Sky news interviewee thinks the BBC is being weakened for a wider purpose and that other news outlets would have done anything to secure an interview with Diana.
Believes they should not be hypocritical but conceded that the BBC had to maintain higher standards as the national broadcaster.
Interesting take from Aussie land.
Quote Thank god Harry wasn’t born first.
Unless you’re an Eastenders or football fan.
Imagine if he was though…what a re-shuffle that would be!
Going under cover, masking identities, concocting fables may be necessary to expose misconduct and villainy. “There are cases, and undercover is one of them,” stated former Panorama editor Tom Giles to the House Communications Committee in 2012, “where technically, we break the rules. Technically we break the law whether it is on privacy or on giving a misleading CV in order to ensure that we are able to go undercover.” For Giles, there had to be “very clear prima facie evidence that this is something that is of significant public interest.”
The eternal flame of the Diana Cult is one that constantly threatens purges and censorship. Only hagiographers are welcome to the shrine. Prince William is keen to take the purging further. The interview, he demands, should be scrubbed from the historical record. “It is my firm view that this Panorama programme holds no legitimacy and should never be aired again.” The concern now is how far that purging will go in the battles over what can, or can’t, be reported.
The essential point.
There is a huge difference between of public interest (ie curiousity) and in the public interest.
Indeed. But who makes that decision.
Good question. Perhaps a panel involving independent judges within it would be an idea. This would mitigate any potential legal proceedings afterwards.
In any case, IMHO the Bashir interview was of interest and not in the public interest, and hence not “necessary” for the common good.
BBC chairman Richard Sharp has said there will be an investigation into why Martin Bashir was rehired by the broadcaster in 2016 after initially departing in 1999.
‘It may seem like a long few days but it is also worth us reflecting and deliberating on the reactions and making sure that our response is appropriate and comprehensive to satisfy those concerns.’
Have to be certain of singing from the same hymn sheet. He was the religious editor.
Martin Bashir should be asked to answer questions, unlikely, but the others will not have anything new to add.
A defiant Mr Bashir said in a statement last month: 'This is the second time that I have willingly fully co-operated with an investigation into events more than 25 years ago.
'I apologised then, and I do so again now, over the fact that I asked for bank statements to be mocked up.
‘It was a stupid thing to do and was an action I deeply regret. But I absolutely stand by the evidence I gave a quarter of a century ago, and again more recently.’
Sorry a meaningless word, sorry the truth about him has been revealed.
Forgery or [mock up] is the making of a false document in order that it may be used as genuine.
Committed a crime, admitted to it, will not face criminal investigation?
To my mind, there’s no “should be asked” in it. He must be told, on pain of a prison sentence, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Former BBC Governor Sir Richard Eyre.
Asked what consequences senior BBC managers should face for the fact Bashir used forged documents to secure the interview, Sir Richard said: 'I simply don’t know what possible punishment there is except shame. I mean, I think that Tony Hall has suffered excessively from the revelations and has apologised.
'I think John Birt has played a very good hand because of course, he was editor in chief so I feel he has to take responsibility for what happened.
‘But what punishment can there be? It was 25, 26 years in the past. The punishment is public shame.’
Discussing if there should be broader consequences for the corporation, Sir Richard said: 'Politicians have never liked the BBC. They can’t bear the idea that a state broadcasting company is independent of the state and doesn’t obey the mandate of the state.
'Also they hate the idea that it’s paid by a hypothecated tax, so the Treasury can’t play around with a tax.
'What can they do? Well, they can cut the legs off the BBC. That would be an act of massive cultural vandalism.
‘The BBC is the most important cultural organisation in the world. And I very much hope that it’s going to have the power to remain so.’
Feel that Mr.Bashir is being let off the hook because he could reveal more scandalous revelations.
Oh, I’m sure he’s speaking from a completely unbiased stance. :roll:
Indeed.
There is no support for the BBC’s TV licence charge against the over-75s.
That’s no big surprise.
In fact, I’d be surprised if there turns out to be much public support these days for the television licence full stop, at least in its present form in which the money goes exclusively to the BBC and all other TV companies are obliged to self-fund through advertising.
I can remember a time when the BBC logo on a programme was a guarantee of quality. They produced interesting documentaries, good discussions, and excellent drama series. Now all they show is dross such as Strictly Whatever and repeats ad nauseam. Cancelled my licence and threw the TV out back in 2003/4 and - looking at the schedules - am not missing a thing!
Makes me sad. I’m American, but BBC played a significant part in my childhood. Back when Television was analog and we only got like 5 stations. PBC was one of them. I grew up watching Benny Hill, The Two Ronnies, Fawlty Towers, Monty Python. I loved British Comedies back then much better than their American counterparts. Just another part of my childhood gone.
Undoubtedly, the BBC has been an excellent broadcaster in the past and has produced many excellent TV programmes.
Sadly, they have of late become far too PC and that is especially noticeable in their news and documentary output.
You may not have heard, but they have also become greedy. Over-75s have been entitled to free TV licences for some time now, but the greedy b******s at the BBC have stopped that and, fortunately, engendered an enormous negative response from the public in general, to the extent that there is now a big drive for the government to cancel TV licences for everyone and oblige the BBC to fund themselves in the same way as all other TV companies must: through advertising.
In addition, this public rejection also criticises the obviously left-wing attitude now of the BBC and their pro-EU leaning.
They have certainly shot themselves in the foot now! I certainly never watch their programmes especially news programmes.
