murmur wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:23 pm Am I the only one who thinks that Corbyn should have made just the one stipulation before agreeing to the TV "debate" with Johnson? Namely, live fact checking with a section at the end devoted to the outcome of said checks?

FFS, you know there's a problem when lifelong Tories, like Peter Oborne have begun to list the leader's lies.

To be fair, Full Fact were fact checking the debate in as close to real time as was feasible and did publish a roundup shortly after. I am not sure that it would be possible to do it absolutely live, or to roundup immediately after the debate.

snoozeofreason wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:59 pm To be fair, Full Fact were fact checking the debate in as close to real time as was feasible and did publish a roundup shortly after. I am not sure that it would be possible to do it absolutely live, or to roundup immediately after the debate.

In the portion of the debate I could bear to watch, I idly imagined an on-screen is-he-answering-the-question-ometer with a gauge which gradually sinks into the red but pings back up to green in the unlikely event the person actually addresses the question they were asked.

Latest kerfuffle seems to be about one P Patel saying that poverty is every other f.ckers' fault but theirs, particularly local councils and the education system, in a film for BBC NW.

It's on the graun site, and indeed all over the news now, but Skwawkbox are saying that just as the video was gaining attention, the BBC took it down for some reason.

It was originally twittered, and not put on the website, as far as I can tell. Turns out it was deleted and then reposted on the BBC Twitter the next day (the graun has a link to it). The BBC say (reported in the Graun story) that "Just to clarify...The text on the original Tweet paraphrased the comments in the video. For clarity, we have removed the quotation marks and reposted the video https://t.co/mkm31XTS6U". So they are saying they took it down to edit it. Obviously lots and lots are accusing the BBC of covering it up, to Patel's benefit.

f.ck only knows if they really were just editing quote marks out of it and forced to put it back up by publicity, and f.ck knows why somebody allegedly put quote marks around things that weren't quotes. I can't find the original words.

Probably cockup rather than conspiracy theory of history. But this doesn't look good at a time when even the BBCs stalwartist defenders are feeling a bit on edge about them, as per above. We don't need the BBC to be the story any more than they are already.

Martin Y wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:27 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:49 am Yes. If true, that would constitute an abrogation of the most basic function of journalism.

Yes. It's so clearly appalling that it makes me wonder what they really said. I mean, even if that was what you thought, you'd find a less clearly terrible and indefensible way to try to justify it.

The Guardian claims that the BBC have confirmed they won't call Johnson a liar:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pIji-5vPfM


(Third paragraph)

At least the BBC has admitted it got the edit wrong on this one

The BBC has said editing footage of Prime Minister Boris Johnson for a news bulletin was "a mistake on our part".

The Prime Minister appeared on Question Time: Leaders Special on BBC One on Friday evening.

The audience laughed when he was asked a question about how important it is for people in power to tell the truth.

But the laughter and subsequent applause was absent from a cut-down version of the exchange on a lunchtime news bulletin the following day.

Tessa K wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:16 pm At least the BBC has admitted it got the edit wrong on this one

The BBC has said editing footage of Prime Minister Boris Johnson for a news bulletin was "a mistake on our part".

The Prime Minister appeared on Question Time: Leaders Special on BBC One on Friday evening.

The audience laughed when he was asked a question about how important it is for people in power to tell the truth.

But the laughter and subsequent applause was absent from a cut-down version of the exchange on a lunchtime news bulletin the following day.

Well, at least this time their explanation of why they went easy on Johnson doesn't include repeating a dig at Corbyn.

Tessa K wrote: Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:16 pm At least the BBC has admitted it got the edit wrong on this one

The BBC has said editing footage of Prime Minister Boris Johnson for a news bulletin was "a mistake on our part".

The Prime Minister appeared on Question Time: Leaders Special on BBC One on Friday evening.

The audience laughed when he was asked a question about how important it is for people in power to tell the truth.

But the laughter and subsequent applause was absent from a cut-down version of the exchange on a lunchtime news bulletin the following day.

As well as the mistake where they edited out Boris putting his wreath upside down? Hmm

Not as bad as Orgreave I suppose, but I can't think of similar stuff done in favour of Labour PMs. Is this just an accident of selection on my part?

The BBC is a right-wing propaganda rag now. Maybe it always was, but I didn't notice it before.

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:19 am The BBC is a right-wing propaganda rag now. Maybe it always was, but I didn't notice it before.

It's not so much that they like the Tories, more that they're scared of losing the licence fee. The BBC and the media in general has traditionally been considered left of centre. Certainly when I worked in film and TV then in journalism right wingers were scarce in the media outside of certain newspaper owners and a few randoms like Kenny Everett. The vast majority were lefty liberals.

Johnson has f.cked up the wreath laying and has been openly laughed at in public, both covered up.

Has Corbyn done anything funny for them to cover up?

Tessa K wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:04 am

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:19 am The BBC is a right-wing propaganda rag now. Maybe it always was, but I didn't notice it before.

It's not so much that they like the Tories, more that they're scared of losing the licence fee. The BBC and the media in general has traditionally been considered left of centre. Certainly when I worked in film and TV then in journalism right wingers were scarce in the media outside of certain newspaper owners and a few randoms like Kenny Everett. The vast majority were lefty liberals.

Liberal isn't the same as Left. Just look at the BBC coverage of the coup in Bolivia, for example. I can't speak for the intentions of individuals, either now or in the past, but the end result is 'Washington consensus' fan-fiction.

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:40 am

Tessa K wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:04 am

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:19 am The BBC is a right-wing propaganda rag now. Maybe it always was, but I didn't notice it before.

It's not so much that they like the Tories, more that they're scared of losing the licence fee. The BBC and the media in general has traditionally been considered left of centre. Certainly when I worked in film and TV then in journalism right wingers were scarce in the media outside of certain newspaper owners and a few randoms like Kenny Everett. The vast majority were lefty liberals.

Liberal isn't the same as Left. Just look at the BBC coverage of the coup in Bolivia, for example. I can't speak for the intentions of individuals, either now or in the past, but the end result is 'Washington consensus' fan-fiction.

That's whay I said lefty liberals. But the news division does seem to be very different from the 'creatives'.

Tessa K wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:47 am That's whay I said lefty liberals. But the news division does seem to be very different from the 'creatives'.

I'll take your word for it about the creatives. I'm just going by the 'news' output because that's where the political agenda shows up.

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:01 am

Tessa K wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:47 am That's whay I said lefty liberals. But the news division does seem to be very different from the 'creatives'.

I'll take your word for it about the creatives. I'm just going by the 'news' output because that's where the political agenda shows up.

I'd expect there to be some political agenda in stuff like those spy shows (Spooks? Homeland? Or for that matter John le Carre adaptations on BBC4), but I don't have a TV and have never seen them.

Period stuff like Call the Midwife and Downton Abbey and stuff like that also present a certain image of the country's past, from which it's only natural to draw inferences about the present.

My impression from BBC News online content is that they'll only report on things that other outlets are already covering, and won't be the first to mention anything, meaning that they end up reflecting the biases of the corporate news industry. I'm not sure if that timeline fits the recent coverups too, though.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:53 pm

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:01 am

Tessa K wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:47 am That's whay I said lefty liberals. But the news division does seem to be very different from the 'creatives'.

I'll take your word for it about the creatives. I'm just going by the 'news' output because that's where the political agenda shows up.

I'd expect there to be some political agenda in stuff like those spy shows (Spooks? Homeland? Or for that matter John le Carre adaptations on BBC4), but I don't have a TV and have never seen them.

Period stuff like Call the Midwife and Downton Abbey and stuff like that also present a certain image of the country's past, from which it's only natural to draw inferences about the present.

My impression from BBC News online content is that they'll only report on things that other outlets are already covering, and won't be the first to mention anything, meaning that they end up reflecting the biases of the corporate news industry. I'm not sure if that timeline fits the recent coverups too, though.

Certainly there's political content in the vast array of "special forces" type shows on US network TV that seem to make up several evenings' viewings a week. Whether special police forces (CSI, NCIS, SWAT, CHIPS, etc.) or the military special forces ones (Seals, Jack Ryan).

Indeed, the Pentagon spends huge sums covertly influencing US TV and film, and thus its global presentation.

Mint Press News wrote:A year ago we featured a detailed report by authors Tom Secker and Matthew Alford exposing just how vast the Pentagon and CIA programs for partnering with Hollywood actually are, based on some 4,000 new pages of formerly classified archived documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The report noted at the time that “These documents for the first time demonstrate that the US government has worked behind the scenes on over 800 major movies and more than 1,000 TV titles.”

Reviewing the ever expanding list, the average movie watcher might be in for a shock at what films are actually included — there are the more predictable ones like Black Hawk Down, Zero Dark Thirty, and Lone Survivor; but also entirely unexpected ones that apparently needed the military-industrial complex’s propaganda touch like Earnest Saves Christmas, Karate Kid 2, The Silence of the Lambs, Twister, the Iron Man movies, and more recently Pitch Perfect 3.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:53 pm

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:01 am

Tessa K wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:47 am That's whay I said lefty liberals. But the news division does seem to be very different from the 'creatives'.

I'll take your word for it about the creatives. I'm just going by the 'news' output because that's where the political agenda shows up.

I'd expect there to be some political agenda in stuff like those spy shows (Spooks? Homeland? Or for that matter John le Carre adaptations on BBC4), but I don't have a TV and have never seen them.

Period stuff like Call the Midwife and Downton Abbey and stuff like that also present a certain image of the country's past, from which it's only natural to draw inferences about the present.

My impression from BBC News online content is that they'll only report on things that other outlets are already covering, and won't be the first to mention anything, meaning that they end up reflecting the biases of the corporate news industry. I'm not sure if that timeline fits the recent coverups too, though.

Call The Midwife is, not surprisingly, very big on the NHS, the effects of poverty, poor diet and bad living conditions on physical and mental health - and also nuns. It doesn't preach politics but it's a bit like soft diplomacy. I've not seen that many episodes and none of Downton.

I have been watching Peaky Blinders and that's very clear on supporting working people and opposing the far right, for example.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:04 pm Indeed, the Pentagon spends huge sums covertly influencing US TV and film, and thus its global presentation.

Mint Press News wrote:A year ago we featured a detailed report by authors Tom Secker and Matthew Alford exposing just how vast the Pentagon and CIA programs for partnering with Hollywood actually are, based on some 4,000 new pages of formerly classified archived documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The report noted at the time that “These documents for the first time demonstrate that the US government has worked behind the scenes on over 800 major movies and more than 1,000 TV titles.”

Reviewing the ever expanding list, the average movie watcher might be in for a shock at what films are actually included — there are the more predictable ones like Black Hawk Down, Zero Dark Thirty, and Lone Survivor; but also entirely unexpected ones that apparently needed the military-industrial complex’s propaganda touch like Earnest Saves Christmas, Karate Kid 2, The Silence of the Lambs, Twister, the Iron Man movies, and more recently Pitch Perfect 3.

Some of that will be pretty harmless stuff like access to locations (after all, the military controls big chunks of empty land, often near population centers where film crews can be based efficiently). Some will be stuff like supplying a tank for the background of a particular shot, or an aircraft fly-by. And some will be active creative control and advice stuff which is pretty pernicious.