clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Said as much on another post, she was building an alternative narrative
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
I don’t think obliged is the right word, but she was proactively trying to protect the BBC against potential defamation proceedings.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.
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.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.
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 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 don’t think obliged is the right word, but she was proactively trying to protect the BBC against potential defamation proceedings.
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.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.
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 think obliged is the right word, but she was proactively trying to protect the BBC against potential defamation proceedings.
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).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).
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".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.
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.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
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).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?
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.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 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.
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%.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
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.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.
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:-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%.
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
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
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.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.
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 onlyThere 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
It's neither really more just a tool for whichever right wing government is in power at that timeLet’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
Can't believe the this thread got to page 2 without someone answering this question - I was beginning to wonder what is wrong with peopleYes I would. Is that the question?
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
Probably help if the two people at the top weren’t Tory party donors thoughAs 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
I wish the DG and Chairman weren't political appointments at allProbably help if the two people at the top weren’t Tory party donors though
Probably help if the two people at the top weren’t Tory party donors though
Yeah but none of the talent is really.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?