BBC Impartiality
- Thread starter ThehatchetMan
- Start date
Hmm, the BBC says they aren't. I always understood they were flagged in advance, certainly felt that way often, particularly when the MPs have notes prepared (I know they can prep them on topical subjects) and the host has impartiality context for allegations against Stanley Johnson to hand.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5HrMm77Yz7vwzCZZ570nTdp/frequently-asked-questions
@nickm
This tweet thread nails it.
Lessons from Fiona Bruce is gaslighting. Let's look at what she's done here:
1) She has played the victim. She insists that she had to 'legally contextualise' the remarks about Stanley Johnson. Not like *that* she didn't. 1/8
2) She suggests that she has been misunderstood or misrepresented, that she actually said 'it was a one off' not that she quoted the 'friends of Stanley Johnson' saying such a crass thing. She is deliberately fudging the fact that reintroducing that defence is awful. 2/8
3) She has suggested that she didn't minimise domestic abuse. I disagree. I think she did. She swept it away - didn't allow the panel member to finish her comment - and swiftly moved on with a pre-written reply. She - in other words - minimised the criticism and stifled it. 3/8
4) She reiterates that she was supposedly 'required to say' what she said. I do not believe that she was required to say *that*. She also did not say that Charlotte - the ex-wife of Stanley Johnson - reported that she was repeatedly assaulted. Fiona Bruce could have. 4/8
5) "But I can apologise for the very real impact that I can see it has had" - this is also known as the infamous "I am sorry that you feel this way" or "I am sorry about how you feel". Which is an insult and it's (once again) victim blaming - which DV victims often face. 5/8
6) I'm glad that she has stepped down from Refuge - clearly could not stay - but she has demonstrated no accountability for what she said (blames everyone else) and shows only that she feels that she has been wronged. 6/8
7) Fiona Bruce is trying to persuade people that she was misunderstood. No - I for one appreciate that she quoted other people - but she underlined that as some type of valid or reasonable defence or mitigating circumstance to domestic violence by doing so. 7/8
It is absolutely time for Fiona Bruce to step down from BBC Question Time. She has been acting as a goalie for the Tory Party since the day she took the job on. She throws herself on every hand-grenade. In front of every bullet. Her purpose is clear. 8/8
This tweet thread nails it.
Lessons from Fiona Bruce is gaslighting. Let's look at what she's done here:
1) She has played the victim. She insists that she had to 'legally contextualise' the remarks about Stanley Johnson. Not like *that* she didn't. 1/8
2) She suggests that she has been misunderstood or misrepresented, that she actually said 'it was a one off' not that she quoted the 'friends of Stanley Johnson' saying such a crass thing. She is deliberately fudging the fact that reintroducing that defence is awful. 2/8
3) She has suggested that she didn't minimise domestic abuse. I disagree. I think she did. She swept it away - didn't allow the panel member to finish her comment - and swiftly moved on with a pre-written reply. She - in other words - minimised the criticism and stifled it. 3/8
4) She reiterates that she was supposedly 'required to say' what she said. I do not believe that she was required to say *that*. She also did not say that Charlotte - the ex-wife of Stanley Johnson - reported that she was repeatedly assaulted. Fiona Bruce could have. 4/8
5) "But I can apologise for the very real impact that I can see it has had" - this is also known as the infamous "I am sorry that you feel this way" or "I am sorry about how you feel". Which is an insult and it's (once again) victim blaming - which DV victims often face. 5/8
6) I'm glad that she has stepped down from Refuge - clearly could not stay - but she has demonstrated no accountability for what she said (blames everyone else) and shows only that she feels that she has been wronged. 6/8
7) Fiona Bruce is trying to persuade people that she was misunderstood. No - I for one appreciate that she quoted other people - but she underlined that as some type of valid or reasonable defence or mitigating circumstance to domestic violence by doing so. 7/8
It is absolutely time for Fiona Bruce to step down from BBC Question Time. She has been acting as a goalie for the Tory Party since the day she took the job on. She throws herself on every hand-grenade. In front of every bullet. Her purpose is clear. 8/8
I think her tweet is a load of horseshit.
What legal weight does the word of a couple of Stanley Johnson's mates hold? Absolute bollocks.
What legal weight does the word of a couple of Stanley Johnson's mates hold? Absolute bollocks.
There is no doubt in my mind that she was downplaying the incident. In what fecking world would you interupt someone and come out with 'it was a one off'. No mention of the fact that he has been accused of multiple incidents.
Would she have reacted the same if it was a statement on Corbyn or Starmer? Would she feck!
Change the context to the Russian invasion and it might sink in.
Would she have reacted the same if it was a statement on Corbyn or Starmer? Would she feck!
Change the context to the Russian invasion and it might sink in.
I feel like the majority of the questions MP’s get asked are scripted. PMQ’s are usually set out in advance (at least from their own party), press questions are probably vetted. When you actually put them in front of the general public you get weirdness like Boris hiding in a fridge or Sunak confessing to be a Coke-addict.
To be honest I think the Been did have a point when suspending Lineker. I mean, comparing the Tory’s immigration policy to Nazi Germany is a bit unfair on the Nazi’s.
Say what you will about about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos.
Correct. That's how live news TV works.
Jonathan Liew in the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...that-image-of-warm-fuzzy-bbc-was-always-a-lie
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...that-image-of-warm-fuzzy-bbc-was-always-a-lie
But he is a wife beater though. If it were legally sensitive then saying it was a one off would have been just as bad.
She wasn’t correcting repeated wife beater, she was claiming it was some sort of one off by close friends which is beyond ridiculous.
Nothing of that passes the legal smell test.
Well, at least the tweeter finally gets to his real argument, pity we had to wade through a load of diversionary bollocks first.
You’re a lost cause
No mate, you are. You want to essentially ruin someone's career over a clumsy error she made, in the course of her trying to do something she is required to do at work. That's ugly, man.
Why have you dropped the "legally" bit?
I'm not as stiff in this as either yourself nor Pexbo, I'm not looking at Bruce's past conduct either. I'm just curious as to why as much as there's some hard stance on the left to have her cancelled (whatever that is supposed to mean), there's also the hard stance on the right that won't budge.
Even you calling it a "clumsy error"...mate, she was literally an ambassador for a charity fighting this kind of thing. I've asked you over and over why she didn't have a choice, and you've failed to respond to that in anything other than a wishy washy way. She had a choice, she made a choice. The question I have for you now, is why can't you see that side of it? Why can't you look at her words and think they are just a little bit dodgy?
Ultimately, entrenched in a side you want to believe is still entrenched. And that really isn't good for anyone.
Impartiality...
BBC came under No 10 pressure to avoid using ‘lockdown’ in early pandemic, leak shows
Exclusive: leaked emails and WhatsApp messages reveal reporters also told to be more critical of Labour
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-to-avoid-using-lockdown-at-start-of-pandemic
BBC came under No 10 pressure to avoid using ‘lockdown’ in early pandemic, leak shows
Exclusive: leaked emails and WhatsApp messages reveal reporters also told to be more critical of Labour
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-to-avoid-using-lockdown-at-start-of-pandemic
I for one am shocked.
Never forget this outrageous "mistake" in the build up to 2019 election when Boris was portrayed as man of the people and JC as some sort of anti British communist.
This was when Boris disrepectfully placed a wreath done incorrectly on remembrance day. Jeremy placed it correctly. The BBC somehow made a mistake and showed 2016 footage of Boris instead. How does that mistake happen? Damage limitation. Imagine had jeremy placed it disrespectfully.
This was when Boris disrepectfully placed a wreath done incorrectly on remembrance day. Jeremy placed it correctly. The BBC somehow made a mistake and showed 2016 footage of Boris instead. How does that mistake happen? Damage limitation. Imagine had jeremy placed it disrespectfully.
I thought I'd been clear: in that moment, her professional obligations as a BBC journalist took precedence over the personal stuff she chooses to do outside of work which is part and parcel of her responsibility of being impartial. It's her job to "put into legal context" / provide balance re: the allegation about Johnson's domestic violence that he wasn't there to defend. She said words she says she was required to say, which I can 100% believe (that said, there was probably a better phrasing, hence the error). That's not wishy washy. Media/presenters/journalists are super cautious about this stuff because of our incredibly tight and punitive defamation laws, and the company guidelines and procedures that are in place to reduce the individual's and company's risk of getting hammered by the courts. I have some actual knowledge of this, why the fcuk do you think I am so certain about it?
But keep drawing the wrong conclusions, you are a master of it.
Last edited:
Why are you getting so aggy again? You ignored my previous posts when I was just trying to talk, and now you get all pissy when I ask for clarification and not the same thing you've said over and over but not actually given an answer to my question about what the consequences are.
It's so hypocritical of you to have that little speech about giving the benefit of the doubt when all you do is talk like this to people. And you wonder why nobody believes you know what you are talking about (especially when you still haven't answered why it's "a legal requirement" for her to use heresay and how it would be defamation to not say those words).
Maybe Pexbo is right. People like you who just won't even try to see the opposite side maybe are a lost cause.
In the wake of BBC being placed in the dog (whistle) house after their Lineker troubles and being punished by not getting an invite to visit Rwanda with Braverman - the BBC fights back by demonising a group of young Afghan footballers.
The basis of the charge? Some (13 to be precise) of the women footballers who got out using the Pakistan route weren't really that good at football. Some of them were just regional players or in youth teams, rather than in the national team setup.
Not only did they name some of them, exposing their relatives in Afghanistan to further risk and in some cases those in the UK to harassment and abuse, they used other women players still trapped in Afghanistan to add to the attack.
The plight of women players and other previously "non-comforming" women in Afghanistan remains terrifying. Afghan women and girls are living in misery and fear under the Taliban, with even the most basic freedoms denied to most of them. And the BBC runs a complaint that some of the teenagers were only regional or youth team players not national team players therefore unworthy of asylum in the UK.
Talk about missing the point.
The basis of the charge? Some (13 to be precise) of the women footballers who got out using the Pakistan route weren't really that good at football. Some of them were just regional players or in youth teams, rather than in the national team setup.
Not only did they name some of them, exposing their relatives in Afghanistan to further risk and in some cases those in the UK to harassment and abuse, they used other women players still trapped in Afghanistan to add to the attack.
The plight of women players and other previously "non-comforming" women in Afghanistan remains terrifying. Afghan women and girls are living in misery and fear under the Taliban, with even the most basic freedoms denied to most of them. And the BBC runs a complaint that some of the teenagers were only regional or youth team players not national team players therefore unworthy of asylum in the UK.
Talk about missing the point.
Sickening.
@nickm won't see anything wrong with that.
Good lord, monstrous organisation. Needs to be torn down and rebuilt at this stage.
This is horrific. Some of the players replied to the original tweet.
This is disgusting by the BBC.
That’s basically a Daily Express article. Madness.
Frankie Boyle cancelled. HIGNFY next I wonder?
I would think allowing people to speak their minds, regardless of whether Labour, Tory or Venusian Alliance, would be just as impartial as not allowing them to. Certainly more impartial than having a chairman who is a Tory donor and loan facilitator for Johnson.
What happened?
Low ratings more than anything I think. I am normally happy to jump on BBC but show wasn't doing much/cost wasn't worth it
Cheers both, shame I really enjoyed it as well!
He has not been cancelled, his program has not been renewed.
The statement from BBC states they look forward to what he does next at the BBC.
Excuse my ignorance here, but what have the BBC done wrong with this article?
It clearly highlights people who claimed asylum under false pretences, which was the point of the article.
Not that I agree with this point of view mind, we should be doing more to assist people in need, especially woman and children from war torn and repressive countries.
Potato, potarto. More David Mitchell, that's what we need.
Presumably it would be good journalistic practice to try to contact the people before you slander them to give them the right of reply? I assume that's what the girl who Tweeted them was upset about?
Theres no slander in that article.
Also, if that woman who was upset at being mentioned was actually concerned about her privacy, why is she tweeting that very article, thereby basically calling out who she is and giving everyone access to her social media accounts etc!?