Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
TIGHazard post_id=14028 time=1621689147 user_id=904 Wrote:AllWillBeWell post_id=14019 time=1621686481 user_id=773 Wrote:TIGHazard post_id=14016 time=1621686243 user_id=904 Wrote: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.
I think that's a fair point. Don't punish the present day department, where the heads need to roll - as they should have done with JS - is where the cover-up took place.
My question remains, though, on how many more bodies are buried?
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.
And once it all died down, they reintroduced a Sunday title under The Sun banner instead.
AllWillBeWell post_id=13905 time=1621624258 user_id=773 Wrote:VMPhil post_id=13874 time=1621617541 user_id=1043 Wrote:Brekkie post_id=13858 time=1621614577 user_id=976 Wrote:They are not going to "dissolve" the news department. If anything this report is about the governance of the BBC, and since these events occurs the system of governance has changed not once but twice.
Exactly - some very OTT posts in this thread.
With respect, I think you are underestimating the comeback there will be from this. The future king, has come out publicly to criticise The BBC and the actions of BBC News journalists. I am not saying BBC News is going to be closed as I stated in my first post. Only that the actual structure and backend department may be changed/closed/reopened etc.
Yes, the actions of BBC News… 25 years ago.
Those who were involved in the production of the interview - 25 years ago - should be investigated. Not the current team, the vast majority of whom were probably not involved in the production of the interview, 25 years ago.
Tony Hall left the news and current affairs department in 2001 - 20 years ago - and Martin Bashir left in 1999 - 22 years ago - he only returned to the BBC in 2016.
VMPhil post_id=14080 time=1621702612 user_id=1043 Wrote:AllWillBeWell post_id=13905 time=1621624258 user_id=773 Wrote:VMPhil post_id=13874 time=1621617541 user_id=1043 Wrote:Exactly - some very OTT posts in this thread.
With respect, I think you are underestimating the comeback there will be from this. The future king, has come out publicly to criticise The BBC and the actions of BBC News journalists. I am not saying BBC News is going to be closed as I stated in my first post. Only that the actual structure and backend department may be changed/closed/reopened etc.
Yes, the actions of BBC News… 25 years ago.
Those who were involved in the production of the interview - 25 years ago - should be investigated. Not the current team, the vast majority of whom were probably not involved in the production of the interview, 25 years ago.
Tony Hall left the news and current affairs department in 2001 - 20 years ago - and Martin Bashir left in 1999 - 22 years ago - he only returned to the BBC in 2016.
Yes, and if current people in the department are connected, then it will have an impact on the department now. It doesn't matter if it was 25 years ago. People tend to stay at the BBC for a long time.
TH returned to the BBC to become the DG. The BBC board (or trust) selected him by choice. Were there some members on the board who knew of the previous business? I don't know. But I find it hard if the whole affair was unknown to them at least lightly.
Martin B returned to BBC News, not just the BBC.
I'll go out on a limb here. It's my belief that the BBC will not be abolished because of this. To be honest I can't think of any viable option as a replacement. It is unfair to blame the 2021 version of BBC News for mistakes that happened over 25 years ago. I'd wager that many of the journalists working now weren't even born when the interview took place.
Yes, there must be changes in how BBC news operates but they must be taken with cool, calm and rational clarity and not be influenced by the anti-BBC banshees.
I think at some stage we'll end up with a "New BBC" with the existing corporation being significantly restructured and scaled back, but I doubt it'll have anything to do with this scandal.
As a big BBC supporter I do unfortunately agree with Earl Spencer that a line can be drawn between the interview and Diana's death. That the BBC potentially contributed to that is horrific.
rkolsen post_id=14115 time=1621710583 user_id=1202 Wrote:I’m honestly surprised they hired him so closely after his controversy about defecating in Sarah Palins mouth.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/d...arah-palin
I remember when he popped up on the BBC after he'd returned, looking at his Wikipedia page and being a bit surprised that they'd hired him based on the reasons for leaving his last job…
MrUdagawa post_id=14109 time=1621708418 user_id=1184 Wrote:As a big BBC supporter I do unfortunately agree with Earl Spencer that a line can be drawn between the interview and Diana's death. That the BBC potentially contributed to that is horrific.
But ultimately what good is destroying the BBC going to achieve? Who is really being punished? Hold everyone who was involved to account and make sure it doesn't happen again but you don't cut your nose of to spite your face.
Whataday post_id=14108 time=1621708288 user_id=1029 Wrote:I think at some stage we'll end up with a "New BBC" with the existing corporation being significantly restructured and scaled back, but I doubt it'll have anything to do with this scandal.
And the first people to complain would be the people who advocated for it.
If it transpires that the BBC has killed Diana, then the Great British Public will be up in arms.
Cassia Tuna post_id=14152 time=1621721766 user_id=1506 Wrote:If it transpires that the BBC has killed Diana, then the Great British Public will be up in arms.
Absolutely ridiculous. But hey, it's what the Great British Press and the paparazzi chasing a car in Paris on 31st August 1997, who have always been sweet and innocent when it comes to Princess Diana, want the Great British Public to believe.
Plus the Great Tory Government - led by a man who is, of course, the bastion of honour and integrity, who is "concerned" by the BBC. Well, of course, he is. Suits his agenda perfectly, and those of BBC enemies, to cut the BBC down to size.
This thread is starting to get BM11itis...
Cassia Tuna post_id=14152 time=1621721766 user_id=1506 Wrote:If it transpires that the BBC has killed Diana, then the Great British Public will be up in arms.
hock: We already know how Diana was killed. Unless it transpires it was the cast of Eastenders who were chasing her and not paparazzi you're talking complete bollocks.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11