D-G Backs BBC Staff Over Cliff Richard ''Raid''

2»

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 279
    Forum Member
    finlux wrote: »
    Exactly. If the BBC wasn't there or didn't report it, some people would criticise them, and claim they are not worth the licence fee! If Sky or ITN were there, the BBC would still get criticised for being too slow!

    You can't win!

    Exactly!!! The BBC was tipped off so next time maybe they sit on their hands and give sky and ITN a call and hand it over to them!!!!!

    Then you get all the moaners coming on saying the BBC dont create the news anymore so i want my licence fee back BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

    Get over yourselves!!
  • pfgpowellpfgpowell Posts: 5,347
    Forum Member
    Talk of being disingenuous, a nicer word for ‘slippery’ which means the same thing: read Hall’s statement carefully, and you’ll find it neatly avoid all the pertinent points on which the BBC is said to have transgressed boundaries. It addresses none of the criticisms

    No one is suggesting that the BBC, like other media outlets, cannot report a raid such as this. What we take exception to is how they did it: live coverage of the raid, for God’s sake, which, very arguably, could have give the distinct impression that Cliff Richard was guilty as sin. And that is not the name of the game: report facts, is what the media are supposed to do. But they BBC did far more. So none of us should fall for the bollocks Hall and the BBC are coming out with.

    I’m not one for slavishly supporting the police who we know can get up to all kinds of skullduggery of their own, but in this matter I am persuaded by their explanation: that they were contacted by a BBC journalist who said he had found out the raid was planned and wanted to know more about it. The police replied that they would tell him on the strict understanding that the BBC would hold fire and not report a thing until after the raid had taken place. We know the rest.

    I would be more impressed with the BBC generally if it didn’t want to have its cake and eat it: it wants to be seen as a fully fledged rival to commercial media outlets, both print and broadcasting, but also wants to hang onto the notion that the BBC is special, akin to a national treasure and a cut above all those scruffy commercial outfits. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.

    There are too many bureaucratic time servers who are more than happy to draw the enviably high BBC salaries - which is public money - but and who stick to their career with Aunty because they know full well they wouldn’t last five minutes in the cutthroat commercial world.
  • MaxatoriaMaxatoria Posts: 17,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well at least the beeb can't be accused of trying to cover up the event which is what people would of said if all they had done was made one quick 30 second mention on a lunch time slot and then carried on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25
    Forum Member
    Garry-paul wrote: »
    Exactly!!! The BBC was tipped off so next time maybe they sit on their hands and give sky and ITN a call and hand it over to them!!!!!

    Then you get all the moaners coming on saying the BBC dont create the news anymore so i want my licence fee back BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

    Get over yourselves!!

    I think that is exactly what I am "moaning" about. That the BBC created rather than reported the news. Call me old fashioned but I see this as a broadcaster in search of an exclusive with little facts to speak of.

    It was only a lead story on the BBC news because they chose to make it one as they had an exclusive. It should probably have been news item 4 or 5 if the editor on that particular day had any judgement.

    The BBC pleads to be treated in a special way and they do some great things but this was not one of them. Sky or ITV would probably have covered this better. If this was a major crime story then why did the BBC send their arts correspondence and their royal reporter to cover it? Says it all really.
  • Gary HallidayGary Halliday Posts: 865
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This was a disgraceful case of grandstanding by SYP, in collusion with the BBC. Clearly the original allegation on it's own doesn't have much credence so SYP went on a fishing expedition in the hope that dozens of others would come up with more allegations, which has not happened. At least Sir Cliff has not been banned from the airwaves as Tony Blackburn played him on his (live) 1964 Pick of the Pops on Saturday 16th August.
  • human naturehuman nature Posts: 13,175
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    pfgpowell wrote: »
    I’m not one for slavishly supporting the police who we know can get up to all kinds of skullduggery of their own, but in this matter I am persuaded by their explanation: that they were contacted by a BBC journalist who said he had found out the raid was planned and wanted to know more about it. The police replied that they would tell him on the strict understanding that the BBC would hold fire and not report a thing until after the raid had taken place. We know the rest.
    You think you "know the rest", but actually it sounds like you don't.

    The BBC did not report this story until after the raid had taken place. You're obviously under the impression the BBC showed the police arriving and entering the building live - but they didn't. The BBC didn't begin their report until over two hours after the police arrived.
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think that most of this has been whipped up by News International/Sky because they weren't in on the deal.

    The Guardian and Mail have been taking leading roles in reporting on how the BBC covered the story. I haven't seen Sky News so much as mention it.
Sign In or Register to comment.