BBC Impartiality

I haven't watched Match of The Day on a Saturday night regularly for a good decade. Not since you could see the goals uploaded as they go in on Reddit or in recent times the Sky Sports youtube channel shortly after the games finish and hours before MOTD airs.

But I am a big consumer of the BBC radio service for football, cricket and generally during the day for their news and programming. I think the radio service is really top class. And I think there has always been a better standard of questioning and debate on the radio than on television for a long time.
 
I dont think she or the BBC have really admitted to the mistake yet. The released a statement but it was defending the decision wasn't it?
I think an oops that was bad form on my part would have covered her if she opened with that.
 
nickm said:
I'm pretty sure I don't have it all figured out, but you go ahead and judge. I can tell you are the sort who enjoys it.
Click to expand...

You judged first though, didn't you?

I merely resorted to your level. And now am beating you at it to boot.

But you go ahead, tell us exactly what would happen to Fiona if she chose to do what anyone faced with a domestic violence situation should do, and not attempt to trivialise it. Huh? What would have happened if she chose not to say those words she did...
 
Pexbo said:
As said above. “Legally contextualise”

Do you want to explain what that means because it doesn’t mean she was legally required like you are suggesting.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I got the phrasing wrong. I assume she means putting a putting a potentially defamatory statement into a legal context, that is - talking about the source of the allegation, that it hadn't been denied, and that "friends of his" (ie Johnson) had said it did happen, ie providing a possible defence on the basis the allegation was true.The alternative was not to broadcast the item at all.

Pexbo said:
In no legal context was she required to provide the hearsay account she gave when Johnson had clearly refused to go on record.

“Stanley Johnson strongly denies the allegations” would be one thing and perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...

The problem is he never has, as far as I know. But if he has, of course that is what should have been said.
 
dumbo said:
When you're prioritising expressing your own disgust at what you see as virtue signalling on behalf of domestic abuse, above the violent abuse itself, you're part of the problem.
Click to expand...
Oh give over. I've already talked earlier on this thread about this. It was an error, at worst. She's already stepped down from the charity which was the right thing to do, when someone says she should also quit Question Time over it - you know, end her career over it?! That's what I am objecting to. Clearly it was an error and I am arguing for the error to be treated proportionally.
 
Pexbo said:
:lol:

She’s a veteran journalist and ambassador to a domestic violence charity and something like “this is incredibly poor taste, why are you asking me to minimise domestic abuse with hearsay?” didn’t once cross her mind?

If she had any integrity she would have pushed back on it. It’s disgusting and she’s failed the victims she represents.
Click to expand...
In that role, in that moment, she was a journalist first and foremost. The ambassador to a domestic violence charity bit surely can't apply at that moment - if we are being 100% rigorous about BBC journalists being impartial in the shows they are presenting (which doesn't apply to Lineker). The point about hearsay is a fair one, but I assume that is because it is the only statement from Johnson's side that is available.
 
nickm said:
In that role, in that moment, she was a journalist first and foremost. The ambassador to a domestic violence charity bit surely can't apply at that moment - if we are being 100% rigorous about BBC journalists being impartial in the shows they are presenting (which doesn't apply to Lineker). The point about hearsay is a fair one, but I assume that is because it is the only statement from Johnson's side that is available.
Click to expand...
Johnson forfeited his right to reply. She said as much in the statement. Why should she be obliged to say the hearsay line at his request?

Can you also point out where Lineker has ever been impartial in the show he is presenting? Way to reveal your true colours.
 
Pexbo said:
If as host of a political show you’ve said something that’s caused a social media storm that’s resulted in you having to step down as Ambassador of a domestic violence charity, perhaps it’s time to consider whether you should also step down as host of the political show.
Click to expand...
Yup, she just isn't very good at it. I can't imagine David Dimbelby coming out with that, legal context or not.
 
nickm said:
"Last week on Question Time, I was required to legally contextualise a question about Stanley Johnson.
"Those words have been taken as an expression of my own opinions which they are absolutely not, and as a minimising of domestic abuse, which I would never do.” From the article.

So as I thought, she was under a legal obligation..
Click to expand...
So she says... we need more detail than a PR statement. "Legally contextualise" is also open to many interpretations and actual scenarios.
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
Fair enough, I got the phrasing wrong. I assume she means putting a putting a potentially defamatory statement into a legal context, that is - talking about the source of the allegation, that it hadn't been denied, and that "friends of his" (ie Johnson) had said it did happen, ie providing a possible defence on the basis the allegation was true.The alternative was not to broadcast the item at all.



The problem is he never has, as far as I know. But if he has, of course that is what should have been said.
Click to expand...
Surely all she had to say was he hadn't been legally found culpable, not put forward his defence?
 
Pexbo said:
Johnson forfeited his right to reply. She said as much in the statement. Why should she be obliged to say the hearsay line at his request?

Can you also point out where Lineker has ever been impartial in the show he is presenting? Way to reveal your true colours.
Click to expand...
The difference between Lineker and Bruce, is Lineker made his comments outside of MOTD, as a private citizen and not bound by BBC guidelines. Which he's entitled to do. (Also he's not a news journalist and different standards apply). Bruce made hers in her show, in her professional capacity, and that platform prevents her from just saying what she likes.

Is it that hard to understand? I mean, these exact points have only been debated and nauseam over the last few days like, everywhere.
 
nickm said:
The difference between Lineker and Bruce, is Lineker made his comments outside of MOTD, as a private citizen and not bound by BBC guidelines. Which he's entitled to do. (Also he's not a news journalist and different standards apply). Bruce made hers in her show, in her professional capacity, and that platform prevents her from just saying what she likes.

Is it that hard to understand? I mean, these exact points have only been debated and nauseam over the last few days like, everywhere.
Click to expand...

Why did you bring Lineker into the discussion?
 
RedChip said:
Surely all she had to say was he hadn't been legally found culpable, not put forward his defence?
Click to expand...
In what world is saying he only broke her nose the once, a "defence"? Let's not miss the wood for the trees here! Once is damning enough.
 
nickm said:
In that role, in that moment, she was a journalist first and foremost. The ambassador to a domestic violence charity bit surely can't apply at that moment - if we are being 100% rigorous about BBC journalists being impartial in the shows they are presenting (which doesn't apply to Lineker). The point about hearsay is a fair one, but I assume that is because it is the only statement from Johnson's side that is available.
Click to expand...
People are criticising her as a journalist primarily. Providing an anonymous rebuttal to accusations of domestic abuse is just a weird decision. A poor one.
Then you get to the statement and its a stupid statement to present. A 'friend' of Johnsons couldn't possibly know how many times it happened. If Stanley Johnson told a friend it was a once off then that should have been reported, thats a different statement. By its nature the statement that was made is hearsay.
So they offered a rebuttal to Stanley Johnson without him having to put his neck out and stand behind it. Thats just poor journalism.
It being about domestic abuse and her being an ambassador for a charity associated with are the cherry's on a shit cake.
 
caid said:
People are criticising her as a journalist primarily. Providing an anonymous rebuttal to accusations of domestic abuse is just a weird decision. A poor one.
Then you get to the statement and its a stupid statement to present. A 'friend' of Johnsons couldn't possibly know how many times it happened. If Stanley Johnson told a friend it was a once off then that should have been reported, thats a different statement. By its nature the statement that was made is hearsay.
So they offered a rebuttal to Stanley Johnson without him having to put his neck out and stand behind it. Thats just poor journalism.
It being about domestic abuse and her being an ambassador for a charity associated with are the cherry's on a shit cake.
Click to expand...
I think that is fair which is why I think it was a just a mistake - she tried to give the balancing side of the story, which I think she probably professionally had to, but it wasn't done well. (Although "friends of Johnson" could be code for Johnson himself saying it off the record rather than literally being his friends, it often is when that phrase is used).
 
nickm said:
In what world is saying he only broke her nose the once, a "defence"? Let's not miss the wood for the trees here! Once is damning enough.
Click to expand...
Well, why mention that it only happened once according to his friends, if not to somehow lessen its seriousness? How is that a requirement for the legal context? She didn't have to say any of that. So either she got flustered, or she intended what her statement implied.
 
nickm said:
I think that is fair which is why I think it was a just a mistake - she tried to give the balancing side of the story, which I think she probably professionally had to, but it wasn't done well. (Although "friends of Johnson" could be code for Johnson himself saying it off the record rather than literally being his friends, it often is when that phrase is used).
Click to expand...
I feel they did they due diligence with offering him a right of reply. Their responsibility to his side of the story pretty much ended at that point beyond throwing an few alledged disclaimers around. So yes mistake.
Again them holding their hands up and saying 'this wasn't great' would go a long way. It offers some reassurance that they'll try do better next time. No ones looking for her to do a Cersei walk or be sacked (theres probably a few headbangers on twitter). Just do better primarily
 
nickm said:
I just don't find your points very interesting and I couldn't find a yawning emoji
Click to expand...

You can't find an emoji that exists, you also can't quote.

But that's what people like you do when you can't answer simple questions. You try to be clever, yet you fail at the most basic things.

Like understanding why people might be a little bit annoyed about trivialising domestic abuse.
 
caid said:
I feel they did they due diligence with offering him a right of reply. Their responsibility to his side of the story pretty much ended at that point beyond throwing an few alledged disclaimers around. So yes mistake.
Again them holding their hands up and saying 'this wasn't great' would go a long way. It offers some reassurance that they'll try do better next time. No ones looking for her to do a Cersei walk or be sacked (theres probably a few headbangers on twitter). Just do better primarily
Click to expand...

Yep.

It's the constant doubling down and refusal to understand what's the actual issue that keeps causing these situations.
 
nickm said:
Words she says she was legally required to stay in her professional capacity.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that.

Legally contextualizing is saying these are allegations. Saying Johnson hasn't responded. Fine you put it in the box you need to.

Saying his friends said it was out of character and only happened once is mitigation for Johnson and that's not her job or the BBC's.

If its wrong and it happened more than ounce where does she stand then? If she isn't willing to name the friends then that's an issue too.

The host of question time should be sharp enough to know this.
 
nickm said:
"Last week on Question Time, I was required to legally contextualise a question about Stanley Johnson.
"Those words have been taken as an expression of my own opinions which they are absolutely not, and as a minimising of domestic abuse, which I would never do.” From the article.

So as I thought, she was under a legal obligation..
Click to expand...

This is you saying things you don't believe.

First off there is no way she was legally obligated to say that, no person on earth would believe that claim. I know you've since said that you got the wording wrong, but this isn't just a slip of the finger, this is fundamentally changing what the sentence means. Further, even when we look at what Bruce actually said, that is also obviously bullshit, and you know that it is. It's quite possible that she was required as part of her job to "contextualise", even though I doubt it, but it is very obviously not the case that this requirement involved mentioning that some of Johnson's friends have said that it only happened once while not saying that the victim herself is clear that it happened loads of times over several years.. It's simply not possible that you believe this. Alibhai-Brown simply said that Stanley Johnson was a wife-beater. Charlotte Fawcett says it happened loads of times, Stanley Johnson hasn't said much, and some friends of Johnson who can't possibly know have apparently said that Fawcett is lying it was just the once. And those friends is what she's required to mention? Please.

The only question is why you're pretending, I don't get it, is it a doubling down thing?
 
Last edited:
ffs she said one of his mates said it only happened once and we’re supposed to buy this legally contextualise horseshit :lol:
 

It gets even worse when it comes to world news. When did the BBC become this bad? Or has it always been like this without the older generation picking up on it.
 
dal said:
Rashford and Linekar should team up. Properly hold the government to account.
Click to expand...
They must have stacks of spare rooms between them and can house loads of refugees if they team up.

caid said:
I feel they did they due diligence with offering him a right of reply. Their responsibility to his side of the story pretty much ended at that point beyond throwing an few alledged disclaimers around. So yes mistake.
Again them holding their hands up and saying 'this wasn't great' would go a long way. It offers some reassurance that they'll try do better next time. No ones looking for her to do a Cersei walk or be sacked (theres probably a few headbangers on twitter). Just do better primarily
Click to expand...
They clearly didn't offer Johnson right of reply before Question Time. It's an old story, so journos run a disclaimer to cover their arses legally. The friends' comment implies the allegations are true and I guess is designed to provide balance, although the 'one-off' line obviously sounds awful.

It was done poorly in my view, even if it was made slightly more awkward to word by the lack official denial. How bad it was is open to interpretation though- I thought it sounded bad, but my wife can't understand what the fuss is about, saying it was clear she was just contextualising, rather than downplaying domestic abuse.
 
NotThatSoph said:
This is you saying things you don't believe.

First off there is no way she was legally obligated to say that, no person on earth would believe that claim.
Click to expand...

"On Monday, friends of Ms Bruce told The Telegraph she had been “hung out to dry” as BBC producers had provided her with lines to defend the corporation from potentially defamatory allegations should the topic of domestic violence come up on the show."

Quote from the BBC: "“When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing"

Quote from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, whose answer started this: " Bruce quickly intervened and repeated their claim. I understood why. She was legally obliged to put out that clarification. I have no regrets about doing what I did and do not harbour any resentment against Bruce, who did what she had to do."

I await your apologies for your uninformed inferences and accusations, and from more than one of you too.
 
Redlambs said:
Like understanding why people might be a little bit annoyed about trivialising domestic abuse.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but I don't think that is what her intent was at all, and in order to understand her intent, you need to understand her professional obligation at that moment. It is possible to believe domestic abuse is terrible (it is), Fiona Bruce made at worst a small error (she did) and people calling for her to lose her QT job are nuts (they are).
 
nickm said:
"On Monday, friends of Ms Bruce told The Telegraph she had been “hung out to dry” as BBC producers had provided her with lines to defend the corporation from potentially defamatory allegations should the topic of domestic violence come up on the show."

Quote from the BBC: "“When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing"

Quote from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, whose answer started this: " Bruce quickly intervened and repeated their claim. I understood why. She was legally obliged to put out that clarification. I have no regrets about doing what I did and do not harbour any resentment against Bruce, who did what she had to do."

I await your apologies for your uninformed inferences and accusations, and from more than one of you too.
Click to expand...

She was in no way legally obligated to say those things, that's ridicilous, she being told that she was doesn't change that.
 
nickm said:
I understand that, but I don't think that is what her intent was at all, and in order to understand her intent, you need to understand her professional obligation at that moment. It is possible to believe domestic abuse is terrible (it is), Fiona Bruce made at worst a small error (she did) and people calling for her to lose her QT job are nuts (they are).
Click to expand...

I agree with that. But the problem is instead of apologising properly and trying to explain that, she's blamed it on "legality" which doesn't take a lot to figure out that isn't correct. She had a choice of what to say, she chose those words. Don't you agree that she could have simply not said the "only once" bit? After all, that's not an official denial, it's heresay so she really wasn't under any legal obligation to say it.

The twitter nut jobs are off their heads, I'm pretty sure all of us in here can agree to that.
 
nickm said:
Well that's convenient for your argument but not apparently true.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

At most she might have mentioned that he is not convicted in a court of law, though I very much doubt that it would be necessary. If she wanted to go further than that she could have said that these are claims made by his ex wife Charlotte Fawcett, and that he hasn't responded. If she wanted to describe the allegations she could have done that: she mentioned the broken nose, but not that it was one episode out of many times, over many years. She in no way had to report what some of Johnson's friends say, especially when she chose to only partially report what Fawcett said. It's completely absurd.
 
nickm said:
Well that's convenient for your argument but not apparently true.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there's a lot of discourse around what actually is legally true.

If the words "only once" were used in an official denial, then she's obligated to say it. However since it's hearsay, then she wasn't.


My original question to you which you went all snarky on (and I'll drop that now, as you are fielding multiple people at once so I get it mate) was genuine though...what sort of legal repercussions would she face had she done the right thing and chose not to say what she said? A slap on the wrists from her bosses? Fired? Imprisoned?

Ultimately she could have not said those words. And that's what she should be apologising properly for, not digging down and making it worse.
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
"On Monday, friends of Ms Bruce told The Telegraph she had been “hung out to dry” as BBC producers had provided her with lines to defend the corporation from potentially defamatory allegations should the topic of domestic violence come up on the show."

Quote from the BBC: "“When serious allegations are made on air against people or organisations, it is the job of BBC presenters to ensure that the context of those allegations – and any right of reply from the person or organisation – is given to the audience, and this is what Fiona Bruce was doing"

Quote from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, whose answer started this: " Bruce quickly intervened and repeated their claim. I understood why. She was legally obliged to put out that clarification. I have no regrets about doing what I did and do not harbour any resentment against Bruce, who did what she had to do."

I await your apologies for your uninformed inferences and accusations, and from more than one of you too.
Click to expand...
The 'my bosses made me do it' excuse is pretty pathetic tbh for someone so senior and experienced, who also happens to be a patron of a domestic abuse charity. Perhaps occasionally she can do an Emily Maitlis and stand up for what she believes in.

I don't think she should lose the QT job for this one incident but for being, overall, wholly unsuited to fronting a live debate program where controversy is the norm.
 
This certainly underlines the degree to which QT is scripted. It was well known that panellists got the questions ahead of the programme, but it seems Bruce knew the answers too, given she was given that caveat to add to one.
 
Jippy said:
This certainly underlines the degree to which QT is scripted. It was well known that panellists got the questions ahead of the programme, but it seems Bruce knew the answers too, given she was given that caveat to add to one.
Click to expand...

I didn’t actually know that: even the audience questions and commentary? They always seem very ad-libbed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.