The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[tonyh29]

4 hours ago, TreeVillan said:

I saw this reference on twitter but having not watched QT in years would you care to explain? 

 

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Someone on QT described Stanley Johnson as a wife beater.

Bruce jumped in ‘for the sake of balance’ to state that he only broke his wife’s nose once.

moved my post from another thread as it wasn’t on topic 

Having just watched the clip , at no point does  she use the words “for the sake of balance “, 

after a panellist called Stanley Johnson a wife beater , bruce  said something along the lines of …. I’m not disputing what you’re saying, but just so everyone knows what this is referring to, Stanley Johnson’s wife spoke to a journalist,  and  said that  Johnson had broken her nose and that she’d ended up in hospital as a result.…Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen but it was a one-off.”

BBC producers had provided her with lines to defend the corporation from potentially defamatory allegations should the topic of domestic violence come up on the show ..

Presumably had she been more anti government, Twitter would have had her back 

[Rolta]

5 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

 

moved my post from another thread as it wasn’t on topic 

Having just watched the clip , at no point does  she use the words “for the sake of balance “, 

after a panellist called Stanley Johnson a wife beater , bruce  said something along the lines of …. I’m not disputing what you’re saying, but just so everyone knows what this is referring to, Stanley Johnson’s wife spoke to a journalist,  and  said that  Johnson had broken her nose and that she’d ended up in hospital as a result.…Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen but it was a one-off.”

BBC producers had provided her with lines to defend the corporation from potentially defamatory allegations should the topic of domestic violence come up on the show ..

Presumably had she been more anti government, Twitter would have had her back 

It's completely different as a situation. I think everyone can respect that she was in a difficult situation and that she was obliged to add context. It is awkward as anything though, and even if friends said it was a one off, I believe, Boris's mum said otherwise (either way it's beside the point).

There's no furore about this. She's not losing her job, only her position as ambassador for a charity for domestic abuse. It is completely understandable that a domestic abuse charity might watch one of their ambassadors on the flagship politics show in the country downplaying domestic violence and think that it isn't ok for them. In my opinion it was cringeworthy to the max. What she said came across pretty gutless and utterly cowed and deferential, but I do also appreciate she was in a no win situation.

At the end of the day, it's another example of freedom...the freedom of the charity not to continue with her, just as is the case often in other examples when the other Tory culture war weapon bs comes about... something culture whatever. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Rolta

[chrisp65]

5 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

 

moved my post from another thread as it wasn’t on topic 

Having just watched the clip , at no point does  she use the words “for the sake of balance “, 

after a panellist called Stanley Johnson a wife beater , bruce  said something along the lines of …. I’m not disputing what you’re saying, but just so everyone knows what this is referring to, Stanley Johnson’s wife spoke to a journalist,  and  said that  Johnson had broken her nose and that she’d ended up in hospital as a result.…Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen but it was a one-off.”

BBC producers had provided her with lines to defend the corporation from potentially defamatory allegations should the topic of domestic violence come up on the show ..

Presumably had she been more anti government, Twitter would have had her back 

Why quote his ‘friends’ when Johnson hasn’t commented? We no more know if his ‘friends’ are telling the truth than if his wife is. except I suppose his wife has hospital records. 

Nah, not having it. 

[KentVillan]

I tend to agree with @tonyh29 on this - I have some sympathy with Fiona Bruce... moderating QT is a thankless task, as the whole programme is full of people making wild claims, often very light on evidence, and she's there to keep the "debate" (i.e. grandstanding, point scoring, talking complete nonsense) ticking along rather than to arrive at agreement or conclusive answers by the end of the show.

Her claim is that the BBC producers gave her a line to take if the topic came up, and then she has been thrown under the bus. She isn't on the show to say what's right or what's wrong.

The whole format is broken and she was perhaps naive to think taking it on was a good idea.

Also naive to think that you can be a spokesperson for a charity or pressure group and also moderate debates that may involve people with views strongly opposed to that organisation.

I remember a similar case where the Chief Executive of Women's Aid had to step down because in a previous role she had worked on electoral reform issues and appeared at UKIP conference. She wasn't remotely pro-UKIP herself, but she had spoken diplomatically about UKIP's role in party politics, appeared on a panel with Katie Hopkins, etc. The video footage was unearthed, and she was painted as being pro-UKIP, pro-Katy Hopkins, etc. when it was pretty clear she wasn't.

The problem is it's very hard to combine being a "non-partisan" / cross-party voice with also having explicit positions on issues that don't attract cross-party consensus.

Whether or not Stanley Johnson is a wife beater isn't a party political issue, but clearly one side will go with the accusations and the other will go with the denials, and it's never been proven in a court of law. I personally think the story as presented by Tom Bower sounds credible, multiple sources suggest it happened, multiple times. But he does apparently deny it, so what can Bruce do in that situation?

And FWIW, I'm not sure Bruce's intervention here helps Stanley Johnson very much anyway:

 

Most people's reaction would surely be... ok so he did break her nose, he is a wife beater. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the man.

Edited March 15, 2023 by KentVillan

[Genie]

It did come across as an odd interjection from Fiona Bruce. Probably not intended as such but it felt like she was suggesting it wasn’t so bad because he only hospitalised her one time (that we know of). 

She could have said, “he has not commented on it but his friends confirmed it”, without adding “just the once” to suggest it wasn’t such a big deal.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

It did come across as an odd interjection from Fiona Bruce. Probably not intended as such but it felt like she was suggesting it wasn’t so bad because he only hospitalised her one time (that we know of). 

She could have said, “he has not commented on it but his friends confirmed it”, without adding “just the once” to suggest it wasn’t such a big deal.

I agree it was a bit clumsy but she gave the disclaimer she was pressured into giving , but possibly whilst very subtly letting the whole world know that Johnson broke her nose  .. I guess only she will know for sure what message she was trying to give off 

I watched the clip the  day after the story broke , and commented here at the time it looked like someone being "forced " to make  a legal type disclaimer  (it seems to have been confirmed yesterday that this was indeed the case)   .. you saw it differently to me , like she was suggesting , it was only once and not so bad  , a lot of people on the internet also thought she was trivialising domestic abuse    , from his post Chrisp heard her saying "For the sake of balance"  (when she didn't say it ) offering up more proof of Tory BBC bias 

I guess we all see things differently 

 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

I agree it was a bit clumsy but she gave the disclaimer she was pressured into giving , but possibly whilst very subtly letting the whole world know that Johnson broke her nose  .. I guess only she will know for sure what message she was trying to give off 

I watched the clip the  day after the story broke , and commented here at the time it looked like someone being "forced " to make  a legal type disclaimer  (it seems to have been confirmed yesterday that this was indeed the case)   .. you saw it differently to me , like she was suggesting , it was only once and not so bad  , a lot of people on the internet also thought she was trivialising domestic abuse    , from his post Chrisp heard her saying "For the sake of balance"  (when she didn't say it ) offering up more proof of Tory BBC bias 

I guess we all see things differently 

 

The “just the once” wasn’t needed at all. All it did was play it down.

Was she genuinely asked to state it only allegedly happened once? If so then whoever told her to say it should be fired.

[Rolta]

14 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I agree it was a bit clumsy but she gave the disclaimer she was pressured into giving , but possibly whilst very subtly letting the whole world know that Johnson broke her nose  .. I guess only she will know for sure what message she was trying to give off 

I watched the clip the  day after the story broke , and commented here at the time it looked like someone being "forced " to make  a legal type disclaimer  (it seems to have been confirmed yesterday that this was indeed the case)   .. you saw it differently to me , like she was suggesting , it was only once and not so bad  , a lot of people on the internet also thought she was trivialising domestic abuse    , from his post Chrisp heard her saying "For the sake of balance"  (when she didn't say it ) offering up more proof of Tory BBC bias 

I guess we all see things differently 

 

I'm struggling to see what your angle is tbh. For the record also, here is Boris's mum quoted taking to Boris's biographer.

“He hit me many times, over many years.” Early on he resented her seeing her friends “and that’s when he first hit me”. Later, she was deposited in the country, without a car. “To adultery and violence, his family could add deserter.”

What balance did Bruce add? It seems as if what she said was very selective. It's of course fine to add context, and she might have needed to do it, but you seem to think the charity has no say in the matter.

I say this because you made a comment earlier asking why there isn't anyone defending Bruce on Twitter. So is your argument that a domestic abuse charity shouldn't be able to choose it's ambassadors even if one of them trivialises domestic abuse to an audience of millions? Is that what you think is wrong?

(A bit unrelated, but I noticed you stuck up for Jimmy Saville back in 2012 or whatever in the first page of his thread, so this is feeling ironic! I just happened to notice it yesterday when people were reposting the old comments. It's not a dig, but it just seems funny now I've read what you put here. I know we're all nice people ) 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Rolta

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, Rolta said:

I'm struggling to see what your angle is tbh. For the record also, here is Boris's mum quoted in her biography.

“He hit me many times, over many years.” Early on he resented her seeing her friends “and that’s when he first hit me”. Later, she was deposited in the country, without a car. “To adultery and violence, his family could add deserter.”

What balance did Bruce add? It seems as if what she said was very selective. It's of course fine to add context, and she might need to do it, but you seem to think the charity has no say in the matter.

I say this because you made a comment earlier asking why there isn't anyone defending Bruce on Twitter. So is your argument that a domestic abuse charity shouldn't be able to choose it's ambassadors even if one of them trivialises domestic abuse to an audience of millions? Is that what you think is wrong?

(A bit unrelated, but I noticed you stuck up for Jimmy Saville back in 2012 or whatever in the first page of his thread, so this is feeling ironic! I just happened to notice it yesterday when people were reposting the old comments. It's not a dog, but it just seems funny now I've read what you put here. I know we're all nice people ) 

So even the “it only happened once” doesn’t appear to be true based on the autobiography.

Its a very strong allegation from Boris’s mum, I’d assume if it wasn’t true Stanley would have defended himself.

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

The “just the once” wasn’t needed at all. All it did was play it down.

Was she genuinely asked to state it only allegedly happened once? If so then whoever told her to say it should be fired.

that I can't answer , but it reading into it a bit more  , looks like the Mail printed a story in 2020 quoting friends saying it was a "one off"  , I guess that Johnson didn't sue the Mail , could be viewed as acknowledgment  in a  deformation legal sense ?  hence the same phrasing of "One time " that Bruce used almost as if someone has said , we think we can say that but we can't call him a  serial wife beater  ....but I'm just guessing here  

[bickster]

The problem here is the single source for the allegation and that the allegation hasn't been proven true in court or admitted to by Stanley Johnson.

There is some corroboration but they are anonymous "friends of Johnson."

BBC lawyers will have drafted that statement in advance, knowing the subject was going to arise, so as not to give Johnson a right to reply in future shows (and obviously avoid the potential lawsuit)

It's nothing to do with balance and impartiality, it's to do with not being sued.

In reality its clumsily worded and the "only once" bit should not have been in there. It could have been worded more neutrally to achieve the same result

[tonyh29]

9 minutes ago, Rolta said:

I'm struggling to see what your angle is tbh. For the record also, here is Boris's mum quoted taking to Boris's biographer.

“He hit me many times, over many years.” Early on he resented her seeing her friends “and that’s when he first hit me”. Later, she was deposited in the country, without a car. “To adultery and violence, his family could add deserter.”

What balance did Bruce add? It seems as if what she said was very selective. It's of course fine to add context, and she might have needed to do it, but you seem to think the charity has no say in the matter.

I say this because you made a comment earlier asking why there isn't anyone defending Bruce on Twitter. So is your argument that a domestic abuse charity shouldn't be able to choose it's ambassadors even if one of them trivialises domestic abuse to an audience of millions? Is that what you think is wrong?

(A bit unrelated, but I noticed you stuck up for Jimmy Saville back in 2012 or whatever in the first page of his thread, so this is feeling ironic! I just happened to notice it yesterday when people were reposting the old comments. It's not a dig, but it just seems funny now I've read what you put here. I know we're all nice people ) 

I don't have an angle  , I was offering a counter view to how people saw the exchange  .. i know VT like an echo chamber and doesn't welcome counter views    but I thought I'd give it a go 

 

regarding defending Jimmy Saville , I've not commented on the first page of that thread , my first comment is on page 2 and is quoted below  (I'm now on page 4 and can't see any other comments I've made )  I'm struggling to see how I've defended him there , so I think you've confused me with someone else .. If you point me to it I'm happy to see the post that you refer to as me defending him and I can comment accordingly , but short of that I think an edit and some form of apology would be the order of the day ? 

 

On 30/10/2011 at 18:46, tonyh29 said:

There was the "Have I got News for you" transcript that did the rounds on the interweb that suggested he like young children

 

Like a lot of web folklore it turned out to be a work of fiction , but the fact everyone was sort of prepared to believe it was true probably means a lot of people thought he had something dodgy about him

 

I'm sure I always heard (pre internet) that he was in / had ties to the Mafia !!!

[Rolta]

20 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Like a lot of web folklore it turned out to be a work of fiction , but the fact everyone was sort of prepared to believe it was true probably means a lot of people thought he had something dodgy about him

 

This is what I was referring to. Tbh, ironically I should have added some more context because your comment clearly came before all the horrible stuff came out into the open. 

Your comment here about echo chambers is great and everything, but my main confusion is why you think this is comparable to Lineker. I completely agree and understand that Bruce was in a difficult position, but I also completely see that a domestic abuse charity isn't going to want an ambassador who both sided a victim and her alleged abuser. Tbh, she didn't even do that, she actively downplayed a husband breaking his wife's nose and then used comments by the husband's mates of all people to add the balance.

It doesn't matter if she was obliged to or not. Domestic abuse charities don't need to like that. It's nothing to do with echo chambers and biases. It's just the way it works. 

Anyway, she still has all her many jobs, as of course she should.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Rolta

[tonyh29]

26 minutes ago, Rolta said:

This is what I was referring to. Tbh, ironically I should have added some more context because your comment clearly came before all the horrible stuff came out into the open. 

 

Ok , so here's the problem 

I'm referring to a transcript that was broadcast on Have I got news for you  , not the crimes of Saville  .. further down the page you can see other posters also reference the same transcript 

to be clear I didn't defend Saville , so please do the right thing 

 

  

On 30/10/2011 at 18:46, tonyh29 said:

There was the "Have I got News for you" transcript that did the rounds on the interweb that suggested he like young children

 

Like a lot of web folklore it turned out to be a work of fiction , but the fact everyone was sort of prepared to believe it was true probably means a lot of people thought he had something dodgy about him

 

I'm sure I always heard (pre internet) that he was in / had ties to the Mafia !!!

 

On 30/10/2011 at 20:47, Houlston said:

 

Ive never seen the transcript but I saw that show and there was some comment about him being feared in schools, it was between Merton and him. What was the folklore then?

 

On 02/10/2012 at 22:39, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said:

How reliable is that transcript? Merton doesn't appear very Merton-y.

 

On 03/10/2012 at 05:26, Davkaus said:

 

It's bollocks.

 

On 03/10/2012 at 09:13, peterms said:

It's apparently a spoof done by BBC sketch writers. I think the point is not that it was a new revelation about some dreadful secret which was previously unknown to anyone, but that it referred to things which were apparently well known within the beeb, but which were not acted on. I suppose the target is not only Saville, but the people who chose to look the other way. If it had been real, the point would be that they suppressed the programme; but it's fake, and the point is that they covered up the child abuse.

 

Seems like a few people have some questions to answer.

 

I see there's an MP admitting he knew about the Saville stories.

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by tonyh29

[Rolta]

20 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Like a lot of web folklore it turned out to be a work of fiction , but the fact everyone was sort of prepared to believe it was true probably means a lot of people thought he had something dodgy about him

This bit made me think you didn't believe the stories (via the HIGNFY transcript, which I understood) and were dismissing everything. Having read it over a few times I seem to have misread it. Apologies for bringing it up. It was meant as an idle comment and not an actual dig. More a 'ho ho' moment. Anyway, I was wrong and it was irrelevant. 

It was beside my point, so I shouldn't have even tried a 'ho ho' jokey comment. As I say I apologise.

 

[tinker]

 

More cuts to the West Midlands  funding , soon be under 2% for us, a slow decline over the last few years, situation  is completely unjustified.

 

BBC staff in West Midlands hit picket lines today over local radio cuts

By Peter MadeleyBirminghamPoliticsPublished: 9 hours agoComments

BBC staff in the West Midlands are set to hit the picket lines today in a strike over cuts to local radio services.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/politics/2023/03/15/bbc-staff-in-west-midlands-hit-picket-lines-over-local-radio-cuts/

[chrisp65]

14 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

 

moved my post from another thread as it wasn’t on topic 

Having just watched the clip , at no point does  she use the words “for the sake of balance “, 

after a panellist called Stanley Johnson a wife beater , bruce  said something along the lines of …. I’m not disputing what you’re saying, but just so everyone knows what this is referring to, Stanley Johnson’s wife spoke to a journalist,  and  said that  Johnson had broken her nose and that she’d ended up in hospital as a result.…Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen but it was a one-off.”

BBC producers had provided her with lines to defend the corporation from potentially defamatory allegations should the topic of domestic violence come up on the show ..

Presumably had she been more anti government, Twitter would have had her back 

To be truly pedantic (it’s not a problem, I am just pedantic), I didn’t put the phrase ‘for the sake of balance’ in quotation marks, I was summarising not quoting. Incredibly subtle difference but that’s my legal claim and I’m sticking to it.

[The Fun Factory]

They should scrap question time. It has become tv poison, a dreadful programme with dreadful panelists and representatives for wellingborough in the audience.

'You sir in the back with the green pullover, do you have a cliche thought for us?'

 

[mjmooney]

Lineker's really rubbing it in, now. His new Twitter profile pic: 

[choffer]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

Lineker's really rubbing it in, now. His new Twitter profile pic: 

To be fair, if ColdWarSteve made me the subject of his art, I’d probably make it my profile picture too.