Tim Davie resigns as Director-General of the BBC

magicbastarder

on that point, trump does not have the leverage over the BBC that he has over american media outlets, who have been falling over themselves to avoid the risk of him getting his buddy to pull their licences.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123979162#Comment_123979162

I've no doubt there was political shenanigans involved. It'd be naive to think that two who resigned didn't have enemies who wanted them gone. I read yesterday that the news chief had some form of apology ready to send, but which was withheld by the board, maybe to precipitate the resignation. You can use that as an excuse if you want, but I don't think it changes anything in terms of what happened, and what the reaction to what happened has been.

burgerKev

I'm not gonna be crying into my pint over trumps hurt feelings

youser going on like he's not an absolute see you next Tuesday.

good enough for him

Hamsterchops

What are the key claims made in the leaked internal BBC memo?

By Reuters November 10, 20251:52 PM GMT Updated 18 hours ago

Key findings from the memo, which was written by Michael Prescott to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board, include:

TRUMP PROGRAMME

Prescott said that an edition of the BBC's flagship Panorama show broadcast a week before the U.S. election, "Trump: A Second Chance?", "seemed to be taking a distinctly anti-Trump stance", noting that critics of Trump far outnumbered his supporters.The programme spliced together two separate excerpts from one of Trump's speeches, creating the impression that he was inciting the January 2021 Capitol Hill riot, he said. Trump was shown telling his supporters that "we're going to walk down to the Capitol" and that they would "fight like hell", a comment he made in a different part of his speech. He had actually said his supporters would "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women".

ISRAEL-HAMAS COVERAGE

Prescott noted that several contributors to the BBC's Arabic service had selectively covered stories critical of Israel.On one occasion, the BBC's main English-language news site published 19 separate articles about the hostages taken by Hamas on the day of the October 7 attack in 2023, while BBC Arabic published none. By contrast, every article critical of Israel that appeared on the BBC News website was also featured on BBC Arabic.

TRANSGENDER COVERAGE

Prescott claimed that stories raising "difficult questions" about transgender issues were often overlooked, even when they had been widely reported and debated by other media outlets. He also noted that some features presented the transgender experience in an overly one-sided manner, lacking sufficient balance and objectivity.The memo also noted that the BBC failed to cover certain stories, including a case in which a group of nurses sued their employer for permitting biological males to use their changing room.

IMMIGRATION ISSUES AND HISTORIANS

Prescott noted that the BBC sent few push notifications about illegal migrants or asylum seekers to its 7 million news app users, even as less significant stories received extensive coverage.The memo also said that producers of four BBC programmes with historical content favoured non-expert academics who offered quotable sound bites on racism and prejudice, producing oversimplified and distorted narratives about British colonialism, slavery, and their legacy.

RACISM

Prescott wrote in his memo that the BBC "fell too easily for putting out ill-researched material that suggested issues of racism when there were none". He cited a report claiming that people living in areas with a high proportion of ethnic minority residents paid more for car insurance, even though road accident and crime rates were similar.He noted that the reporting and commentary ignored other factors that can influence insurance costs, relied on outdated and unsuitable data, and featured only one guest who supported the claim. The Association of British Insurers declined to appear, and its statement, which provided crucial context, was selectively quoted. The report was later taken down.

Reporting by Catarina Demony; Editing by Paul Sandle and Conor Humphries

Who is Michael Prescott?

Michael Prescott was the independent adviser to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board for three years before leaving in June of this year.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123979155#Comment_123979155

I’m not saying don’t call out the BBC for doing wrong- but it’s over blown and MAGA are making far more of it than it deserves- simply because that’s what MAGA do. I’m not going to jump on that bandwagon as it’s simply playing into their hands.

Personally I have more issue with the BBC saying “pregnant persons” than I have with this malarkey .

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123979229#Comment_123979229

Quite possibly true but my impression is that the BBC very much wanted “Trump” to become the issue on which they were being criticised, even though the Panorama programme was a minor part of the criticisms in Prescott’s report. Because that allows them to put it all down to “Big Bad Bully Trump”, and “We just made a minor mistake and the far right are exploiting that”. A far greater problem is the way the trans section of the LGBT desk has been allowed to report on anything that they deem relevant, in a way that suited their agenda, and even just sat on subjects that were too uncomfortable for them. Several, usually female, employees have described wanting to investigate/report on sports or other issues and been told that the LGBTQ desk wanted to do it, and then found that it was never reported, or misleadingly.

That’s how you get this:

https://twitter.com/JustMisogyny/status/1987916062109712456?s=20

this:

https://twitter.com/fharris2011/status/1987908536324460599?s=20

and this:

https://twitter.com/leng_cath/status/1759690284361756978?s=20

This for example was a claim that a study showed that induced lactation in a male, (ie a trans woman) was as good quality or better than natural female lactation.

The study didn’t show that at all. It showed that drugs used to increase lactation in a woman with failing milk supply did not harm the protein content of her milk. Assuming that drug-induced galactorrhea in a male would be of equal quality is a massive leap of faith. But because the BBC claim to be objective viewers believe them.

That’s why this matters. Trump is almost the least of it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123979162#Comment_123979162

By that logic of the messenger not the message, I’d say look at your source too, the Guardian. Hardly impartial, right? And Prescott didn’t appoint himself “independent expert”. Even with the help of Robbie Gibb, there had to have been a collective decision to set up the investigation and report. I’d also point out that Tim Davie, who has just fallen on his sword, is/was a conservative. He stood for election for the Tories (cant now remember whether he got elected)

Point being, this “I don’t like the messenger” is exactly what led the Panorama team to think that it was unproblematic to adjust Trump’s speech to make what they believed were his intentions crystal clear. It’s lazy and stupid and it happened because they were so convinced of being the good guys that they didn’t think basic rules of integrity applied to them.

If they wanted to show that point, they needed to make it clear, not pretend he said it in so many words.

But as I said, I still think that’s tint the biggest problem the BBC has here. And by focusing on it, they’re just going to carry on as before except they’ll be more craven and supine towards Trump and possibly Farage too.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123977078#Comment_123977078

I think there is never a neutral and unbiased opinion. On top of that everyone knows what Trump has been doing and it was down to him to incite the strom on to the capitol. Also it's non of Trump's business how the BBC is reporting on him.

He can his the US networks with lawsuits all he wants but let's keep this idiot out of the UK, out of Europe. He's just an old man with an ego who loves to argue.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123979576#Comment_123979576

Panorama is not meant to be about opinions though. They make a massive thing about being an investigative program ie based on FACTS.

I don’t know how to explain why that distinction matters if you don’t see it yourself.

As for not his business, well I don’t actually want to see the BBC go bust - I want to see it live up to its self declared status of being independent and objective so I sincerely hope these threats go nowhere. But it’s just not true that an international figure has no recourse against lies being broadcast about them in another country.

Though where I think (hope) that Trump is on a hiding to nothing on this is more for practical reasons such as that he can’t really argue that they had any material effect on the election - because he won - or that it was malicious etc. That’s very hard to prove.

As I say, I think the likeliest, and very bad, outcome here is that the BBC, like most bullies, will in the end just crawl before him and pay him lots of money (not $1bn though) to avoid a court case. And will never dare do proper reporting on him ever again.

But if so, they did it to themselves. And worse, they will have humiliated themselves before a liar and a fraud while utterly failing to solve the real problem which is that the management is unable to stand up to the ideologues doing the day to day practical work lower down in the system.

almostover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123979229#Comment_123979229

My issue is that a supposedly factual program was edited in a political manner to influence public opinion.

Whether that entitles Trump to sue or not I don't care really.

volchitsa

Stand down everybody: Joe BJ Brolly has discovered who is really to blame for forcing the BBC to splice two clips together in a diabolical anti BBC plot - it was da Jews!

https://twitter.com/JoeBrolly1993/status/1988166164082815290?s=20

Potatoeman

It’s amazing how both the BBC and RTE went from being too conservative to the complete opposite and too left wing and managed to lose any credibility or impartiality in the process.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123979599#Comment_123979599

I truly think that the legal case of Trump against the BBC is shakey at best, if there is at all any chance of success for Trump. The burden of proof would be on the side of Trump.

It'll be down to a judge, if the judge is US American and possibly biased and paid by Trump, the judgement is also in question. And then there is also the question of jurisdicton. I suppose Trump would need some international court for any sort of judgement to be enforceable on UK soil.

In the end, Trump can always ban BBC reporters from entering the US or expell them from the country.

Ultimately it's about a bully interfering with free reporting and free journalism.

end of the road

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123979133#Comment_123979133

there was, it was just indirect.
he's a slippery type when it comes to that sort of thing, he does it without directly doing it.
he insited an inserection.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123980070#Comment_123980070

The BBC isn't remotely left wing. Most of its Board are right wing appointees. We've just come out of 14 years of Conservative party rule. They didn't leave the BBC alone.

AllForIt

What Tim Davie is doing today is spinning a narraive, one designed to mimimise as far as possilbe his own and the BBC's loss in integrity. Calculated narrative spining though is exactly why he has had to resign.

Potatoeman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123980422#Comment_123980422

The staff are clearly not right wing or even centrist.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123980262#Comment_123980262

Yes I agree, as I said above. I think a bigger risk is that a cowed BBC will pay him something and then never stand up to him again. It’s a self inflicted wound though, and talk of a coup is defensive and counterproductive.

And I repeat again, the doctored Trump video is the least of their offences IMO. The refusal to cover the obvious conflict between trans identifying men’s demands to access female sports and female changing rooms etc as being anything other than anti trans bigotry is far more of an issue, because it went on for years and cost several women their jobs (Cath Leng, whom I’ve linked to below, for example).

And what was their famous BBC Verify doing when the BBC interviewed a “Queer Activist” social scientist in this clip about trans women’s “milk” instead of, umm, let’s say, a midwife??

https://twitter.com/leng_cath/status/1759691593513046430?s=20

How can anything the BBC now say be believed when they lied so egregiously about changing sex? Many of them are now admitting that they never believed it either - but how does that improve their credibility? One of the Big Men rushed out yesterday to defend the BBC said we couldn’t blame young journalists for accepting the “new orthodoxy” without question. Journalists - really? Shouldn’t they be questioning things? Like, it’s their actual job??

Israel is another one: Samer El Zaenen, a BBC Arabic reporter who reported from Gaza, who posted antisemitic comments including suggesting Jews to be burnt “as Hitler did” appeared 244 times on the BBC.

BBC uses journalist who called for ‘Jews to be burned like Hitler did’... again

Bogey Lowenstein

https://www.amazon.ie/That-True-Did-Hear-Disinformation/dp/1999359178/ref%3Dmp_s_a_1_1?crid=D1TVXQRHRR0I&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.c6QoI5nFjkXJFNz3QYItsLfKRZUhcIiiNhqn2mRnXeg.kUkM-AzHn0b_62YYxgwanop7pHdzAlj4aogL6XWR2vc&dib_tag=se&keywords=is+that+true+or+did+you+hear+it+on+the+bbc&qid=1762879137&sprefix=is+that+true+or+did+you+hear+it+on+the+bbc%2Caps%2C144&sr=8-1

The Trump speech is the tip of the iceberg.

Read the book above and you will see that the Beeb are as crooked as a dog's hind leg.

OscarMIlde

More people speaking out now about how the BBC was pandering to transactivists at the expense of women. https://archive.ph/AKwHm

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123980422#Comment_123980422

Got all those names there to prove that claim?

Yes, some were appointed in the time the Tories have been in power - what else would one expect? But the Deputy Chair was an advisor to Gordon Brown as PM, and Caroline Thomson is a daughter of one, and married to another, Labour Peer. Others don't have clear links to political parties, but some are certainly left wing. So not sure why people seem to think that Robbie Gibb, one voice among 13, controls them.

The worst thing you can have is a board where everyone agrees all the time. It’s a sign of a dysfunctional board not doing its job properly. And this is all deflection anyway: unless you think the doctored video and the years of ignoring women’s concerns were an internal trap by right wing insiders, this argument makes very little sense.

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123980497#Comment_123980497

Don't know if we'd agree.

The thing is public sector broadcasting is always in crisis if puplic opinion and society is very much split on nearly every subject. In journalism there will always be one opinion the other one doesn't agree with and vice versa. Conservatives will always find the Guardian left, and the real left will always find the Guardian leaning too much to the right, of you know what I mean.

We all know Trump is a bully and he likes threats, we know that he incited violence to storm the capitol, we know he slept with a porn star, as to his bullying whether that's tariffs or lawsuits, or a combination of both doesn't matter. Remember it's Trump who bends the law in his favour, at least in the US. It's Trump who doctors the truth his truth, not the BBC. It's also Trump who has influence over US TV networks. It's therefore hard or totally impossible to report on Trump neutrally.

As to other things, I personally don't care too much about trans rights or gays or lesbians or how much the BBC reports on them or not. ( and remember I don't mind gays or lesbians, I just don't give much if the BBC reports a little or too much on them)

However the point is, it's not down to Trump to start a lawsuit against a news source who he doesn't like.

Overall I personally see the BBC a bit left leaning, but not too far left. Does it bother me? Not really, as I've got my opinion, and don't expect that everyone has the same. It's called democracy and freedom of speech. Isn't the latter the one the US is supposed to be so proud about?

I don't think that a real credible lawsuit goes anywhere. A US kangaroo court to please Trump and a verdict which has no real bearing on the UK. Fact is legally the US has no legal juristiction over the UK, nor over Ireland. Trump could retaliate, and block the BBC from broadcasting to the US, or threaten the UK with tariffs or hinder BBC reporters from travelling to the US and reporting on domestic matters in the US.

Apart from that look at the positives, lot's of good journalism on the BBC as well. Lot's of Irish still tunining in from Ireland as well. News coverage is in depth and comprehensive, regardless if one agrees or disagrees or finds the BBC left leaning or not. NPR or anything in the US isn't even close to that.

The real issues the BBC has or had were around Jimmy Savile and those likes.

ceadaoin.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123980497#Comment_123980497

Since October 7 2023, they've had to correct on average 2 articles per week on the gaza war due to incorrect information. Their extreme anti Israel, and in many cases, just plain old anti semitic, bias and pushing of hamas propaganda is plain to see. From a state funded broadcaster which supposedly is unbiased and impartial, this isn't acceptable. Many of these false talking points have made their way to the general discourse, such as the hostages being "well treated", which we constantly see parroted even on this site.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bbc-forced-correct-two-gaza-140000422.html

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123980815#Comment_123980815

Yes. Remember Jeremy Bowen saying that even though he’d been wrong when he’d explicitly blamed Israel for the explosion in the Al Ahli hospital, he didn’t care that he had jumped to conclusions. The problem is that they’re so arrogant that they don’t learn from their mistakes.

And they’re going to do the same over this - turning it into an alleged witch hunt by Trump and the far right against the poor oppressed BBC. The reality is that they need to do far more than just cut off the two heads that have rolled. Indeed I suspect that Tim Davie (who, unlike Deborah Turness as head of news, wasn't expected to and didn’t have to resign) left because he knows he can’t reform the BBC in the way it really needs to be reformed. Because there are too many activists at various levels and he can’t possibly get rid of them all.

magicbastarder

How many articles are corrected every week anyway? And by 'forced to', does the telegraph actually mean they chose to?

tinytobe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123980815#Comment_123980815

As I stand with Israel, this naturally bothers me as well. Hamas are terrorists in my opinion, regardless of what the BBC or others say, state or believe.

Trigger

Mod: Folks, discussing moderation is against site rules, you can put your points across without doing this. I've deleted a few posts

Cyclingtourist

The BBC are clearly taking their cue from the UK government, grovel, grovel to Trump.

Wish I could be more optimistic about RTE and the Irish government but they haven't been tested yet.

volchitsa

Very good article in the Telegraph making the point I’ve been making about the BBC wanting to shift the discussion onto Trump the Bogeyman so as to ignore the far greater failings of their lack of coverage of women’s rights being erased by entitled men, and also of Israel/Gaza.

Sudden Valley

The telegraph is in no position to be slating anyone. The BBC was beyond stupid in their actions, they don't need to make up anything about Trump, he does enough damage to his own reputation without needing any help from anyone else.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123981162#Comment_123981162

Hardly the Telegraph’s fault though. And the Telegraph doesn’t have a right to your money under threat of prison, so I would say that they and all the media have not just a right but the duty to slate the BBC when they’re actually guilty?

But maybe you could make a list of which media outlets you think are morally pure enough “slate” a taxpayer-funded organisation for trying to cover up a report that found them to have been systematically biased on a number of issues for years?

And clearly you feel the BBC can never criticise anyone ever again right?