Thanks Robin - grateful for your thoughtful intervention. I once got into terrible trouble in an Economics lesson because I burst out laughing when the very scary economics teacher used the phrase ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’. I had never heard it before. Some 40 years on, while you and I both agree that the BBC is not perfect, I’m horrified that many people don’t see the value of what is being diminished and may well be lost in the near future. There are an awful lot of powerful individuals who would like to tip that baby out of the window. I’m not laughing.
What you should be "horrified" by is utterly inane and one-sided reporting by BBC on many subjects. We pay for it. It needs to report news, and then let us make our own judgments. Minions like you are the issue. Be thankful everyone including you gets a vote.
Robin, your wise words are a welcome intervention. The BBC is been torn apart by the same polarising forces that produced Brexit, Reform UK, Tommy Robinson and Corbyn.
Yea, torn apart my foot. Intentional doctoring of footage. A rabid anti-individual stance. In fact, a rabit anti-science stance just because it's powered by leftist donors.
Sad and disappointingly pathetic, but still no reason for dismantling a great institution, which seems to be what is threatened. Oh that we could hold Donald Trump, Elon Musk et al to the same standard when they misrepresent and slander.
I have to admit that most of my news comes from independent sources, and foreign newspapers; I usually check into the 8 o'clock R4 news, which tells me the topics of the day, which I then pursue anywhere appropriate - which isn't the BBC, which can't fund enough specialised coverage or foreign language speakers. Sky and CNN often have a different and often worthwhile take. Note, I barely watch any television programmes, except on the computer; and the news programmes the Beeb does brilliantly are the satirical ones.
I am sorry to say I have lost all trust in BBC tv news, although that has been a longtime coming. Really, it began under Thatcher, and escalated under Blair/Campbell. There is a distinct lack of critical and independent voices, and far too much willingness to follow the Murdoch/Mail and now GB news agenda.
I have been appalled by their boosterism of Brexit and Farage, and their wilful ignoring of the Gaza horrors.
There are a few excellent specialist talk/documentary programmes on Radio 4, and Today can be good at times. Unfortunately, politicians now follow the US model of abusing interviewers in addition to their established evading of questions.
Where is the BBC equivalent of Channel 4 news - or the modern version of The World Tonight?
Michael Prescott - author of the dossier into the BBC - himself doctored Trump quotes in the report, making his evidence seem more damning. The New World's political editor James Ball joins James O'Brien to discuss the 'devastating' revelation that calls into question Prescott’s journalistic judgement.
But...if my memory serves me when the US/UK invaded Iraq because of the presence of 'weapons of mass-destruction' - which the apparently entirely un-sexed-up dossier covered - they found...nothing.
Which, at the very least, suggests the dossier was not without exaggeration.. Whatever was said about it, and I have wiped most of that whole catastrophic era from my mind, nobody should have been sacked over it or had their career (or life) destroyed other than Blair and Straw and the other warmongers whose support of Bush led to the slaughter and destruction that continues to this day.
I have always thought that the BBC failed by NOT being robust enough when challenging the so-called intelligence that we now know to be fabricated lies driven by a desparate need to justify something that the Americans for their own unfathomable reasons wanted to do. And Blair, like the pathetic self-important power-addict fantasist he had become, prostrated himself to help.
As a Brit living in the USA, I don't see what the fuss is all about. Certainly I don't see why the DG resigned. The speech is over an hour long, so no-one who was not there has ever seen the whole thing - only edited versions which we have seen here dozens of times. My British friends - and we all have similar political views - think that the edit was perhaps a little clumsy; and my American friends think that that the tenor of the speech, as communicated by the BBC edit, was accurate.
It strikes me that there is no need to give flat-earthers equal time in a debate. This is similar. We know where Trump stands and he has proven it time and again. "Trump was innocent of inciting the crowd" deserves about as much time as Henry II "I meant no harm to Thomas Becket." Yeah, sure.
Thank you for an excellent piece, Robin. For what it’s worth I think the BBC’s approach to trans issues is just as worrying as the Trump edit but in a different way. I hope all’s well with you.
I don't buy this talk of a 'coup.' Everything that has happened in the last few days has been of the BBC's own making. Michael Prescott claims, and it hasn't been disputed, that he raised these issues months ago and nothing was done. The edit in the Trump piece has been known about since January and ignored. Why are we commissioning indies to make news programmes? It seems to have been forgotten that there were other issues in Prescott's document. The behaviour of BBC Arabic and the BBC referring to a convicted violent male criminal as a woman. The BBC, of course, has enemies, but when your castle is being besieged, you don't up the portcullis and drop the drawbridge to let them in.
Two things can be true at the same time. The BBC can be inept, indeed demonstrably so, and yet also be the target of a politically and commercially motivated attack to kill it.
I think you're correct Robin about the slow motion coup taking place against the BBC. This Trump saga is a symptom - a very scary one - of the underlying malaise and it may be enough to tip the balance irrevocably against Auntie. Please let it not be so. But please let Karma take its toll on those, the vipers in the BBC's nest, who are bringing this about.
This has got to be one of the dumbest posts here, pandering to a gallery of mindless uber-left zealots. BBC is a big channel, paid for by taxpayers in UK. It is held to a standard.
Chipping and chopping deliberately to continue their clearly anti-Trump (and many other left wing) thoughts instead of publishing unadulterated news is a telltale sign for the need for some dramatic change.
Be glad there's room for every little random thought fart. Even inane ones like this post.
Trump's speech was over an hour long. Transcripts of the entire speech are available on line. I think the BBC's editing of it was fair and accurately portrayed Trump's meaning.
Thanks Robin - grateful for your thoughtful intervention. I once got into terrible trouble in an Economics lesson because I burst out laughing when the very scary economics teacher used the phrase ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’. I had never heard it before. Some 40 years on, while you and I both agree that the BBC is not perfect, I’m horrified that many people don’t see the value of what is being diminished and may well be lost in the near future. There are an awful lot of powerful individuals who would like to tip that baby out of the window. I’m not laughing.
It's all so v sad ... x
What you should be "horrified" by is utterly inane and one-sided reporting by BBC on many subjects. We pay for it. It needs to report news, and then let us make our own judgments. Minions like you are the issue. Be thankful everyone including you gets a vote.
Robin, your wise words are a welcome intervention. The BBC is been torn apart by the same polarising forces that produced Brexit, Reform UK, Tommy Robinson and Corbyn.
Calmer heads must prevail.
Yea, torn apart my foot. Intentional doctoring of footage. A rabid anti-individual stance. In fact, a rabit anti-science stance just because it's powered by leftist donors.
Sit down. Expand your reading.
Well said.
Thanks, Pat.
Sad and disappointingly pathetic, but still no reason for dismantling a great institution, which seems to be what is threatened. Oh that we could hold Donald Trump, Elon Musk et al to the same standard when they misrepresent and slander.
Well said Robin....
Thank you, Richard. All v depressing.
I have to admit that most of my news comes from independent sources, and foreign newspapers; I usually check into the 8 o'clock R4 news, which tells me the topics of the day, which I then pursue anywhere appropriate - which isn't the BBC, which can't fund enough specialised coverage or foreign language speakers. Sky and CNN often have a different and often worthwhile take. Note, I barely watch any television programmes, except on the computer; and the news programmes the Beeb does brilliantly are the satirical ones.
Excellent article Robin.
I am sorry to say I have lost all trust in BBC tv news, although that has been a longtime coming. Really, it began under Thatcher, and escalated under Blair/Campbell. There is a distinct lack of critical and independent voices, and far too much willingness to follow the Murdoch/Mail and now GB news agenda.
I have been appalled by their boosterism of Brexit and Farage, and their wilful ignoring of the Gaza horrors.
There are a few excellent specialist talk/documentary programmes on Radio 4, and Today can be good at times. Unfortunately, politicians now follow the US model of abusing interviewers in addition to their established evading of questions.
Where is the BBC equivalent of Channel 4 news - or the modern version of The World Tonight?
Michael Prescott - author of the dossier into the BBC - himself doctored Trump quotes in the report, making his evidence seem more damning. The New World's political editor James Ball joins James O'Brien to discuss the 'devastating' revelation that calls into question Prescott’s journalistic judgement.
https://youtu.be/RYPRQj0NtIU
But...if my memory serves me when the US/UK invaded Iraq because of the presence of 'weapons of mass-destruction' - which the apparently entirely un-sexed-up dossier covered - they found...nothing.
Which, at the very least, suggests the dossier was not without exaggeration.. Whatever was said about it, and I have wiped most of that whole catastrophic era from my mind, nobody should have been sacked over it or had their career (or life) destroyed other than Blair and Straw and the other warmongers whose support of Bush led to the slaughter and destruction that continues to this day.
I have always thought that the BBC failed by NOT being robust enough when challenging the so-called intelligence that we now know to be fabricated lies driven by a desparate need to justify something that the Americans for their own unfathomable reasons wanted to do. And Blair, like the pathetic self-important power-addict fantasist he had become, prostrated himself to help.
As a Brit living in the USA, I don't see what the fuss is all about. Certainly I don't see why the DG resigned. The speech is over an hour long, so no-one who was not there has ever seen the whole thing - only edited versions which we have seen here dozens of times. My British friends - and we all have similar political views - think that the edit was perhaps a little clumsy; and my American friends think that that the tenor of the speech, as communicated by the BBC edit, was accurate.
It strikes me that there is no need to give flat-earthers equal time in a debate. This is similar. We know where Trump stands and he has proven it time and again. "Trump was innocent of inciting the crowd" deserves about as much time as Henry II "I meant no harm to Thomas Becket." Yeah, sure.
Thank you for an excellent piece, Robin. For what it’s worth I think the BBC’s approach to trans issues is just as worrying as the Trump edit but in a different way. I hope all’s well with you.
Good to hear from you, Nicola. And yes, I agree, the BBC's approach to trans issues has also been deeply problematic.
I don't buy this talk of a 'coup.' Everything that has happened in the last few days has been of the BBC's own making. Michael Prescott claims, and it hasn't been disputed, that he raised these issues months ago and nothing was done. The edit in the Trump piece has been known about since January and ignored. Why are we commissioning indies to make news programmes? It seems to have been forgotten that there were other issues in Prescott's document. The behaviour of BBC Arabic and the BBC referring to a convicted violent male criminal as a woman. The BBC, of course, has enemies, but when your castle is being besieged, you don't up the portcullis and drop the drawbridge to let them in.
Two things can be true at the same time. The BBC can be inept, indeed demonstrably so, and yet also be the target of a politically and commercially motivated attack to kill it.
I think you're correct Robin about the slow motion coup taking place against the BBC. This Trump saga is a symptom - a very scary one - of the underlying malaise and it may be enough to tip the balance irrevocably against Auntie. Please let it not be so. But please let Karma take its toll on those, the vipers in the BBC's nest, who are bringing this about.
On the nail. Thanks Robin.
A rounded and well-informed article Robin Lustig. Thank you for your insight
This has got to be one of the dumbest posts here, pandering to a gallery of mindless uber-left zealots. BBC is a big channel, paid for by taxpayers in UK. It is held to a standard.
Chipping and chopping deliberately to continue their clearly anti-Trump (and many other left wing) thoughts instead of publishing unadulterated news is a telltale sign for the need for some dramatic change.
Be glad there's room for every little random thought fart. Even inane ones like this post.
Trump's speech was over an hour long. Transcripts of the entire speech are available on line. I think the BBC's editing of it was fair and accurately portrayed Trump's meaning.