Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point was that the factual material behind the Telegraph article is extremely thin, relying entirely on an un-named, unindentified source apparently "close to the project" who said:

so all sources have to be quoted for it to be a credible news source then to you?

Charles why is it you can never respond to my actual arguments without tossing in some sort of personal criticism in the process? Is there really any need to be so disingenuous?

All I said was that there is no substance to that article barring a quote which amounts to pure opinion with no substantiating proof that the real reason for cancelling the TV movie was the reason given. It may or may not be true, but the journalist doesn't have any material (outside of that vague quote) for making the case.

"The BBC has behaved in a cowardly fashion by pulling the plug on the project altogether," said a source close to the project. "It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn't show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.

"It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn't approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn't have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn't do that.

Even so - the journalist hasn't added any information of his own (based on his own research) to support the claims being made by his source.

Incidentally, you referred to the story as an example of biased reporting from the BBC. A movie dramatization is not "news reporting", and if you do a little research on the BBC website (as I did) you will find a whole page of links to old articles on the original story as well as video interviews, and clips of Beharry receiving the Victoria Cross from the Queen. The story has been covered fairly comprehensively as I see it...

still, backtracking on the 90 minute tv show due to their fear of alienating members of the audience is pandering to one segment of the audience, and in doing so they are not really being credible, are they?

But who actually said it was "due to their fear of alienating members of the audience"? It was the journalist on the sole basis of a vague quotation from who knows what? I might take it more seriously if the guy had actually attended or seen the minutes of the meeting at which the movie was discussed and subsequently cancelled. Then his view would have some weight. That's why I say its important to know who the source is in this instance. The journalist, having no more material on which to base his article has taken a vague quote from an un-named source and spun it into an attack on the BBC. He doesn't even back up any of criticisms of the BBC that he refers to - and its not like they aren't out there in the public domain. It's lazy reporting IMO, and a text book example of how the press can make something out of very little.

Edited April 9, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

My point was that the factual material behind the Telegraph article is extremely thin, relying entirely on an un-named, unindentified source apparently "close to the project" who said:

so all sources have to be quoted for it to be a credible news source then to you?

Charles why is it you can never respond to my actual arguments without tossing in some sort of personal criticism in the process? Is there really any need to be so disingenuous?

that's not criticism, erekose. i'm paraphrasing you

All I said was that there is no substance to that article barring a quote which amounts to pure opinion with no substantiating proof that the real reason for cancelling the TV movie was the reason given. It may or may not be true, but the journalist doesn't have any material (outside of that vague quote) for making the case.

"The BBC has behaved in a cowardly fashion by pulling the plug on the project altogether," said a source close to the project. "It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn't show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.

"It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn't approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn't have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn't do that.

Even so - the journalist hasn't added any information of his own (based on his own research) to support the claims being made by his source.

Incidentally, you referred to the story as an example of biased reporting from the BBC. A movie dramatization is not "news reporting", and if you do a little research on the BBC website (as I did) you will find a whole page of links to old articles on the original story as well as video interviews, and clips of Beharry receiving the Victoria Cross from the Queen. The story has been covered fairly comprehensively as I see it...

still, backtracking on the 90 minute tv show due to their fear of alienating members of the audience is pandering to one segment of the audience, and in doing so they are not really being credible, are they?

But who actually said it was "due to their fear of alienating members of the audience"? It was the journalist on the sole basis of a vague quotation from who knows what? I might take it more seriously if the guy had actually attended or seen the minutes of the meeting at which the movie was discussed and subsequently cancelled. Then his view would have some weight. That's why I say its important to know who the source is in this instance. The journalist, having no more material on which to base his article has taken a vague quote from an un-named source and spun it into an attack on the BBC. He doesn't even back up any of criticisms of the BBC that he refers to - and its not like they aren't out there in the public domain. It's lazy reporting IMO, and a text book example of how the press can make something out of very little.

so let's see if i can get this straight - whatever news is reported, the reporter must be on the scene when X is discussed, otherwise it's not news. i have to wonder if this article was about fox news if you'd be all up in arms about it then.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so let's see if i can get this straight - whatever news is reported, the reporter must be on the scene when X is discussed, otherwise it's not news. i have to wonder if this article was about fox news if you'd be all up in arms about it then.

No - not the reporter... but surely his source should no? Otherwise, what's to stop someone writing a front page story about "Americas Inside Job on 9/11" based solely on the word of Rosie O'Donnell?

And to clarify - this story is about BBC Entertainment, not BBC News.... We might as well make the same claims about 20th Century Fox - has about as much relevance to Fox News....

[fozzie 41]

[featherB 1]

And to clarify - this story is about BBC Entertainment, not BBC News.... We might as well make the same claims about 20th Century Fox - has about as much relevance to Fox News....

Exactly.

I don't really think some unsubstantiated allegation (about some commissioners pulling a TV drama, something that happens all the bloody time for any number of reasons, FFS - I don't believe that 'too positive' thing for one second) from 'a source', printed in the rabidly BBC-hating Torygraph, constitutes damning and concrete proof that the Corporation's news output is nothing but a load of lefty-liberal-commie propaganda... or whatever it is that the writer is trying to 'prove'.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And to clarify - this story is about BBC Entertainment, not BBC News.... We might as well make the same claims about 20th Century Fox - has about as much relevance to Fox News....

Exactly.

I don't really think some unsubstantiated allegation (about some commissioners pulling a TV drama, something that happens all the bloody time for any number of reasons, FFS - I don't believe that 'too positive' thing for one second) from 'a source', printed in the rabidly BBC-hating Torygraph, constitutes damning and concrete proof that the Corporation's news output is nothing but a load of lefty-liberal-commie propaganda... or whatever it is that the writer is trying to 'prove'.

Exactly, the author is on very shaky ground. Still I won't even go as far as to criticise the Telegraph - there's really no need. This is quite simply, a shallow and fundamentally flawed piece of journalism.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

hmm, I'm not sure bleating about the so-called "liberal media" applies here -- although the Telegraph is a consistently conservative newspaper, their editorial stance on the Iraq war is pretty consistent with the BBC (or what it's perceived to be since they don't really editorialize) and their criticism of the way it has been waged has been very harsh. If I recall correctly, only the Murdoch press supports the war in the UK.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

hmm, I'm not sure bleating about the so-called "liberal media" applies here -- although the Telegraph is a consistently conservative newspaper, their editorial stance on the Iraq war is pretty consistent with the BBC (or what it's perceived to be since they don't really editorialize) and their criticism of the way it has been waged has been very harsh. If I recall correctly, only the Murdoch press supports the war in the UK.

Sounds about right. Support (or lack thereof) of the war in the UK isn't really an indicator of partisan loyalty - the way it is in the US. But clearly there are agendas being followed with regards to the presentation of the issues. That said, this article is clearly a 'hack-job'.

BTW - does anyone know the answer to my question from earlier? If the BBC has shown any made for TV movies about the Iraq War? Doesn't have any real bearing on this issue - but would be interesting to know for comparative purposes.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Typical liberal media only wanting to show one side if the story.

Bawk! I'm a parrot! Bawk! I can talk like a real person. Bawk! Repeating phrases from Fox News! Bawk!

Seriously now, what is your issue here? You can't debate what's being said here, you can only come up with stupid strawman arguments about the "liberal media". As Ekerose pointed out several times in this thead, the BBC News covered this story extensively. How exactly are they not showing "both sides of the story here". Did you even read the story and this posts in this thread? Do you have anything meaningful to add?

Don't get your panties in a wad.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Don't get your panties in a wad.

It just gets so tiresome when people throw in these damn catch phrases all the time as if that is a valid point, so you'll forgive my rant. It would be nice is people who read this article actually did some critical thinking rather than just having a knee jerk reaction.