McAlpine, Newsnight and All That ...

[Flosshilde]

That is why I have made a clear distinction between the BBC's role and the extent to which it commented and how the matter has been discussed elsewhere. The BBC shouldn't be accused of doing what it didn't do.

Except that in the McAlpine case Newsnight was complicit with the centre for investigative journalism (or whatever it's called) in developing the story, & the centre, in turn, 'bigged up' the story in a highly irresponsible Twitter 'feed' that led to McAlpine being identified - wrongly.

[Lateralthinking1]

Except that in the McAlpine case Newsnight was complicit with the centre for investigative journalism (or whatever it's called) in developing the story, & the centre, in turn, 'bigged up' the story in a highly irresponsible Twitter 'feed' that led to McAlpine being identified - wrongly.

If that is correct I accept it. Nevertheless, the BBC didn't mention names and 'complicit' is a pretty strong word. I haven't looked at the speculative websites and don't intend doing so. News should deal with facts.

I fully understand that there is not a more emotive issue. For that reason, I think it can be difficult to assess the specific actions of the BBC rationally. Rather as in the case of Leveson, there is a question about standards of journalism and expectations.

The reviews need to be broad ranging and nuanced. What I wouldn't want to happen is a new standard procedure where, for example, it couldn't be said on "Newsnight" that some Labour MPs had questions to answer on parliamentary expenses.

[Flosshilde]

If that is correct I accept it. Nevertheless, the BBC didn't mention names and 'complicit' is a pretty strong word. I haven't looked at the speculative websites and don't intend doing so. News should deal with facts. .

"The Newsnight story that falsely alleged "a senior Thatcher-era Tory" was a paedophile was, unlike most of the BBC's journalistic output, worked up in conjunction with an outside agency, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ). ... Its managing editor, Iain Overton – an established foreign correspondent and More4 executive before taking the helm at the not-for-profit operation – lit a fuse when he now-infamously tweeted: "If all goes well, we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/11/bureau-investigative-journalism-newsnight

[Stillhomewardbound]

This weekend's Archive on 4 could not be more timely. Especially the last quarter. It adds an excellent overview to the current situation.

It covers briefly the last double-resignation (I prophesy) of the Chairman and DG with the exit of Messrs Davies & Dyke over the Gilligan broadcast and the subsequent Hutton Inquiry and it's interesting to compare the present crisis to that period.

Then, it was about the to extent to which the BBC could, effectively, hold the Government to account. The degree by which it had a mandate to declare 'we think you're lying to the British public and we're calling your bluff'.

Put it another way, we were then talking major political events with significantly global consequences. Now, however, it seems the BBC is reduced to the mire of an utterly domestic squabble.

It's an enormous error for our most relied upon broadcaster to have defamed an innocent party, but is it not the case that the BBC has been driven to this state? Hysterically assaulted for its failure to spring into action on the basis of alleged sexual assaults belonging to a long distant era, is this terrible false call not symptomatic of our own loss of perspective and what we really think matters?

Perhaps that's another question - do we really think anymore or do we, pavlovian like, automatically react to the ring of the media bell?

In my opinion, the BBC has bayed with the rest of the pack, barking loudest because it tried not to follow the pack before. Damned because they didn't and now damned because they did.

Savilegate has had the most appallingly ruinous of consequences, as are now being played out. A highly, valuable and significant institute has seen its reputation shredded, John Simpson suggests, possibly, forever; and so much of this on the basis of hearsay, gossip and tittle tattle, so that it became a ball of rumour falling out of the sky the BBC dared not drop, but blinded by the light of the noonday sky it has found itself hit square in the eye.

This cannot be how we handle allegations of abuse. Surely with such old cases the only appropriate course is for forensic examination, entirely away from the media glare and following a due period of consideration. Otherwise, we are all eaten up in a whirlwind of hysteria. Time and again, through this maelstrom, I have been reminded of The Crucible and Arthur Miller's depiction of the 18th Century Salem witch trials, his allegory for McCarthyism.

It gets us nowhere, it demeans all of is and it proves us a people incapable of seeing truth from lies, good from bad and honour from dishonour.

Is this really the ever diminishing and crushing, dark tunnel we wish to enter?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nsyxq

[Budapest]

Budapest - don't play games. Your post has been edited.

You've got your own blog where you can test the legal limits.

The onus is on people who accuse to be able to produce the evidence, not for innocent people to prove their innocence.

French frank, I have no problem with you censoring my post - all of us are getting our arses sued-off for even mentioning this stuff; but we live in a supposed democracy, non? Who makes the call as to what should be censored? The worrying thing is there's a major political scandal at the moment (I won't mention child abuse) and we get all this BBC rubbish.

I won't publish this on my own blog until I have hard facts. Point is, these child abuse accusations are in the public domain, and they involve senior political figures. That should be reported. Once hard facts are established I will go for the throat of these scumbags.

[french frank]

I won't publish this on my own blog until I have hard facts. Point is, these child abuse accusations are in the public domain, and they involve senior political figures. That should be reported. Once hard facts are established I will go for the throat of these scumbags.

If you don't have hard facts - and no hard facts have been published - you don't know if the accusations are true.

You won't publish on your blog but you're prepared to point a finger here, pretty unmistakeably. I think that's exploiting this forum and the fact that it has a certain visibility. That's not fair.

[Lateralthinking1]

"The Newsnight story that falsely alleged "a senior Thatcher-era Tory" was a paedophile was, unlike most of the BBC's journalistic output, worked up in conjunction with an outside agency, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ). ... Its managing editor, Iain Overton – an established foreign correspondent and More4 executive before taking the helm at the not-for-profit operation – lit a fuse when he now-infamously tweeted: "If all goes well, we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...lism-newsnight

"We've"?

It could be a reasonable expectation that the BBC would have sole rights to promoting its programmes. Of course, other people can say that a programme is to be broadcast on the BBC but whether they should have a right to say it is theirs or partially theirs is arguably doubtful. Contractual arrangements need to be solid, perhaps particularly with organisations that have links in the past or the present with companies involved in the promotion of DAB.

[Budapest]

If you don't have hard facts - and no hard facts have been published - you don't know if the accusations are true.

You won't publish on your blog but you're prepared to point a finger here, pretty unmistakeably. I think that's exploiting this forum and the fact that it has a certain visibility. That's not fair.

Not exploiting the forum, french frank (do I ever promote anything here?), just trying to give another point of view.

Is opinion now against the law???

It is in the world we live in, which is why you must buy my book, The Lizard Shape Shifters Rule The World, which can be bought from any psychotic bookstore for $9.99.

[Flosshilde]

Accoding to the story I linked to the Bureau (not Centre, as I said earlier) has collaborated with the BBC on other stories. They seem to have over-reached themselves on this one in promoting it, especially in such a manner.

[Lateralthinking1]

Accoding to the story I linked to the Bureau (not Centre, as I said earlier) has collaborated with the BBC on other stories. They seem to have over-reached themselves on this one in promoting it, especially in such a manner.

Perhaps it is time for the BBC to say on the arrangements "psionara"?

[Budapest]

If you don't have hard facts - and no hard facts have been published - you don't know if the accusations are true.

You won't publish on your blog but you're prepared to point a finger here, pretty unmistakeably. I think that's exploiting this forum and the fact that it has a certain visibility. That's not fair.

french frank you are painting yourself into the corner of being complicent with regard to child abuse. You are calling-out people like me who are trying to shine a light on it. I will name these lowlifes. It appears you won't.

So let's all go back to talking about a load of rollocks about the BBC...

[french frank]

Is opinion now against the law???

What I removed wasn't an opinion. I don't know whether you were joking or serious - which means no one else would. You posted something which appeared to be an accusation and which you said you wouldn't put on your own blog until you had hard facts: that's what I meant by exploitation.

As I said, you have your own website for expressing your opinions: if you won't publish them there, don't publish them here.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

In theory, he could - and I hold no brief for him in the position that he now no longer occupies for whatever reason and on account of whatever circumstances - but the brevity of his tenure might make this somewhat problematic in practice; after all, there's only so much incompetence that you can accomplish in a rôle such as BBC DG in a mere 54 days and it's pretty obvious in any case that the incompetence of which he is being accused in certain quarters is not something of his own sole making.

I agree, but I think he managed to pack 'gross incompetance' (which usually means summary dismissal) into the time quite well.

[Budapest]

What I removed wasn't an opinion. I don't know whether you were joking or serious - which means no one else would. You posted something which appeared to be an accusation and which you said you wouldn't put on your own blog until you had hard facts: that's what I meant by exploitation.

As I said, you have your own website for expressing your opinions: if you won't publish them there, don't publish them here.

Many folks are salivating for the names, because many, many people have been abused over the decades.

I hope history doesn't see both you and I as cowards, because neither of us have the balls to publish the truth.

[Stillhomewardbound]

I'd simply refer Budapest to my earlier post. These are events historic. We'll never the job of investigation done without this current plethora of witchfinder generals.