BBC Shame - Should Heads Roll?

The BBC, Metronet, those responsible for Jean-Charles de Menezes death... there are lots of heads that should roll and probably won't but our old deputy head used to say 'the world isn't fair, get used to it.' and I sort of have. Not that that's an excuse not to speak out about injustice but recognising that there are things I can't change and things I can. The biggest thing I can change being myself. On the grand scale of injustices, competition fixing falls far behind squandering billions of pounds of taxpayers money and even farther behind shooting an innocent, defenceless man five times in the head so I probably won't lose sleep over this one. God, I am reading far too many spiritual/ psychology books at the moment. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

If your own soul is as bright as a shining star, then people will follow you... that kind of thing, Jude? pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

yep it started off with a casual dip into The Celestine Prophecy , then it was 'The Road Less Travelled' and things have got so bad its now progressed to Spititual Dialogues by a certain Tom Carpenter, discovering the Divine Nature of my true Being. I admit it, I have a problem... jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Ach, the world is a deeply unfair place. But that doesn't stop brave people from speaking out. It's only mealy-mouthed cowards and hypocrites who hide behind injustice. My webpage is at: http://www.bookscape.co.uk

"Will we ever trust the BBC again after this week of scandal, and should the DG resign and take it on the chin?" I think Richard and Judy should resign. Richard definitely should.

An "awakening," Jude, not a problem! ;-) pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

ITV filming dead men who weren't really dead? Whatever next? If they really clean British TV from top to bottom, they'll probably find that most programmes are dodgy in some way, shape or form. I was in a studio audience not long ago, and that programme was rigged, rigged, rigged! I reckon there's more rigging on a modern TV show than on Admiral Nelson's ship in Portsmouth Harbour! My webpage is at: http://www.bookscape.co.uk

"If they really clean British TV from top to bottom, they'll probably find that most programmes are dodgy in some way, shape or form." Well, yeah, if there starting point is that all 'real life' shows should be an unedited literal representation of what really happened then most, possibly all, programmes that aren't live are dodgy. You hardly have to be a TV insider or investigative reporter to work that out. Anyone who's ever been filmed as part of a news feature and had to do several takes would know that. The hysteria about this in the printed press is utterly ridiculous and utterly hypocritical. If you attempted to have a fight over whether TV or newspapers come closer to giving a straight representation of the facts in coverage of any given news story, the papers would be so far ahead in terms of dodgyness that the contest would have to be stopped midway through the first round.

Maybe I've lead a bit of a sheltered life. But I had no idea that the media had a phase called: "To monster somebody." Which is the deliberate act of misconstruing somebody's behaviour in order to make them look bad. (I know it's been going on since the days of cavemen, an' all..) But I didn't realise that they've even invented a word for it! My webpage is at: http://www.bookscape.co.uk

The fact that it happens to the extent that it appears to doesn't make it right or indeed acceptable. Vast over-expansion of the point... "He's a serial killer!" "Most people are... Didn't you know?" "Really? Oh, that's alright then..." pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

I guess when you're in a media market place which is led by ratings, then this is what's going to happen. Conflict attracts viewers/readers. (I expect that a regulator has to apply moral standards.) My webpage is at: http://www.bookscape.co.uk

"Vast over-expansion of the point... "He's a serial killer!" "Most people are... Didn't you know?" "Really? Oh, that's alright then..."" Not really an over-expansion, more of an entirely different point. I don't think serial killing is all right. I do think editing is all both right and a fundamental part of delivering worthwhile TV programmes. If people don't want TV companies to edit things, it seems to defeat the object of watching TV, why not just look out of the window?

But editing has to come within moral guidelines, surely? Just so we're clear, I don't expect anyone here thinks serial killing is "all right" and I wouldn't deign to accuse anyone of such! ;) pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

It's sort of a dumb argument, anything of which you can accurately say "Most people are" most people will consequently say "that's alright then."

"But editing has to come within moral guidelines, surely?" It does but the current debate has produced slightly bizarre press driven concepts of what morally bad editing would be. We've got lumped together: 1. various shows encourage people to enter competitions which they couldn't possibly win (which is clearly wrong) 2. Celebrity Big Brother editing it's output to give a particular spin on the racism or otherwise of contestants (morally ambiguous) 3. an ITV documentary's press release choosing to describe the point at which a terminally ill man slipped into a coma from which he didn't wake up as his point of death (clumsy but morally neutral) 4. the BBC unclear as to whether the Queen was coming or going from a room (morally a matter for the Queen and the programme makers) Only instance 1 strikes me as clear example of TV producers doing something morally wrong. The others are all, to a greater or lesser extent, cock-ups but I don't think they tell us anything about the morality of TV. This morning on David Beckham Soccer USA on Channel Five, a reporter went round a British town centre asking members of the public if they new that the letters MLS stood for 'major league soccer'. Would it be morally wrong for the number of correct or incorrect answers shown in the final edit not to be directly proportionate to the numbers of those asked who knew the answer?

The trouble with Beeb bashing is that there are a lot of powerful - not to mention poisonous - forces out there who have another agenda. They want to get rid of the Beeb. They really don't care about the issue, whatever the current one might be. If there's a way to chip away at the BBC they're up for it. We should all refuse to play their game. With all its faults the BBC is still a great institution and I would rather it supplied my news, than I received a load of biased coverage from some fascistic media conglomerate.

But my original post was about fraud and people paying by their phone call to try to influence a result which has already been decided, rather than dodgy editing... That's why they have suspended all the competitions.