The Lady Di interview

[french frank]

A rare thing BJ connecting to ‘moral high ground’ in his favour!

Journalistic moral high ground.

[Serial_Apologist]

Agreed. The irony is that what it thinks is balance - being seen to criticise itself despite being the state broadcaster - is just seen as weakness in a society from which the reasonableness of the centre has been hollowed out and the PM lies daily. Auntie is self-harming and there seems to be nobody who can stop her.

For all its alleged "reasonableness" this centre has become a floating commodity in any case. How many people criticised the inordinate amount of money spent on refurbishing Broadcasting House in the first place, and then moving main HQ to Manchester? - a question that should be directed at the GLC now: another matter but one symptomatic of the intransigence of bureaucratic monopoly, systemic and in the related matter of centralised power and privilege, in which people can keep things hushed up. The solution being posed by one or two is internally reforming the Beeb into a flatter structure - the idea that the less managerial layers decision-making has to pass through the greater transparency both inside and to the general public and lesser chance of self-perpetuating inner fiefdoms. But this supposed solution, which was often touted back in the 1980s and 1990s when on-toes decision-making by the coffee machine rather than internal memo was seen as advantageous in the new cut-throat world which has brought us to where we now are, was just one way of thinning out costs which are then thrown onto society in every conceivable (or inconceivable!) way, and no record has been kept for purposes of accountability. Another proposition has been requiring attendance on Feedback and like programmes by those in the top échelons; but we know how liberal with management verbiage these denizens of accountability always are when it comes to justifying themselves, and how long "the power structure" (eg parliamentary enquiries) take to be set up and then carry out their business - by which time all will have been forgotten. When people talk glibly about top-to-bottom re-organisation they need to be thinking of those at the shop front - the presenters either expected or employed to dumb down, the news reporters told to interrupt - being urged to respect principles enshrined in the legends if not the current practices by getting off their enhumbled backsides and actually doing something about their inadequate overprivileged overpaid executives and, for all I know, line managers. And if that doesn't work, kick 'em out and elect people of principle accordant with principles!

[Dave2002]

This piece https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-bbc-scapegoat about the role of the press in Diana's troubles, I thought corrected the balance well.

It just amazes me that anyone is surprised by any of this. Surely many of us know that some journalists are opportunists and maybe devious in their approach to "getting the news out" - whatever "the news" actually is. In that respect they're not much different from some of the more mendacious politicians.

Now we're going to go about "cleaning up", "making sure it won't happen again", and "changing policies" and "lessons will be learnt" - but it will all come round again eventually.

Yes - it was very sad about Lady Di - but not all the problems were due to just one man and an interview.

[ahinton]

It would not at all surprise me if Prince William is indeed angry - or at least far from happy - with his father over what befell his mother; Prince Harry might be as well. That this has yet to be expressed directly in public unequivocal terms does not necessarily mean that it is not the case. I do, however, believe that Prince William's avowed desire to ensure that no part of the interview is ever relayed again is as misplaced as such showings are unpreventable.

As to the interview itself; there remains some disproportionate treatment as well as understandable chagrin. Yes, Bashir had no business to act as he did, although to what extent that was his idea and to what degree BBC or any other external influence played a part in it remain open to questions that will doubtless be asked over time. That said, a fair proportion of what Princess Diana said in the interview accords fairly well with what she had already previously told both her biographer Andrew Morton and Sir Max Hastings, then Daily Telegraph editor and therefore hardly constituted new revelations; it was merely the exposure on prime time BBC television that ratcheted it up to another level in general public consciousness.

Whilst there were indeed difficulties in relations between Princess Diana and members of the royal family, she did maintain correspondence with Prince Philip whose part in it seemed far from unsympathetic and disinterested.

I can only hope that the already beleaguered BBC does not come to find itself in a terminal firing line as a consequence of its part in the proceedings, its long term concealment of them, its subsequent rehiring of Bashir and the rest; it's already quite bad enough that the arts and arts education are being attacked and undermined by the present government but the possible additional prospect of BBC's demise and with it, Radio 3 and the BBC orchestras, is a most unwelcome one that some in certain offices might nevertheless relish...

[Serial_Apologist]

It just amazes me that anyone is surprised by any of this. Surely many of us know that some journalists are opportunists and maybe devious in their approach to "getting the news out" - whatever "the news" actually is. In that respect they're not much different from some of the more mendacious politicians.

Now we're going to go about "cleaning up", "making sure it won't happen again", and "changing policies" and "lessons will be learnt" - but it will all come round again eventually.

Yes - it was very sad about Lady Di - but not all the problems were due to just one man and an interview.

Exactly - we know all that: the question now is WHY, HOW, and under WHAT pressures these people are made to behave like puppets on the ends of strings... and what UNDERPINS those pressures. THEN we might start to get somewhere!

(I seem to be getting more and more intolerant of interminable arguments which just go round and round these days - I never used to be like this! - ask my friends!)

[Nick Armstrong]

It's a gift to BJ - he is now guaranteed an easy ride.

At least he speaks with personal knowledge of what journalists are capable, since he was sacked from The Times for fabrication and subsequently, while at The Telegraph, was recorded discussing having a fellow journalist beaten up.

But no one will hold that against him in this day and age....

[french frank]

not all the problems were due to just one man and an interview.

In a nutshell. I think (I have no direct experience, but I think) when people are hurt or damaged by their life experiences they will focus the "blame" where it's most convenient. Bashir is the fall guy.

[Dave2002]

Exactly - we know all that: the question now is WHY, HOW, and under WHAT pressures these people are made to behave like puppets on the ends of strings... and what UNDERPINS those pressures. THEN we might start to get somewhere!

(I seem to be getting more and more intolerant of interminable arguments which just go round and round these days - I never used to be like this! - ask my friends!)

But where do you want to get to? My view, which might now seem extreme, it that it may be best to let this fade into the dust. I don't agree that the interview should never be seen again. It is a historical document which should be kept, and made available to those with a serious interest and seen in contexts. I have little interest in answers to the questions you pose - a fairly pointless exercise - but that's just my opinion.

We are - haha - living in a democracy - so we elected people like BJ - and we also live in a competitive economy - so many of the "pressures" arise exactly out of the society we claim to be happy enough to live in. Probably better than Russia - with an elected President or the USA - also with an elected President. Our monarchy may be a sort of puppet face of the UK, but hopefully it's more benign than some of the elected officials in many countries around the world. The US has a great slogan "Government of the people, by the people, for the people", but I don't think in practice that works in many so-called democracies - or even in the UK.

[Bryn]

But where do you want to get to? My view, which might now seem extreme, it that it may be best to let this fade into the dust. I don't agree that the interview should never be seen again. It is a historical document which should be kept, and made available to those with a serious interest and seen in contexts. I have little interest in answers to the questions you pose - a fairly pointless exercise - but that's just my opinion.

We are - haha - living in a democracy - so we elected people like BJ - and we also live in a competitive economy - so many of the "pressures" arise exactly out of the society we claim to be happy enough to live in. Probably better than Russia - with an elected President or the USA - also with an elected President. Our monarchy may be a sort of puppet face of the UK, but hopefully it's more benign than some of the elected officials in many countries around the world. The US has a great slogan "Government of the people, by the people, for the people", but I don't think in practice that works in many so-called democracies - or even in the UK.

I note that Vimeo have taken the video of the interview down from their site. How long before someone else makes it generally available again, I wonder?

[ardcarp]

If anyone feels like hearing something good about the BBC, see my post about Humphrey Burton.

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?23098-Humphrey-Burton-at-90

[french frank]

Our monarchy may be a sort of puppet face of the UK, but hopefully it's more benign than some of the elected officials in many countries around the world.

Yes,in fact the "Royal Family" is basically what the media make it. Who built up and made all the fuss about Diana in the first place? Yes, the public responded to it which is where the money came from. The public adulation sold papers. But as someone said, their private life was simply the stuff of everday soap opera.

ADD: Listening to the Today clip about Humphrey Burton, I caught the discussion with Jonathan Dimbleby just before. He was pretty savage about Bashir, a "consummate conman and liar". But Dimbleby was the one who interviewed Prince Charles the year before which must have put some idea into Diana's head that she wanted her side of the story heard too. Whatever "trick" or deceit Bashir was guilty of, it obviously didn't need much effort to persuade her to give the interview - as she had said herself.

[Serial_Apologist]

But where do you want to get to?

I want BBC staff who do all the hard work interfacing with politicians, and the researching, to stand up and assert their importance over the people at the top whose only importance is in having the money to pay for them and to sack them if they don't toe the line. Some of these employees must, surely, be looking themselves in the mirror and wondering if they are being true to themselves; the bosses don't need to do this. They should band together, order the bosses out and take over the running of the Beeb. It's somewhere in the journalist's charter, that had that big influence on Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia.

My view, which might now seem extreme, it that it may be best to let this fade into the dust. I don't agree that the interview should never be seen again. It is a historical document which should be kept, and made available to those with a serious interest and seen in contexts. I have little interest in answers to the questions you pose - a fairly pointless exercise - but that's just my opinion.

To some people your view might now seem complacent rather than extreme. I agree that the interview should be available for future reminders, the same way I don't believe in dismantling statues. But if basic questions are ignored there is little point in complaining or even engaging in discussion whenever the same problems keep coming around, over and over again!

We are - haha - living in a democracy - so we elected people like BJ - and we also live in a competitive economy - so many of the "pressures" arise exactly out of the society we claim to be happy enough to live in. Probably better than Russia - with an elected President or the USA - also with an elected President. Our monarchy may be a sort of puppet face of the UK, but hopefully it's more benign than some of the elected officials in many countries around the world. The US has a great slogan "Government of the people, by the people, for the people", but I don't think in practice that works in many so-called democracies - or even in the UK.

So, you are, after all, facing up to basic questions and the need for finding answers!

[oddoneout]

But where do you want to get to? My view, which might now seem extreme, it that it may be best to let this fade into the dust. I don't agree that the interview should never be seen again. It is a historical document which should be kept, and made available to those with a serious interest and seen in contexts. I have little interest in answers to the questions you pose - a fairly pointless exercise - but that's just my opinion.

We are - haha - living in a democracy - so we elected people like BJ - and we also live in a competitive economy - so many of the "pressures" arise exactly out of the society we claim to be happy enough to live in. Probably better than Russia - with an elected President or the USA - also with an elected President. Our monarchy may be a sort of puppet face of the UK, but hopefully it's more benign than some of the elected officials in many countries around the world. The US has a great slogan "Government of the people, by the people, for the people", but I don't think in practice that works in many so-called democracies - or even in the UK.

The majority of the electorate did not vote for the Conservatives, so the fact that said party decided Johnson should be PM simply rubs salt into the wound.

[muzzer]

And so Lord Hall resigns, “it’s a distraction”. I’m put in mind rather of “Is it raining?” “I hadn’t noticed”.