The House of Lords Science & Tech Committee just dropped a brutal 2025 report:
“We’re world-class at inventing… and world-class at losing it.”
- DeepMind? London-born. Google’s now.
- Arm? Cambridge chip genius. SoftBank owned.
- Graphcore? Bristol AI unicorn. Folded into SoftBank – 500+ UK jobs gone.
- Skyscanner? Edinburgh unicorn. £1.4B to Chinese Ctrip - control vanished.
- Hopin? £4B peak in London. Liquidated UK ops in 2024 to chase US scale.
This isn’t bad luck. It’s a system failure.
As I believe I've said before, we should stop selling companies/land/intellectual property to foreigners. Thatcher-era capitalism insisted on a "golden-share" to insist stuff stayed UK-side. But that went and here we are...
A lot of us must have watched thousands of BBC news broadcasts over the years presented by people like Moira Stuart, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Buerk, Andrew Harvey, Sue Lawley, Peter Sissons, Anna Ford, Nicholas Witchell, Martyn Lewis, Philip Hayton, etc, and the amazing thing is that I never had the slightest idea what the political opinions were of any of those journalists. It's incredible when you think about it. The BBC were so good at being impartial and un-biased. I still think they mostly are today, but not quite in the perfect way they used to be. What a generation of presenters they were.
It has to be said that Nicholas Witchell was conspicuously more royalist than the King
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
How do we know it was deliberate?
I had read that the two parts of the speech were c 50 minutes apart: it wasn’t an accidental deletion of a few words.
The fact no-one complained about the BBC edit is not necessarily a good thing. It could be viewed in the opposite way, as showing how trusting people have always been of the BBC not to do something like that, and therefore the fact they did it was particularly disappointing.
Bollocks. No-one complained at the time because it was, while a mistake, not a very serious mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake. It was deliberate.
And it was very serious. Integrity matters. Just ask @Cyclefree - you can often spot a fraudster (with the benefit of hindsight!) from a pattern of small deceptions.
The fact that it reflected the truth didn’t make it good journalism.
Which a lot of people who defend the BBC (including me), and the BBC itself, have acknowledged.
The overreaction (variously motivated), though, is off the scale.
Although not @bondegezou who was the person I was responding to.
The GOP degradation of the legal system marches on.
Buried inside the deal to reopen government is a provision that would give Senators private right of action to sue for millions in damages over their phone records being analyzed by Jack Smith's team. https://x.com/benjaminpenn/status/1987978386451628405
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
The statute of limitations bars him from suing in the UK, anyway. Quite a few US states also have a one year limit - not Florida, though, where it's two.
The truth about impartiality at the BBC And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
The truth about impartiality at the BBC And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
It's a long read, and some of its points arguably overblown, but largely I agree with it. This resonates: ..When I was there, at the height of Boris Johnson’s strength, that fear was ubiquitous. Scripts were sometimes written with a view not solely to their impartiality or truth, but the management of perception of impartiality from one side of the spectrum. On one particularly depressing occasion, on a night when some aspect or other of Covid policy, after I refused to add any more qualification to an already nebulous script, a senior editor asked me what the Prime Minister (Johnson) might say if he saw the piece. He implied that he might accuse us of bias. I replied that I didn’t care, so long as we were confident we were not and had been fair. The beads of sweat were almost visible as he walked away. On another occasion, a BBC executive forbade me from writing for the New Statesman, imploring me to ask The Spectator instead, saying that would be perfectly fine. This sort of thing was commonplace. Moreover as the media and political environment has moved rightward, the BBC is still in its usual bland, mushy central position, with its boring set of dispositions- but it seems more left wing by default. It hasn’t moved- the environment has and continues to do so. But the biggest sin the BBC has in my experience, is that the BBC isn’t that political at all, that it doesn’t have enough truly political people of any type. It should more arch liberals, conservatives, socialists- so long as they can and are willing to think critically. Instead, it too often chooses not to think at all, because it’s easier, and safer- the intellectual crouch position. But that is precisely because it has been so terrified by the criticism it receives. The safe place for output is the stodgy and inoffensive, the twee and the banal. Is it institutionally biased? No. Is it institutionally unimaginative and insufficiently curious to all radical political ideas? Yes. Is it now institutionally risk averse? Yes...>/i>
Hardly a surprise - self-interest on show. How many people have more than two children? And how many want to pay more tax for those that do?
On this, actually, my views have changed.
I'd support a mildly pro-natal policy.
It means more taxpayers in future, and a lower immigration demand, and therefore a more socially and fiscally stable society.
There's also a variant of the "should the guilty go free or the innocent be imprisoned" argument.
The political argument for the two child limit is that it discourages irresponsible breeders from having children they can't support. The catch is that it also discourages Norman and Norma Normal from having as many children as they might wish (and society might benefit from) because they fear what happens if something goes wrong. And the birthrate stats since 2010 or so are pretty unambiguous.
It's probably going to be unpopular, but sod it. It's the right thing to do.
There's a few decent examples of pro-natal policy not really making much difference.
Likelihood of having children, and number of them if you do, is becoming a societal issue more than a political one.
Doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try such policies, but they are probably not the smoking gun.
I'm just trying to work out how much you'd have to pay me to have a third kid...
Hmm.
Be prepared to buy a bigger house and bigger car. We had to upgrade to a 7 seater SUV because you can't fit 3 car seats into a standard 5 seater car.
We're also having to think about moving into a bigger house because our 4 bed isn't big enough now with all the shit we've accumulated with now three kids.
Also I'd recommend asking for a £30k payrise because I've found having a third kid is actually the most expensive of the lot.
I honestly don't blame anyone for refusing to walk this path, I genuinely love all three of them but it's not easy. The state has made it impossible to have three kids and it's nothing to do with benefits, it's all the other costs around having a third child.
Being able to afford a large house with a decently sized garden, a large 7 seater car, three car seats, the becoming a single income household for extended periods of time, childcare costs for two kids at the same time for about 3 years. It all adds up and I think modern expectations on parents and what the state expects parents to spend is leading to smaller families.
People may disagree but I think dumping a lot of the car safety regulations around kids would help with having 3 kids, I think normalising kids sharing rooms until their teenage years would help too. My uncle and aunt had 3 kids and they lived in a 3 bedroom house until my cousins were between 12 and 16 iirc because the two girls shared a room. Today that just doesn't happen, the expectation is for parents to provide a room per child.
This is without getting into the cost of education, we're looking at schools now and private education up where we're thinking of moving is going to be £14k per child per year and that number will only rise.
Three kids is a huge lifestyle change, I don't regret it at all but I will say there are moments where I've found it tough and my wife is still 6 months away from going back to work and getting a full salary.
From my PoV, with two currently under 2, I wonder if your slightly attacking this from the wrong end.
Firstly, paying for childcare so Mrs Max can go back to work seems mad. Mrs Prole is probably out of the labour market for at least 10 years now (I doubt we'll stop at 2 kids). The tax savings are immense, and you get the added fun of actually seeing your own kids grow up..
Yes, a 7 seat car is a bit of a PITA, but it's only a money pit if you want a shiny new one.
A four bed house is more than enough so long as the bedrooms themselves aren't too pokey. Stuff about them not sharing rooms is complete tosh, to be treated with the contempt it deserves, even as teenagers (obviously same gender in a room!). This is where living in London is terrible, living in the North is great - I'm looking at houses in the £500k zone at the moment, that gets you a detached 4-5 bed somewhere nice with some garden.
Have you considered home education - done right, you get a lot of the upsides of a private education, but without the price tag (the stay at home parent is the biggest "cost"). I'm aware it's somewhat seen as the preserve of weirdos and freaks, but there's nothing stopping you taking a more "normal" approach, at least as far as the end of primary.
My viewpoint is a good primary where you can make a difference by being a Governor - having someone competent makes a significant change provided given how often Governors try to focus on just their kids
The truth about impartiality at the BBC And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
It's a long read, and some of its points arguably overblown, but largely I agree with it. This resonates: ..When I was there, at the height of Boris Johnson’s strength, that fear was ubiquitous. Scripts were sometimes written with a view not solely to their impartiality or truth, but the management of perception of impartiality from one side of the spectrum. On one particularly depressing occasion, on a night when some aspect or other of Covid policy, after I refused to add any more qualification to an already nebulous script, a senior editor asked me what the Prime Minister (Johnson) might say if he saw the piece. He implied that he might accuse us of bias. I replied that I didn’t care, so long as we were confident we were not and had been fair. The beads of sweat were almost visible as he walked away. On another occasion, a BBC executive forbade me from writing for the New Statesman, imploring me to ask The Spectator instead, saying that would be perfectly fine. This sort of thing was commonplace. Moreover as the media and political environment has moved rightward, the BBC is still in its usual bland, mushy central position, with its boring set of dispositions- but it seems more left wing by default. It hasn’t moved- the environment has and continues to do so. But the biggest sin the BBC has in my experience, is that the BBC isn’t that political at all, that it doesn’t have enough truly political people of any type. It should more arch liberals, conservatives, socialists- so long as they can and are willing to think critically. Instead, it too often chooses not to think at all, because it’s easier, and safer- the intellectual crouch position. But that is precisely because it has been so terrified by the criticism it receives. The safe place for output is the stodgy and inoffensive, the twee and the banal. Is it institutionally biased? No. Is it institutionally unimaginative and insufficiently curious to all radical political ideas? Yes. Is it now institutionally risk averse? Yes...>/i>
This bit is also worth looking at: ..As one senior BBC figure put it to me: “I think we all really know that Robbie is behind this latest shitshow don’t we?” (something “friends of Sir Robbie” deny) One thing is for certain, Gibb, Grossman and Prescott appear to enjoy a wide brief to scrutinise all manner of BBC output as they see fit. Something which I know, talking to people at the corporation, has led to great disquiet.
I don’t know Prescott, but I do know Gibb and Grossman. I offer the following experiences as context to the current story and why I believe neither man is well placed to enjoy such power at the BBC, at least without proper scrutiny of their own work. ..
Meanwhile, in "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" news,
One of the main reasons the UK has historically been so much less polarised than the US, is that Britain has a shared source of information, consumed and trusted by most people regardless of their politics...
...It’s not just that the BBC is widely consumed — it also has solid trust on both left & right, whereas trust in the biggest US media brands is hugely polarised.
For most of the time I worked on Newsnight a lively spirit of contrarianism, an ability to set aside one’s own prejudices, a commitment to seeking a diversity of views, and having a longer production day in which to debate a topic, worked in our favour. It was balanced on most issues, particularly domestic politics.
But more recently, and in common with every other big developed world news organisation I know, generational change brought a younger, more dirigiste kind of progressivism onto the team. The language of ‘lived experience’, ‘don’t be a bystander’, and formulas such as ‘silence is violence’, entered the editorial conversation.
Thus I was in a meeting where one producer with strong views on trans issues tried to veto an interview bid for JK Rowling, saying she was “very problematic” (she didn’t want to come on anyway). On different occasion another of our journalists told Rod Liddle, who did make it on to the show, to his face that they were dead against inviting him on, triggering a (justified) complaint from the columnist.
So the culture wars have been raging away in newsrooms during recent years at the BBC. And on issues like Gaza, where so many Muslims and Jews hold impassioned views, I know managing this has been a nightmare for bosses at the Corporation.
And when it comes to criticism from the wider world, people at our public broadcaster have grown so weary of attacks from pressure group with axes to grind that it has produced a bunker mentality. From the Scottish cyber-nats, to the Brexiteers, vaccine sceptics, trans lobby or those angry about Gaza, they heap scorn and often abuse on BBC journalists.
Inevitably, this causes defensiveness and sometimes in my experience even a tendency to ignore complaints in the hope they’ll go away. And in an understaffed organisation in which answering angry members of the public can soak up much of an editor’s day that’s understandable even if it isn’t right.
It's remarkable the BBC screwed up in this way. Trump's said a lot of nonsense. You don't need to edit things to make that the case.
In a world of social media and AI, a good reputation is a priceless asset.
They edited in a way that those short of thnking could follow.
But the issue is that there was a report which reported a number of problems that wasn't acted on and then one of those stories blew up.
And remember it's the coverup / lack of progress that is what caught them out here...
I think there's also an element of the centre being gutted, as per local authorities not having sufficient resource for eg Trading Standards or Building Control.
This was an external production company aiui, which require careful management.
"Ferrari chairman John Elkann says the company's Formula 1 drivers Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc "need to focus on driving and talk less"."
The drivers aren't the problem. The car is. Plank wear, endless lift and coast, a fundamental suspension change that saw some go from challenging for the title to scrabbling for second, none of that is down to the drivers.
"Ferrari chairman John Elkann says the company's Formula 1 drivers Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc "need to focus on driving and talk less"."
The drivers aren't the problem. The car is. Plank wear, endless lift and coast, a fundamental suspension change that saw some go from challenging for the title to scrabbling for second, none of that is down to the drivers.
As someone may have said yesterday…
Raikonnen, Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton. So they’ve hired four world champions in the last 15 years, none of whom have won a title for the Scuderia, but now it’s a driver problem?
Ask Toto (and the record books!) about Lewis, and ask a number of other TPs who have looked at Charles.
"Ferrari chairman John Elkann says the company's Formula 1 drivers Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc "need to focus on driving and talk less"."
The drivers aren't the problem. The car is. Plank wear, endless lift and coast, a fundamental suspension change that saw some go from challenging for the title to scrabbling for second, none of that is down to the drivers.
As someone may have said yesterday…
Raikonnen, Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton. So they’ve hired four world champions in the last 15 years, none of whom have won a title for the Scuderia, but now it’s a driver problem?
Ask Toto (and the record books!) about Lewis, and ask a number of other TPs who have looked at Charles.
Elkann for the lift and coast award!
The killer stat is that Piastri has more wins than Leclerc. I rate Piastri, but there's no way that should be the case.
"Ferrari chairman John Elkann says the company's Formula 1 drivers Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc "need to focus on driving and talk less"."
The drivers aren't the problem. The car is. Plank wear, endless lift and coast, a fundamental suspension change that saw some go from challenging for the title to scrabbling for second, none of that is down to the drivers.
As someone may have said yesterday…
Raikonnen, Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton. So they’ve hired four world champions in the last 15 years, none of whom have won a title for the Scuderia, but now it’s a driver problem?
Ask Toto (and the record books!) about Lewis, and ask a number of other TPs who have looked at Charles.
Elkann for the lift and coast award!
How many times have Ferrari had a car doing well and then done a Keystone Cops pit-stop or strategy decision over the past few years..
I notice the spinners are out in force trying to reduce the BBC crisis to a bit of editing involving Donald Trump. But of course the real problem is the BBC has been sitting on (their own commissioned) Prescot report for 8 months and done nothing. But you'd rather we ignored that wouldn't you chaps?
Prefer to just fight on your own territory of Trump Trump Trump. I mean what else matters?
I can't see a way our of this for the BBC. It's sooooooooooooo bad. The only way they survive this and carry on for another decade with the TV licencee, is for Labour to win the 2029 election . But how likely is that?
As with every storm, PB predicts it will be more significant than it actually is. Dressgate, Chagos, etc.
That’s not to say it isn’t bad for the BBC, but it’s not 12o’s bad.
The BBC usually survives and keeps the show on the road as LAB governments want it to continue (for obvious reasons) and CON governments usually have bigger fish to fry (and Tories have a love/hate relationship with it)
What makes this different is the spectre of REF - Who WILL form the next government - unless you think the polling is wrong?
The polling is probably right, but that’s a very different thing to Ref winning the next election in 3 years’ time.
This is a media-on-media fight. Just like the phone hacking scandal.
Do you seriously think Labour will recover from being on 18% (on average) to winning the next election????
Seriously????
You're usually sensible, Tim?
Labour has clearly reached the point of no return,. They are done. Election 29 is gone. Obviously. You're not an idiot, so I know you know this to be true.
The only question is whether REF have a majority or we have REF/CON coalition government. But Labour is finished and therefore so is the BBC,
It certainly seems unlikely, and I am sure that it needs a change of direction and leadership, but it isnt impossible.
Dont forget that the alternatives are also thought either loathsome or useless and someone has to win.
"Ferrari chairman John Elkann says the company's Formula 1 drivers Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc "need to focus on driving and talk less"."
The drivers aren't the problem. The car is. Plank wear, endless lift and coast, a fundamental suspension change that saw some go from challenging for the title to scrabbling for second, none of that is down to the drivers.
As someone may have said yesterday…
Raikonnen, Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton. So they’ve hired four world champions in the last 15 years, none of whom have won a title for the Scuderia, but now it’s a driver problem?
Ask Toto (and the record books!) about Lewis, and ask a number of other TPs who have looked at Charles.
Elkann for the lift and coast award!
How many times have Ferrari had a car doing well and then done a Keystone Cops pit-stop or strategy decision over the past few years..
Meanwhile, in "you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" news,
One of the main reasons the UK has historically been so much less polarised than the US, is that Britain has a shared source of information, consumed and trusted by most people regardless of their politics...
...It’s not just that the BBC is widely consumed — it also has solid trust on both left & right, whereas trust in the biggest US media brands is hugely polarised.
For most of the time I worked on Newsnight a lively spirit of contrarianism, an ability to set aside one’s own prejudices, a commitment to seeking a diversity of views, and having a longer production day in which to debate a topic, worked in our favour. It was balanced on most issues, particularly domestic politics.
But more recently, and in common with every other big developed world news organisation I know, generational change brought a younger, more dirigiste kind of progressivism onto the team. The language of ‘lived experience’, ‘don’t be a bystander’, and formulas such as ‘silence is violence’, entered the editorial conversation.
Thus I was in a meeting where one producer with strong views on trans issues tried to veto an interview bid for JK Rowling, saying she was “very problematic” (she didn’t want to come on anyway). On different occasion another of our journalists told Rod Liddle, who did make it on to the show, to his face that they were dead against inviting him on, triggering a (justified) complaint from the columnist.
So the culture wars have been raging away in newsrooms during recent years at the BBC. And on issues like Gaza, where so many Muslims and Jews hold impassioned views, I know managing this has been a nightmare for bosses at the Corporation.
And when it comes to criticism from the wider world, people at our public broadcaster have grown so weary of attacks from pressure group with axes to grind that it has produced a bunker mentality. From the Scottish cyber-nats, to the Brexiteers, vaccine sceptics, trans lobby or those angry about Gaza, they heap scorn and often abuse on BBC journalists.
Inevitably, this causes defensiveness and sometimes in my experience even a tendency to ignore complaints in the hope they’ll go away. And in an understaffed organisation in which answering angry members of the public can soak up much of an editor’s day that’s understandable even if it isn’t right.
They allowed themselves to be taken over by the blue haired they/thems.
The truth about impartiality at the BBC And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
Like the petty criminal caught shoplifting at Poundland. It was dreadful. And importantly it’s not about Trump, it’s about integrity. To dismiss this as well that person isn’t very trustworthy anyway, and do we really believe he didn’t mean it, what does it matter if we splice things together to make it sound like what we want it to be? I believe this isn’t too far away from the Police’s defence of fitting up the Birmingham 6.
An early casualty in this was Radio 5. It all changed around 2014/15. It was traditionally, a bit white van man/ sports/talk/current affairs. Low brow stuff, but had a target audience and it fit. Something changed, and it was almost overnight it became the opposite. It felt like a deliberate conversation had taken place that, not only do we want new audiences, but we want to chase away our rather embarrassing mirror/sun/star reading current listeners.
As an avid listener who did a lot of driving, I just stopped listening to it. And every now and then I would go back, and put it on. There would be a discussion about period poverty, racist pillar boxes and why transsexual prostitutes in Indonesia are the true victims of climate change.
They were chasing a new audience, which they are free to do of course, and I was free to go somewhere else.
The truth about impartiality at the BBC And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
Like the petty criminal caught shoplifting at Poundland. It was dreadful. And importantly it’s not about Trump, it’s about integrity. To dismiss this as well that person isn’t very trustworthy anyway, and do we really believe he didn’t mean it, what does it matter if we splice things together to make it sound like what we want it to be? I believe this isn’t too far away from the Police’s defence of fitting up the Birmingham 6.
Yes, Trump is a liar, a crook, a misogynist and much else besides. He is beneath contempt and America was incredibly foolish to re-elect someone who had such a clear disregard for the law or truth. But the BBC should not hold itself to his standards, it should hold to its own and here it has fallen considerably short of that. That is much more important than any alleged defamation of Trump and our government's attempts to supplicant itself to him are frankly turning my stomach.
The truth about impartiality at the BBC And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
Like the petty criminal caught shoplifting at Poundland. It was dreadful. And importantly it’s not about Trump, it’s about integrity. To dismiss this as well that person isn’t very trustworthy anyway, and do we really believe he didn’t mean it, what does it matter if we splice things together to make it sound like what we want it to be? I believe this isn’t too far away from the Police’s defence of fitting up the Birmingham 6.
A ridiculous comparison.
Do you really deny that Trump continues to lie to this day about the 2020 election, and his role in the aftermath ?
I have never defended the edit - and nor does Goodall, though his view is more lenient than mine. His essential point, though, remains sound.
The person "isn't very trustworthy" ? Trump is the most brazen liar of our times, and practices media intimidation on an institutional scale.
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
There's no case in the US. These were the actual words of the President. Now, were they cut to make him look more guilty? Yes.
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
Libel has a far superior construction in the US compared to the UK where the bar is far too low though
The truth about impartiality at the BBC And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
Like the petty criminal caught shoplifting at Poundland. It was dreadful. And importantly it’s not about Trump, it’s about integrity. To dismiss this as well that person isn’t very trustworthy anyway, and do we really believe he didn’t mean it, what does it matter if we splice things together to make it sound like what we want it to be? I believe this isn’t too far away from the Police’s defence of fitting up the Birmingham 6.
The truth about impartiality at the BBC And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
Like the petty criminal caught shoplifting at Poundland. It was dreadful. And importantly it’s not about Trump, it’s about integrity. To dismiss this as well that person isn’t very trustworthy anyway, and do we really believe he didn’t mean it, what does it matter if we splice things together to make it sound like what we want it to be? I believe this isn’t too far away from the Police’s defence of fitting up the Birmingham 6.
It's an unbelievable argument, and it's a real test of who is genuinely sensible of our left-leaning posters and who has let hyper-partisanship consume their common sense.
I dislike Joe Biden as a poltiical figure, and thought he was seriously unwell throughout most of his term, a fact that was (poorly) concealed from the US public. But I do remember commenting here that a certain piece of footage on social media had been edited to show him as more doddery than he was, and that is what all sensible should do - unless you want to be lied to all the time. It isn't an OK lie just because it confirms your original opinions.
But my understanding is that in the US to win a defamation case you mistakenly not only prove that the statement is untrue and libellous but that you were acting with malice. That is quite a high bar.
Also the US has stated that US courts will not automatically recognise libel judgments of the UK courts because they do not meet the high standards of US press freedom and First Amendment rights.
So Trump might not win the US courts and if he won in the UK courts might not be able to enforce. (Not that I'd expect him to sue in the UK.)
There's no case in the US. These were the actual words of the President. Now, were they cut to make him look more guilty? Yes.
But if that constitutes libel, then the vast majority of US political attack adverts, which similarly take remarks out of context, are then equally guilty.
Libel has a far superior construction in the US compared to the UK where the bar is far too low though
Given that Trump said everything in the same talk / rant I would love to see what UK libel laws would make of it - unless the second half of the video cut out a negative.
The truth about impartiality at the BBC And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
Like the petty criminal caught shoplifting at Poundland. It was dreadful. And importantly it’s not about Trump, it’s about integrity. To dismiss this as well that person isn’t very trustworthy anyway, and do we really believe he didn’t mean it, what does it matter if we splice things together to make it sound like what we want it to be? I believe this isn’t too far away from the Police’s defence of fitting up the Birmingham 6.
The truth about impartiality at the BBC And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true ...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
Like the petty criminal caught shoplifting at Poundland. It was dreadful. And importantly it’s not about Trump, it’s about integrity. To dismiss this as well that person isn’t very trustworthy anyway, and do we really believe he didn’t mean it, what does it matter if we splice things together to make it sound like what we want it to be? I believe this isn’t too far away from the Police’s defence of fitting up the Birmingham 6.
It's an unbelievable argument, and it's a real test of who is genuinely sensible of our left-leaning posters and who has let hyper-partisanship consume their common sense.
I dislike Joe Biden as a political figure, and thought he was seriously unwell throughout most of his term, a fact that was (poorly) concealed from the US public. But I do remember commenting here that a certain piece of footage on social media had been edited to show him as more doddery than he was, and that is what all sensible should do - unless you want to be lied to all the time. It isn't an OK lie just because it confirms your original opinions.
An early casualty in this was Radio 5. It all changed around 2014/15. It was traditionally, a bit white van man/ sports/talk/current affairs. Low brow stuff, but had a target audience and it fit. Something changed, and it was almost overnight it became the opposite. It felt like a deliberate conversation had taken place that, not only do we want new audiences, but we want to chase away our rather embarrassing mirror/sun/star reading current listeners.
As an avid listener who did a lot of driving, I just stopped listening to it. And every now and then I would go back, and put it on. There would be a discussion about period poverty, racist pillar boxes and why transsexual prostitutes in Indonesia are the true victims of climate change.
They were chasing a new audience, which they are free to do of course, and I was free to go somewhere else.
I am not sure that they ever effectively replaced Peter Allen. He gave the Drive program some rigour, some context and some balance. It really hasn't been the same since.
An early casualty in this was Radio 5. It all changed around 2014/15. It was traditionally, a bit white van man/ sports/talk/current affairs. Low brow stuff, but had a target audience and it fit. Something changed, and it was almost overnight it became the opposite. It felt like a deliberate conversation had taken place that, not only do we want new audiences, but we want to chase away our rather embarrassing mirror/sun/star reading current listeners.
As an avid listener who did a lot of driving, I just stopped listening to it. And every now and then I would go back, and put it on. There would be a discussion about period poverty, racist pillar boxes and why transsexual prostitutes in Indonesia are the true victims of climate change.
They were chasing a new audience, which they are free to do of course, and I was free to go somewhere else.
I am not sure that they ever effectively replaced Peter Allen. He gave the Drive program some rigour, some context and some balance. It really hasn't been the same since.
He was pretty good. The replacements not so much, though CumberlandGap's caricature of the station is also pretty daft.
An early casualty in this was Radio 5. It all changed around 2014/15. It was traditionally, a bit white van man/ sports/talk/current affairs. Low brow stuff, but had a target audience and it fit. Something changed, and it was almost overnight it became the opposite. It felt like a deliberate conversation had taken place that, not only do we want new audiences, but we want to chase away our rather embarrassing mirror/sun/star reading current listeners.
As an avid listener who did a lot of driving, I just stopped listening to it. And every now and then I would go back, and put it on. There would be a discussion about period poverty, racist pillar boxes and why transsexual prostitutes in Indonesia are the true victims of climate change.
They were chasing a new audience, which they are free to do of course, and I was free to go somewhere else.
I am not sure that they ever effectively replaced Peter Allen. He gave the Drive program some rigour, some context and some balance. It really hasn't been the same since.
I must have spent hundreds of hours listening to Peter Allan, back in my road warrior days two decades ago. Simon Mayo as well.
"Prescott stresses he has never been a member of a political party and that his views “do not come with any political agenda” in the introduction to his 8,000-word note. Yet each criticism of BBC coverage comes from the anti-progressive culture-war playbook."
A lot of us must have watched thousands of BBC news broadcasts over the years presented by people like Moira Stuart, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Buerk, Andrew Harvey, Sue Lawley, Peter Sissons, Anna Ford, Nicholas Witchell, Martyn Lewis, Philip Hayton, etc, and the amazing thing is that I never had the slightest idea what the political opinions were of any of those journalists. It's incredible when you think about it. The BBC were so good at being impartial and un-biased. I still think they mostly are today, but not quite in the perfect way they used to be. What a generation of presenters they were.
It has to be said that Nicholas Witchell was conspicuously more royalist than the King
I fear there’s going to be an outbreak of yet another British disease, golden ageism. ‘Ar, why can’t we get back to a state broadcaster that makes stars of paedos and covers up all kinds of bad shit about the establishment?’
It's remarkable the BBC screwed up in this way. Trump's said a lot of nonsense. You don't need to edit things to make that the case.
In a world of social media and AI, a good reputation is a priceless asset.
News organisations have got into the habit of heavily editing Trump because the way he talks is rambling and incoherent.
This editing is normally to Trump's benefit. It's part of what critics have called the sanewashing of Trump, where critics' have asked news organisations to simply broadcast Trump unedited.
This sounds like the same sort of thing, except that the meaning extracted from rambling incoherence was a treasonous one. I can understand how the mistake was made.
A lot of us must have watched thousands of BBC news broadcasts over the years presented by people like Moira Stuart, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Buerk, Andrew Harvey, Sue Lawley, Peter Sissons, Anna Ford, Nicholas Witchell, Martyn Lewis, Philip Hayton, etc, and the amazing thing is that I never had the slightest idea what the political opinions were of any of those journalists. It's incredible when you think about it. The BBC were so good at being impartial and un-biased. I still think they mostly are today, but not quite in the perfect way they used to be. What a generation of presenters they were.
It has to be said that Nicholas Witchell was conspicuously more royalist than the King
I fear there’s going to be an outbreak of yet another British disease, golden ageism. ‘Ar, why can’t we get back to a state broadcaster that makes stars of paedos and covers up all kinds of bad shit about the establishment?’
Two bits of golden-ageism;
The best golden age is my young adulthood; everything was great then, and not just my body and social life.
The second-best golden age is my time of maximum prestige and power. It is a disgrace that foolish youngsters who don't understand anything are trying to depose me.
Comments
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldsctech/192/19202.htm
House of Lords report into science and innovation, why the UK is good at the inventing bit yet all the money arising from these inventions ends up overseas.
TL:DR
https://x.com/alanjlsmith/status/1987823535394291931
UK Innovation Is Bleeding To Death:
The House of Lords Science & Tech Committee just dropped a brutal 2025 report:
“We’re world-class at inventing… and world-class at losing it.”
- DeepMind? London-born. Google’s now.
- Arm? Cambridge chip genius. SoftBank owned.
- Graphcore? Bristol AI unicorn. Folded into SoftBank – 500+ UK jobs gone.
- Skyscanner? Edinburgh unicorn. £1.4B to Chinese Ctrip - control vanished.
- Hopin? £4B peak in London. Liquidated UK ops in 2024 to chase US scale.
This isn’t bad luck. It’s a system failure.
I suppose you can’t rule out gross incompetence
Buried inside the deal to reopen government is a provision that would give Senators private right of action to sue for millions in damages over their phone records being analyzed by Jack Smith's team.
https://x.com/benjaminpenn/status/1987978386451628405
https://x.com/maria_drutska/status/1988033291380027626
That one has a bit of a smoking problem, it’s gone up at least three times now.
Quite a few US states also have a one year limit - not Florida, though, where it's two.
The truth about impartiality at the BBC
And the hysteria of the current "crisis"
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-impartiality-at-the?r=4i04j3&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
...There have been real and appalling scandals in the BBC’s recent history. This is not one of them. Any sane political/media environment would treat it as what it is: a minor, to the point of trivial embarrassment. Instead the reaction has been hysterical. The edit in question was clearly a mistake. It was unfair to Trump because it gave the impression of his saying something that he did not. But how much does it matter? Did the edit fundamentally mislead the viewer about the events of that period and Trump’s role within them? Can anyone credibly claim that the overall subject and critique of the documentary was not based in truth and fact? 1) Donald Trump lied about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. In so doing he introduced a toxin into American politics which will take a generation to exorcise. 2) Trump did incite the mob on January 6th. Put simply, had he not lied about the election, they would never have been there in the first place...
...Instead of some proportion from much of the British media class, we are treated to the tragicomic absurdity of a former British prime minister willing to admonish the national broadcaster and demand the resignation of its Director General, all in the name of defending Donald Trump’s reputation for truth-telling. But it’s worse than that- it is a textbook example of how populists win. We have the ridiculous carnival of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, of all people, admonishing the BBC for its lack of integrity. And they can get away with it, because no-one expects anything from them and yet we expect everything from the people and places who actually give a damn..
This resonates:
..When I was there, at the height of Boris Johnson’s strength, that fear was ubiquitous. Scripts were sometimes written with a view not solely to their impartiality or truth, but the management of perception of impartiality from one side of the spectrum. On one particularly depressing occasion, on a night when some aspect or other of Covid policy, after I refused to add any more qualification to an already nebulous script, a senior editor asked me what the Prime Minister (Johnson) might say if he saw the piece. He implied that he might accuse us of bias. I replied that I didn’t care, so long as we were confident we were not and had been fair. The beads of sweat were almost visible as he walked away. On another occasion, a BBC executive forbade me from writing for the New Statesman, imploring me to ask The Spectator instead, saying that would be perfectly fine. This sort of thing was commonplace. Moreover as the media and political environment has moved rightward, the BBC is still in its usual bland, mushy central position, with its boring set of dispositions- but it seems more left wing by default. It hasn’t moved- the environment has and continues to do so. But the biggest sin the BBC has in my experience, is that the BBC isn’t that political at all, that it doesn’t have enough truly political people of any type. It should more arch liberals, conservatives, socialists- so long as they can and are willing to think critically. Instead, it too often chooses not to think at all, because it’s easier, and safer- the intellectual crouch position. But that is precisely because it has been so terrified by the criticism it receives. The safe place for output is the stodgy and inoffensive, the twee and the banal. Is it institutionally biased? No. Is it institutionally unimaginative and insufficiently curious to all radical political ideas? Yes. Is it now institutionally risk averse? Yes...>/i>
..As one senior BBC figure put it to me: “I think we all really know that Robbie is behind this latest shitshow don’t we?” (something “friends of Sir Robbie” deny) One thing is for certain, Gibb, Grossman and Prescott appear to enjoy a wide brief to scrutinise all manner of BBC output as they see fit. Something which I know, talking to people at the corporation, has led to great disquiet.
I don’t know Prescott, but I do know Gibb and Grossman. I offer the following experiences as context to the current story and why I believe neither man is well placed to enjoy such power at the BBC, at least without proper scrutiny of their own work. ..
If it were GB News or the Guardian showing bias, no-one would care.
Mark Urban’s take is I think better than Lewis Goodall’s.
https://markurban.substack.com/p/liberal-bias-us
For most of the time I worked on Newsnight a lively spirit of contrarianism, an ability to set aside one’s own prejudices, a commitment to seeking a diversity of views, and having a longer production day in which to debate a topic, worked in our favour. It was balanced on most issues, particularly domestic politics.
But more recently, and in common with every other big developed world news organisation I know, generational change brought a younger, more dirigiste kind of progressivism onto the team. The language of ‘lived experience’, ‘don’t be a bystander’, and formulas such as ‘silence is violence’, entered the editorial conversation.
Thus I was in a meeting where one producer with strong views on trans issues tried to veto an interview bid for JK Rowling, saying she was “very problematic” (she didn’t want to come on anyway). On different occasion another of our journalists told Rod Liddle, who did make it on to the show, to his face that they were dead against inviting him on, triggering a (justified) complaint from the columnist.
So the culture wars have been raging away in newsrooms during recent years at the BBC. And on issues like Gaza, where so many Muslims and Jews hold impassioned views, I know managing this has been a nightmare for bosses at the Corporation.
And when it comes to criticism from the wider world, people at our public broadcaster have grown so weary of attacks from pressure group with axes to grind that it has produced a bunker mentality. From the Scottish cyber-nats, to the Brexiteers, vaccine sceptics, trans lobby or those angry about Gaza, they heap scorn and often abuse on BBC journalists.
Inevitably, this causes defensiveness and sometimes in my experience even a tendency to ignore complaints in the hope they’ll go away. And in an understaffed organisation in which answering angry members of the public can soak up much of an editor’s day that’s understandable even if it isn’t right.
It's remarkable the BBC screwed up in this way. Trump's said a lot of nonsense. You don't need to edit things to make that the case.
In a world of social media and AI, a good reputation is a priceless asset.
But the issue is that there was a report which reported a number of problems that wasn't acted on and then one of those stories blew up.
And remember it's the coverup / lack of progress that is what caught them out here...
This was an external production company aiui, which require careful management.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/c625eylz4kyo#comments
"Ferrari chairman John Elkann says the company's Formula 1 drivers Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc "need to focus on driving and talk less"."
The drivers aren't the problem. The car is. Plank wear, endless lift and coast, a fundamental suspension change that saw some go from challenging for the title to scrabbling for second, none of that is down to the drivers.
Raikonnen, Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton. So they’ve hired four world champions in the last 15 years, none of whom have won a title for the Scuderia, but now it’s a driver problem?
Ask Toto (and the record books!) about Lewis, and ask a number of other TPs who have looked at Charles.
Elkann for the lift and coast award!
Dont forget that the alternatives are also thought either loathsome or useless and someone has to win.
An early casualty in this was Radio 5. It all changed around 2014/15. It was traditionally, a bit white van man/ sports/talk/current affairs. Low brow stuff, but had a target audience and it fit.
Something changed, and it was almost overnight it became the opposite. It felt like a deliberate conversation had taken place that, not only do we want new audiences, but we want to chase away our rather embarrassing mirror/sun/star reading current listeners.
As an avid listener who did a lot of driving, I just stopped listening to it. And every now and then I would go back, and put it on. There would be a discussion about period poverty, racist pillar boxes and why transsexual prostitutes in Indonesia are the true victims of climate change.
They were chasing a new audience, which they are free to do of course, and I was free to go somewhere else.
Do you really deny that Trump continues to lie to this day about the 2020 election, and his role in the aftermath ?
I have never defended the edit - and nor does Goodall, though his view is more lenient than mine. His essential point, though, remains sound.
The person "isn't very trustworthy" ?
Trump is the most brazen liar of our times, and practices media intimidation on an institutional scale.
I dislike Joe Biden as a poltiical figure, and thought he was seriously unwell throughout most of his term, a fact that was (poorly) concealed from the US public. But I do remember commenting here that a certain piece of footage on social media had been edited to show him as more doddery than he was, and that is what all sensible should do - unless you want to be lied to all the time. It isn't an OK lie just because it confirms your original opinions.
I dislike Joe Biden as a political figure, and thought he was seriously unwell throughout most of his term, a fact that was (poorly) concealed from the US public. But I do remember commenting here that a certain piece of footage on social media had been edited to show him as more doddery than he was, and that is what all sensible should do - unless you want to be lied to all the time. It isn't an OK lie just because it confirms your original opinions.
The replacements not so much, though CumberlandGap's caricature of the station is also pretty daft.
NEW THREAD
"Prescott stresses he has never been a member of a political party and that his views “do not come with any political agenda” in the introduction to his 8,000-word note. Yet each criticism of BBC coverage comes from the anti-progressive culture-war playbook."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/09/bbc-attack-trump-telegraph-tories-tim-davie-resignation
‘Ar, why can’t we get back to a state broadcaster that makes stars of paedos and covers up all kinds of bad shit about the establishment?’
This editing is normally to Trump's benefit. It's part of what critics have called the sanewashing of Trump, where critics' have asked news organisations to simply broadcast Trump unedited.
This sounds like the same sort of thing, except that the meaning extracted from rambling incoherence was a treasonous one. I can understand how the mistake was made.
The best golden age is my young adulthood; everything was great then, and not just my body and social life.
The second-best golden age is my time of maximum prestige and power. It is a disgrace that foolish youngsters who don't understand anything are trying to depose me.