If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
BBC News 24 engage in more lies
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Story.
Not the hugest of deceptions, I quite agree, but if they are prepared to lie about this, what else are they prepared to lie about to "sex up" the story?
So much for the BBC being the "impartial and neutral" broadcaster it claims to be, especially when all the other news networks managed to cover the story without resorting to bare-faced lies and deceit.
Not the hugest of deceptions, I quite agree, but if they are prepared to lie about this, what else are they prepared to lie about to "sex up" the story?
So much for the BBC being the "impartial and neutral" broadcaster it claims to be, especially when all the other news networks managed to cover the story without resorting to bare-faced lies and deceit.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
This didnt change the story, it didnt mislead, it was just a pointless add on which they shouldnt have done but its not even close to the out and out lies the Tabloids get away with every day.
Aren't you supposed to finish it
-Shocked of South London
It is only a small thing, but if they're prepared to do this to a tiny little story of no significance, it surely means that they are equally prepared to do it when the story is of huge significane. I suppose Andrew Gilligan proved the BBC has a limited grasp on the truth.
The TV Tax (call it what it is) is disgusting, but not because of the BBC's lies and deceit. It's just interesting that a QUANGO that supposedly is "impartial and neutral" cannot even tell a cute-fluffy-bunny story without resorting to fabrication.
I said something like
*scratches head* What's the point of adding sound?
ITV closed it's news channel not long ago. I just canceled the News Subscription on Sky as it wasn't worth it- luckily Aljazeera English is part of the other set of channels so can still watch that for a change from the usual BBC / CNN style of reporting. Highly recommend giving it a watch if you have access to it.
http://english.aljazeera.net/English
http://www.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish
OK, I won't.
Of course Lord Hutton showed that the BBC are prepared to lie about the big things too;)
None are to be trusted, all "sex-up" stories.
Sorry but using this as an example of the BBC "fabricating" a story is utter crap. The story happened, and the job of television news is to tell the story in the visual medium, which means using such magical devices as editing. You complaint in this instance has absolutely no basis whatsoever, and just reveals yet again that you're willing to criticise the BBC for absolutely anything they do, no matter how unjustified because you disagree with how they are funded. If you want to start a discussion about the licence fee then do it, but don't bring petty stories about how the BBC (shock, horror) edited a piece of video footage. The clue is in the fact that you'll see the credit "Editor" at the end of every programme.
The complaint about the queen story was justified, not because of the way it was edited, but because they made the false factual claim that she stormed out when she didn't. If the babies crying was an integral part to the storyline, then there would be an issue. It wasn't, so there isn't.
All the other major news channels, including Sky, managed to deal withj the news story and the footage without resorting to pathetic dubbing to "sex up" a story.
So attacking the BBC for a pointless piece of subterfuge (that costs more money) is entirely justified.
The received wisdom (especially of the BBC) is that it a reasonably reliable source, where what you see is what you get. It does not matter so much that it was babies crying; rather that someone thought that they needed to make the depiction of reality more 'real'.
This should be of concern to anyone who is concerned about the information upon which we make judgments, as much of it comes from this source. Its the fact that the would have done this in the first place without giving the viewer the information about how it had been edited. In order to judge information in a reasonably accurate fashion, it follows that we should have some awareness of the circumstances within which it was produced.
Perhaps the voracity of the criticism contained in the post title wasn't proportional to the story about quintuplets, but there is a serious point here.
There is a serious point about news management, but the risk is that concentrating on triviliaties obscures it. It's like the boy who cries wolf - when a serious problem does come along we've become so inured to the minor things that we miss it.
I'm not a big fan of the BBC, coincidentally, I'm actually reading Can we trust the BBC? by Robin Aiken and much of it makes grim reading but with regard to the original post, it's not a big deal.
Since when? Why don't we just have someone sat behind a desk reading a script to us with no footage then?
Costs more money? You think they have to pay to put a baby noise on a soundtrack?
The baby noise didn't pay for itself, nor did the dubbing editor.
It is a trivial thing, but the point is this: if the BBC can't even report a little story about which nobody cares without resorting to lies and deceit, then clearly the boundary that says news is 100% fact has been passed. Because they're prepared to lie about this little thing, clearly they will be prepared to lie about a big thing too.
The actual incident is neither here nor there; the fact that there is a proven culture of deceit at the BBC should be of concern to all of us. Especially as we haven't got any fucking choice but to pay for this shit.
Well the sound editor would be paid regardless of how much sound editing is required (incidentally, such a small video would've most likely been edited by a single person on their laptop), and the baby noise certainly did pay for itself, unless you actually believe that an organisation such as the BBC doesn't own their own sound library and record their own sounds.
It is shocking. Know why it happened? Because the BBC have had to make massive cuts in staff to satisfy a government which holds them firmly its grip. So with fewer staff they have more 'multi-skilling', less training and as a result more mistakes. They probably gave this very tabloid story to a trainee as a possible filler or 'good news' piece. The Trainee probably got a little creative thinking this was his first chance to impress. Took a trip to the music library, came away with and 'ECD' sound effects disc, did a bit of tweaking, they ran it and......
That's what happens.
firstly, the Licence is not set nor inforced by the BBC. It is and always has been a Government inforced fee.
Secondly, The BBC has a huge music and sound library. All music used on any moving images has to be cleared for use (not least because some is very expensive and difficult to clear) -this should be done before the programme is broadcast, if it is not then in some rare cases it can be very costly. Same with Images (photographs/stills etc) which are even more complicated as far as copyright goes.
Sound Effects I am not sure about. There's a standard collection of Sound FX discs which have the prefix ECD (ECD 69 is called 'bits and bobs', and has the sound of a stylus being jerked off vinyl on it). Whether these were recorded for or by the BBC I don't know. I don't think there is any cost to the BBC for using these. However, if they used a sound effect of a rugby crowd and the rugby crowd was singing 'my my my Delilah' they would have to report the music so that the composer and publisher get paid.
The BBC does hold a large collection of BBC copyright material including Film footage, News Footage, Sport Footage, Photographs and some specially composed music. Aside from re-using these materials the BBC also sells them to other TV companies/film makers/publishers and musicians - that's one of the ways the BBC funds itself.
I know all this because this is my job. I also know that some people who use the library are not aware of the fact that mis-use of music or images can be costly, either that or they are too busy or too short staffed to actually clear and report the material they are using. On the other hand there are many people working at the BBC who do a good, thorough, competent job.