Fiona Bruce (2 Viewers)

[clint van damme]

In the same way that Johnson senior wasn't there to refute the claim, neither was any victim there to counter any claim about it being a one off

Said as much on another post, she was building an alternative narrative

 

---

[SBT]

Legally obliged to? Under what law?

I don’t think obliged is the right word, but she was proactively trying to protect the BBC against potential defamation proceedings.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I don’t think obliged is the right word, but she was proactively trying to protect the BBC against potential defamation proceedings.

I'm not sure the intervention that he only did it once has any positive impact on the general public's opinion on him.

 

[SBT]

It appeared to me that Alibhai-Brown's original statement of him being a wife-beater (in response to Ken Clarke saying he was a thoroughly decent chap) was an impromptu remark, so the rebuttal was either communicated to Fiona Bruce "live" by the editorial team, or Stanley Johnson's friends' comments were known to her. If it was the latter, she is definitely at fault. If the FORMER, the Editor should come out and say "we told her live that she had to say that, so it is our fault not hers". I doubt that was the case, so SHE overstepped the mark in defending him, and deserves to pay the price.
YHB was an independent panellist and it should not, in my view, be the BBC's job (via Bruce or otherwise) to provide a rebuttal of what she said.
I think what should have been said was that Johnson was not there to defend himself or refute YHB's allegations.

If you watch the video, Bruce interjects too quickly after the “wife beater” comment for her to have been responding to her director/producer. She jumped in automatically, because a) she knows her stuff and b) she knows that any time one of her panellists makes a potentially defamatory statement (like accusing someone of being a wife beater) then it’s her responsibility to clarify that as best she can. Partly because it’s good journalism, partly because if someone decides to sue over it, the BBC can show that they didn’t just let people say whatever they like on air without any pushback.

What she said wasn’t the problem - I assume everything she said was true. The problem was that it came across as casual and dismissive - from the speed with which she cut in, to her body language (the mini-shrug at the end), to including irrelevant details (‘it was a one-off’).

I'm not sure the intervention that he only did it once has any positive impact on the general public's opinion on him.

The part she was trying to clarify was that the accusations were “on the record”. They were, but not from Johnson himself, which could be a legally important distinction. In rushing to give the other side of the story she decided to throw in the extra detail at the end about it supposedly being ‘a one-off’, which as you say, wasn’t relevant. That’s where she messed up.

 

[skybluetony176]

I don’t think obliged is the right word, but she was proactively trying to protect the BBC against potential defamation proceedings.

The accusations and direct quote from his ex wife are already in the public domain by way of a book. The author of the book as far as I know has never been the subject of a deformation proceedings so I think it’s not something that the BBC had to worry about.

 

[SBT]

The accusations and direct quote from his ex wife are already in the public domain by way of a book. The author of the book as far as I know has never been the subject of a deformation proceedings so I think it’s not something that the BBC had to worry about.

I think that’s a risky assumption that few broadcasters/newspapers would make. It doesn’t matter if they’re printed elsewhere, if you broadcast them and subsequently can’t prove they’re true then you’re at risk of getting sued. They’re still allegations at the end of the day, and the panellist presented them as fact.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I don’t think obliged is the right word, but she was proactively trying to protect the BBC against potential defamation proceedings.

By saying Stanley Johnson "only did it once" (which itself is biased as it ignores that the person who was beaten says it was more often) you're agreeing with the premise that he beat his wife.

I don't see how that prevents Stanley Johnson for attempting to sue the BBC as he can still accuse them of saying he's a wife beater.

 

[SBT]

By saying Stanley Johnson "only did it once" (which itself is biased as it ignores that the person who was beaten says it was more often) you're agreeing with the premise that he beat his wife.

I don't see how that prevents Stanley Johnson for attempting to sue the BBC as he can still accuse them of saying he's a wife beater.

Sure, but you have to be accurate about acknowledging where these accusations come from, otherwise you could assume the defamation risk. Legally speaking there is a huge difference between “[X] is a wife beater, it’s on the record” and “Friends of [X] say he beat his wife”. It may seem like semantics to you, but any journalist in Bruce’s position is going to be aware of the need to reduce the legal risk of someone saying the former, when the latter is more accurate (or more easily provable).

 

[clint van damme]

Sure, but you have to be accurate about acknowledging where these accusations come from, otherwise you could assume the defamation risk. Legally speaking there is a huge difference between “[X] is a wife beater, it’s on the record” and “Friends of [X] say he beat his wife”. It may seem like semantics to you, but any journalist in Bruce’s position is going to be aware of the need to reduce the legal risk of someone saying the former, when the latter is more accurate (or more easily provable).

I listen to 5live quite regularly and these rebuttals, (not sure if that's the correct terminology), have become a regular thing.

However, they normally come in the form of a pithy one liner, they don't normally go in to the detail Bruce did.

 

[stupot07]

What I don't get is, it's written in black and white in the book about Boris Johnson, yet as far as I can see (and I'm happy to be corrected) his Dad has taken no legal action to have it removed or to challenge it's legitimacy, so why does the BBC then have to challenge it on his behalf on a programme? Yes I get the impartiality bit.

The whole BBC impartiality thing is a nonsense. If 99% of scientists believe in global warming, they will have a programme with 1 scientist that believes in it and 1 that doesn't. Legitimising the 1% of scientists that are wrong and giving the appearance it is a 50/50 split.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

I listen to 5live quite regularly and these rebuttals, (not sure if that's the correct terminology), have become a regular thing.

However, they normally come in the form of a pithy one liner, they don't normally go in to the detail Bruce did.

Does it annoy you when they do that? It does me - maybe i should chill! Whenever there is a court case or an accusation they say "Mr X denies any wrongdoing in this matter".

 

[skybluetony176]

What I don't get is, it's written in black and white in the book about Boris Johnson, yet as far as I can see (and I'm happy to be corrected) his Dad has taken no legal action to have it removed or to challenge it's legitimacy, so why does the BBC then have to challenge it on his behalf on a programme? Yes I get the impartiality bit.

The whole BBC impartiality thing is a nonsense. If 99% of scientists believe in global warming, they will have a programme with 1 scientist that believes in it and 1 that doesn't. Legitimising the 1% of scientists that are wrong and giving the appearance it is a 50/50 split.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Saw it in brexit too. From the Matlis lecture they could find 10’s of dozens of economists to say Brexit would be a disaster for the UK economy in minutes but would spend hours and hours looking for an economist who thought it was a good idea for the UK economy. They’d usually find about half a dozen of which only a couple would say it on TV so they’d end up with 2 economists, 1 pro brexit and 1 anti brexit on an equal footing. At no point were they allowed to point out the disparity in opinions amongst economists.

 

[SBT]

What I don't get is, it's written in black and white in the book about Boris Johnson, yet as far as I can see (and I'm happy to be corrected) his Dad has taken no legal action to have it removed or to challenge it's legitimacy, so why does the BBC then have to challenge it on his behalf on a programme?

Just because Stanley Johnson hasn’t sued the book’s author doesn’t necessarily mean he won’t in future, or sue someone else who repeats the same accusation in a more prominent forum (i.e. Question Time).

Yes, you can argue that it would be unlikely at this point, but do you really want to run the risk of a long and expensive court case when you could reduce your legal risk quickly, easily and for free?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Sure, but you have to be accurate about acknowledging where these accusations come from, otherwise you could assume the defamation risk. Legally speaking there is a huge difference between “[X] is a wife beater, it’s on the record” and “Friends of [X] say he beat his wife”. It may seem like semantics to you, but any journalist in Bruce’s position is going to be aware of the need to reduce the legal risk of someone saying the former, when the latter is more accurate (or more easily provable).

But then surely saying the person he is accused of beating said it happened multiple times is the same as saying friends say it only happened once.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I think that’s a risky assumption that few broadcasters/newspapers would make. It doesn’t matter if they’re printed elsewhere, if you broadcast them and subsequently can’t prove they’re true then you’re at risk of getting sued. They’re still allegations at the end of the day, and the panellist presented them as fact.

All she needed to say was that they were allegations, not that it only happened once. She defamed him by that logic as she has implicitly said not that they're only allegations, but, that they're true but only happened once.

 

[Nick]

Would anybody bat an eye lid if it couldn't be twisted onto left or right?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

What I don't get is, it's written in black and white in the book about Boris Johnson, yet as far as I can see (and I'm happy to be corrected) his Dad has taken no legal action to have it removed or to challenge it's legitimacy, so why does the BBC then have to challenge it on his behalf on a programme? Yes I get the impartiality bit.

The whole BBC impartiality thing is a nonsense. If 99% of scientists believe in global warming, they will have a programme with 1 scientist that believes in it and 1 that doesn't. Legitimising the 1% of scientists that are wrong and giving the appearance it is a 50/50 split.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

And the BBC has taken a David Attenborough programme off screens despite it being supported by the vast majority of evidence. That's not just having a 1 on 1 that doesn't reflect the balance of opinion - that's removing the one of 99%.

 

[SBT]

All she needed to say was that they were allegations, not that it only happened once. She defamed him by that logic as she has implicitly said not that they're only allegations, but, that they're true but only happened once.

True - although the BBC would argue that (unlike the panellist) they also put Johnson’s side of the story across, so their reporting was balanced rather than defamatory. It’s a balancing act really, and the UK’s libel laws mean that media outlets usually err on the side of caution, which is why Bruce interjected in the first place. As you point out, she arguably gave more context than it was legally prudent to give! But as I’ve said from the start, it wasn’t the content of what she said but the manner in which she said it which has given her the headache.

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

And the BBC has taken a David Attenborough programme off screens despite it being supported by the vast majority of evidence. That's not just having a 1 on 1 that doesn't reflect the balance of opinion - that's removing the one of 99%.

This isn't true. It was reported in The Guardian that this was the case, but the allegation has been refuted by the BBC - following taken from a number of Reach publications:-

The Guardian previously reported on Friday that the show was intended as a sixth episode to the Wild Isles series and that it had been pulled to avoid criticism from Conservative MPs and right-wing newspapers. It said insiders at the BBC accused the corporation was bowing to pressure from lobbying groups by broadcasting it only on iPlayer.
A spokesperson from the BBC replied: "This is totally inaccurate, there is no sixth episode. Wild Isles is – and always was – a five-part series and does not shy away from environmental content.
"We have acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB and WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles."
An Open University spokesperson said: "We are proud to lend our academic expertise and co-produce Wild Isles with the BBC which consists of five episodes. Saving Our Wild Isles is a separate film inspired by the series that was commissioned by the RSPB and WWF and does not have input from the Open University."
A joint statement from WWF, the RSPB and the National Trust said: “Saving Our Wild Isles, which the Guardian article is referring to, is a complementary documentary to the Wild Isles TV series. Saving Our Wild Isles is produced by Silverback, commissioned by WWF, National Trust and RSPB, and will be available on iPlayer.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Let’s be honest the bbc is/has become just another political football. Left saying it’s too right, right saying it’s too left . Both trying to apply pressure via social media to get it to lean more their way

 

[Nick]

Let’s be honest the bbc is/has become just another political football. Left saying it’s too right, right saying it’s too left . Both trying to apply pressure via social media to get it to lean more their way

Good old social media.

 

[clint van damme]

Let’s be honest the bbc is/has become just another political football. Left saying it’s too right, right saying it’s too left . Both trying to apply pressure via social media to get it to lean more their way

The tories have gone far beyond using social media. Look at the hierarchy and who appointed them.
Look at some of the stuff that's coming out regarding pressure put on journalists.

Not that the last Labour government were entirely innocent but its really ratcheted up since Johnsons tenure.

 

[chiefdave]

This isn't true. It was reported in The Guardian that this was the case, but the allegation has been refuted by the BBC - following taken from a number of Reach publications:-

The Guardian previously reported on Friday that the show was intended as a sixth episode to the Wild Isles series and that it had been pulled to avoid criticism from Conservative MPs and right-wing newspapers. It said insiders at the BBC accused the corporation was bowing to pressure from lobbying groups by broadcasting it only on iPlayer.
A spokesperson from the BBC replied: "This is totally inaccurate, there is no sixth episode. Wild Isles is – and always was – a five-part series and does not shy away from environmental content.
"We have acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB and WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles."
An Open University spokesperson said: "We are proud to lend our academic expertise and co-produce Wild Isles with the BBC which consists of five episodes. Saving Our Wild Isles is a separate film inspired by the series that was commissioned by the RSPB and WWF and does not have input from the Open University."
A joint statement from WWF, the RSPB and the National Trust said: “Saving Our Wild Isles, which the Guardian article is referring to, is a complementary documentary to the Wild Isles TV series. Saving Our Wild Isles is produced by Silverback, commissioned by WWF, National Trust and RSPB, and will be available on iPlayer.

There were before and after screenshots on twitter of press releases stating 6 episodes which had been changed to 5 after people picked up on one episode being on iPlayer only. No idea if they were genuine or not.

Why would you stick episode 6 of an Attenborough show on iPlayer, seems an odd choice even if it was always the plan. Not like they’ve got so much new programming they can’t find a slot for it

 

[David O'Day]

There were before and after screenshots on twitter of press releases stating 6 episodes which had been changed to 5 after people picked up on one episode being on iPlayer only. No idea if they were genuine or not.

Why would you stick episode 6 of an Attenborough show on iPlayer, seems an odd choice even if it was always the plan. Not like they’ve got so much new programming they can’t find a slot for it

yeah, the press release said 6 episodes and there is no way that the BBCwould only schedule a brand new Attenborough program to be iPlayer only

 

[Macca]

Yes I would. Is that the question?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Let’s be honest the bbc is/has become just another political football. Left saying it’s too right, right saying it’s too left . Both trying to apply pressure via social media to get it to lean more their way

It's neither really more just a tool for whichever right wing government is in power at that time

 

[richnrg]

Yes I would. Is that the question?

Can't believe the this thread got to page 2 without someone answering this question - I was beginning to wonder what is wrong with people
It's a yes from me too - as long as she keeps her mouth shut (within reason)

 

[shmmeee]

Let’s be honest the bbc is/has become just another political football. Left saying it’s too right, right saying it’s too left . Both trying to apply pressure via social media to get it to lean more their way

As it should be TBH. If both sides think it’s biased it’s probably OK. Not perfect. But OK.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

As it should be TBH. If both sides think it’s biased it’s probably OK. Not perfect. But OK.

Probably help if the two people at the top weren’t Tory party donors though

 

[shmmeee]

Probably help if the two people at the top weren’t Tory party donors though

Yeah but none of the talent is really.

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

Probably help if the two people at the top weren’t Tory party donors though

I wish the DG and Chairman weren't political appointments at all

 

[Grendel]

Probably help if the two people at the top weren’t Tory party donors though

The bbc has always had some political element - albeit fairly mild

 

[duffer]

Yeah but none of the talent is really.

Yeah, except for Andrew Neil, Alan Sugar, and Nick Robinson, who were overtly Tory, and Kuennsberg who interviews Tories like they're her best mates whilst actually making up stuff about Corbyn, and Bruce who for reasons known best to her and her millionaire Tory husband, went out of her way to defend the wife beating father (and future knight of the realm) of Boris Johnson.

But other than that, (and the people who are actually in charge of the whole corporation), I'm sure the BBC is entirely without any bias in its political outlook.

It is beyond debate that Lineker and Sugar, both of whom tweet strong political opinions are treated very differently by the corporation.

The 'talent' is very clearly only allowed to go so far if it criticises right wing policies as opposed to amplifying them.

Saying that the BBC upsets both the left and the right is true, in itself though, that doesn't show that there isn't a substantial bias, particularly in those who have substantial influence on its output.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yeah, except for Andrew Neil, Alan Sugar, and Nick Robinson, who were overtly Tory,

I can't believe I'm about to defend Alan Sugar from the claim of Toryism (He is after all a fine example of inconsistency wrt social media use) but, there you go.

He was a Labour peer (put there by Brown?), and resigned because the Labour Party went too lefty for him, and now sits cross-bench. He's not Tory, but was extremely anti-Corbyn.

 

[Grendel]

I can't believe I'm about to defend Alan Sugar from the claim of Toryism (He is after all a fine example of inconsistency wrt social media use) but, there you go.

He was a Labour peer (put there by Brown?), and resigned because the Labour Party went too lefty for him, and now sits cross-bench. He's not Tory, but was extremely anti-Corbyn.

Yes he was appointed by Gordon Brown