James Martin post_id=13972 time=1621671649 user_id=872 Wrote:Funny you should say that as I was just thinking a comparison to Mahmood might not be completely unfair.
I wonder if the Michael Jackson documentary might now come under review. There's still so many unanswered questions there, but now you wonder how much of it was a stitch up?
I'd have thought that the background to his big interviews of that era will now be looked at. It wasn't just Jackson he was the go-to person for the big exclusive interviews in the 90s.
However just because the way an interview was arranged and the interviewee persuaded to take part doesn't (necessarily) invalidate what was said in the interview.
I would have thought that multiple media outlets and journalists were competing to get interviews with Diana, Michael Jackson or Louise Woodward at the time. Who knows what sort of practises were going on by others to try and secure them. That said he made his name from the Diana interview and presumably gave him some clout to secure the others
James Martin post_id=13947 time=1621638755 user_id=872 Wrote:Full disclosure, in my opinion I'd like the BBC defunded, collapsed and a new subscription-based public broadcaster formed.
We've been here before. Public service broadcasting that requires a subscription isn't really public service broadcasting. And why should Cbeebies, drama and radio be punished for what what goes on in news? Also, nobody has more control over British gouverment than Murdoch so "The Sun isn't forced on you" as an argument doesn't really stand.
I don't know if this really reflects public opinion, but many on Reddit (which loves an excuse to bash the BBC and the licence fee) don't seem to care about this story at all. Others say that it's clear Martin and the BBC did something wrong but just need better policies in dealing with this, not a full reform.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/...eform_now/
TIGHazard post_id=13995 time=1621679929 user_id=904 Wrote:I don't know if this really reflects public opinion, but many on Reddit (which loves an excuse to bash the BBC and the licence fee) don't seem to care about this story at all. Others say that it's clear Martin and the BBC did something wrong but just need better policies in dealing with this, not a full reform.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/...eform_now/
Who cares what some people on Reddit think? May as well ask random people on Facebook or Twitter, while you're at it. It's completely irrelevant to the topic here.
James Martin post_id=13972 time=1621671649 user_id=872 Wrote:I wonder if the Michael Jackson documentary might now come under review. There's still so many unanswered questions there, but now you wonder how much of it was a stitch up?
Exactly. Jackson said at the time he was lied to with regards to the interview, had his own video footage showing a totally different slant to things, and we all wrote it off because he was a bit strange. But it seems it was Bashirs standard operating model.
IndigoTucker post_id=14002 time=1621683062 user_id=1026 Wrote:James Martin post_id=13972 time=1621671649 user_id=872 Wrote:I wonder if the Michael Jackson documentary might now come under review. There's still so many unanswered questions there, but now you wonder how much of it was a stitch up?
Exactly. Jackson said at the time he was lied to with regards to the interview, had his own video footage showing a totally different slant to things, and we all wrote it off because he was a bit strange. But it seems it was Bashirs standard operating model.
That may be true, nevertheless some of the footage
on second thoughts probably best not to describe was the notoriously remembered scene and that was certainly not faked.... There were scenes in the documentary that only added to the accusations against Jackson. Even if the interview was set up with a lie, the scenes could not lie.
To add to the affair, Huw Edwards posted last night how the current BBC team was not to blame (or words to that effect) but this has now been removed.
Cassia Tuna post_id=13999 time=1621682563 user_id=1506 Wrote:TIGHazard post_id=13995 time=1621679929 user_id=904 Wrote:I don't know if this really reflects public opinion, but many on Reddit (which loves an excuse to bash the BBC and the licence fee) don't seem to care about this story at all. Others say that it's clear Martin and the BBC did something wrong but just need better policies in dealing with this, not a full reform.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/...eform_now/
Who cares what some people on Reddit think? May as well ask random people on Facebook or Twitter, while you're at it. It's completely irrelevant to the topic here.
What
is the topic here?
Yesterday there were questions about if the public actually cares about the scandal - If Newsnight should have even covered it with no new information.
The majority of comments on that thread don't seem to care and that to me indicates this will just blow over in a few weeks. People understand this was 25 years ago and that it doesn't reflect on the news department now.
Cassia Tuna post_id=14014 time=1621686067 user_id=1506 Wrote:Lord Hall resigns from National Gallery
Quote:Lord Hall, BBC's ex-director general, resigns as National Gallery chairman, saying continuing would be a "distraction" after inquiry into Diana interview
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57212959
You have to wonder if he (or the BBC) knew what was coming some time ago, seeing as he left the BBC role early last year. Which if true, creates even more questions.
TIGHazard post_id=14016 time=1621686243 user_id=904 Wrote:Cassia Tuna post_id=13999 time=1621682563 user_id=1506 Wrote:TIGHazard post_id=13995 time=1621679929 user_id=904 Wrote:I don't know if this really reflects public opinion, but many on Reddit (which loves an excuse to bash the BBC and the licence fee) don't seem to care about this story at all. Others say that it's clear Martin and the BBC did something wrong but just need better policies in dealing with this, not a full reform.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/...eform_now/
Who cares what some people on Reddit think? May as well ask random people on Facebook or Twitter, while you're at it. It's completely irrelevant to the topic here.
What is the topic here?
Yesterday there were questions about if the public actually cares about the scandal - If Newsnight should have even covered it with no new information.
The majority of comments on that thread don't seem to care and that to me indicates this will just blow over in a few weeks. People understand this was 25 years ago and that it doesn't reflect on the news department now.
As already mentioned several times, the journalist in question was re-employed by the BBC in 2016, Lord Hall only left his role last year. If he had never worked for the BBC since the 90s, the point would be valid. But they let him back in, and were happy to have him.
Keith post_id=13970 time=1621670293 user_id=1115 Wrote:Thinking about it for a day the nearest comparison I could think for Bashir was News of The World / The Sun's Mazher Mahmood (aka 'fake sheik).
And the News of the World paid the price for that, the advertisers pulled out and it was closed down.
AllWillBeWell post_id=14019 time=1621686481 user_id=773 Wrote:TIGHazard post_id=14016 time=1621686243 user_id=904 Wrote:Cassia Tuna post_id=13999 time=1621682563 user_id=1506 Wrote:Who cares what some people on Reddit think? May as well ask random people on Facebook or Twitter, while you're at it. It's completely irrelevant to the topic here.
What is the topic here?
Yesterday there were questions about if the public actually cares about the scandal - If Newsnight should have even covered it with no new information.
The majority of comments on that thread don't seem to care and that to me indicates this will just blow over in a few weeks. People understand this was 25 years ago and that it doesn't reflect on the news department now.
As already mentioned several times, the journalist in question was re-employed by the BBC in 2016, Lord Hall only left his role last year. If he had never worked for the BBC since the 90s, the point would be valid. But they let him back in, and were happy to have him.
I think this is the problem with this scandal. There are two parts to it.
There is the scandal with Bashir's methods to obtain the interview in the 90's.
Then there is the re-employment years later.
From that thread, the public do not seem to care about how Bashir obtained the interview - it was too long ago, and it doesn't reflect - in their mind - on the current BBC news department
The part about his reemployment is based upon who knew what. How many of the 2016 BBC senior staff actually knew about the interview was obtained. Did Bashir - or the BBC news department as a whole - continue to use these methods since his re-employment?
The coverup is a problem, and
needs to be investigated, but if the current BBC News department is 'clean' (as in current BBC News staff did not know, and this was covered up from above), then there is no need to reform
that department - but instead the department which actually did the coverup and continued it.
Lord Dyson himself believes that it was 1996 BBC senior management who began the cover-up - not the Panorama production team.
Quote:The documents that I have read and the oral testimony that I have heard do not enable me to make a finding as to who was responsible for deciding that the story should not be covered by the BBC and for issuing the “official line” to editors to which I have referred. It must have been someone from senior management, but I can’t say who it was. I do not believe that it was Mr Hewlett, not least because he was the editor of Panorama and his writ did not run beyond this programme.
I have carefully considered the serious allegations of cover up that Mr Mangold has made against Mr Hewlett. As I have said, Mr Mangold acknowledges that he does not have proof of them. Indeed, no evidence has been placed before the Investigation that Mr Hewlett instigated or was party to the cover up. In these circumstances and since in any event Mr Hewlett has not been able to answer the allegations, I find that they have not been established.
JAS84 post_id=14025 time=1621687981 user_id=881 Wrote:Keith post_id=13970 time=1621670293 user_id=1115 Wrote:Thinking about it for a day the nearest comparison I could think for Bashir was News of The World / The Sun's Mazher Mahmood (aka 'fake sheik).
And the News of the World paid the price for that, the advertisers pulled out and it was closed down.
The News of The World closed down in the aftermath of the phone hacking scandal, in particular the Milly Dowler case
Cassia Tuna post_id=13999 time=1621682563 user_id=1506 Wrote:Who cares what some people on Reddit think? May as well ask random people on Facebook or Twitter, while you're at it.
Who cares what some people on TV Live Forum think? May as well ask random people on Metropol or Digital Spy while you're at it.