Options
Not again! BBC plunged into new deception row
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/db9ce7fb060c30c95454c6dd8d0d7bd0.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 10,271 Forum Member
✭✭
The BBC was plunged into a new deception row today after a cameraman posed as a member of the public on one of its daytime shows.
The Independent
Couldn't find any reference to this story on the BBC news website.
0
Comments
Should the BBC be psychic?
i suppose that's me all over thought - defending the indefensible and all.
presumably, now that this has come to light, the important thing is what are the BBC doing? it sounds to me that by suspending business relations with Reef Television, they're doing the right thing. but perhaps others disagree, i don't know.
as for *row* - who actually is rowing with who? is a nation really up in arms about this awful deception, which resulted in, um, well, not that much, lets be honest.
Iain
It's amazing how many of these non stories get posted by a certain number of posters.
This kind of reactionary drivel is exacly what led thousands to complain about Ross and Brand, but only after the media whipped up a frenzy. Before that, the Beeb had only a handful of complaints.
Chillax, Slow Motion! There's far bigger things in the world to worry about. Does your kettle need de-scaling or something?
IIRC, they had two complaints before the media frenzy, and they were for Ross swearing rather than the content of the phone calls to Andrew Sachs.
A non-story really. Still, it gives SloMo et al something else to whinge and tut-tut about, even if the thread title is incorrect, and even if the article itself makes it clear that the BBC was not at fault.. But never let the facts get in the way of an agenda eh.
But an error that the OP did nothing to point out, nor to correct by way of a quote from the article concerned.
I guess you'll not be watching Sun, Sea etc again
I like the use of the emmotive word "plunged"...
Sort of makes headline grabbing attention over what is basically a non story.
Good lord. did you expect him to then?
You really would think it would take precedence over LIbya and Afghanistan etc wouldn't you...
Plunging the BBC into another major crisis 'n all.
The only mention of Reef TV on the BBC website at all is the Sun, Sea and Bargain Spotting be on a show website. www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/beonashow/sun_sea_bargain.shtml
Looks like they don't want to admit to being duped.
Just saying "it wasn't the BBC so no harm done" is missing the point. The BBC is harmed by these actions out of all proportion to the "offence"
The indys need to be self-policing because they are the only ones in a position to do so.
If the BBC can issue "fines" to the directors of these companies then they should be doing it. I don't know if the law would allow a clause in a contract to penalise directors of indy production companies. Sums to go to the BBC coffers.
If the BBC is NOT in a position to make directors of such companies personally liable for issues such as this (via "fines") then perhaps they should be able to do so.
The reason you need senior people punished and not the company is because people will always "risk it" if they themselves face no possibility of punishment.
If the directors of a company face big "fines" for the actions of staff then they will be most eager to police the company.
OMG, you would think someone committed corporate manslaughter!
Hang , draw and quarter the offender then put his head on a spike in BBC TVC lobby!
I think a bit of common sense is needed here.
The BBC has not been damaged by this one little bit.
Anyone without an agenda and an ounce of common sense would read the article and go "so what" and "the BBC acted appropriately".
Your post adds nothing to the debate.
Can the mods kindly do something about these trolls intent on disruptive poster-bashing about legitimate thread titles, instead of debating issues.
Which I hope you appreciate I acknowledged
Well debate the issue then - something you haven't done from your opening post.
Should the BBC be psychic?
Have they not acted swiftly over the matter and done exactly what they should be expected to do in a situation like this?
So what's the issue...
An independent company making a programme for the BBC used one of it's cameramen to make out he was a member of the public.
Somehow the BBC is supposed to know that the person in question worked as a cameraman for the said company...
in what way is the BBC harmed?
anybody can see the fault didn't lie with the BBC.
and further that the BBC acted appropriately and quickly.
so why would any reasonable person find fault with the BBC here?
Iain
What phucking issues? Perhaps next time you're online you could debate the rebuttal points below to the supposed "issues" you've raised in your OP...
Somehow I severely doubt you will though... call it 'intuition'.
It was your choice to post it here. Therefore you are culpable. You didn't have to copy and paste it.
If the Indie themselves had posted it here we'd be calling them overreacting dolts instead. But they didn't. You did.
Phazer
We're not talking with reasonable people here though, we're talking about the anti BBC/LF obsessives who ocupy this forum.