Forum menu
People have contrasted the BBC to other media outlets that have an interest in undermining it, but no one has claimed they are either truly independent or radical
Being a less radical but more trusted propogandist makes them more dangerous.
Through these attacks the BBC is pictured in peoples minds as being a thorn in the governments side. They want to be seen to be attacking the BBC, because that increases the BBC's credibility and allows their narrative to be transmitted through the BBC with less public questioning.
It's partly a dead cat, partly an attempt to undermine the BBC generally. There is a huge amount of hypocrisy being displayed by the (non-BBC) media and others. William's statement was bizarre, portraying his mother as a mentally unstable woman with no agency of her own and conveniently ignoring his father's part in the whole saga. He has really joined 'The Firm' and is defending the indefensible - unlike his brother. It's worth remembering that Diana herself was very pleased to have given that interview and never showed any signs of regret.
But basically, it was 25 years ago, involved someone who is now dead and a number of people no longer in post at the BBC, and there are so many far more important things to be worrying about right now, so WGAS?
There's probably something in there about holding the BBC to account or something that people should care about in principle. In practice though I can't really see why anyone should care now (although that applied at the time too) - seems more about making the BBC look bad than anything else.
But basically, it was 25 years ago, involved someone who is now dead and a number of people no longer in post at the BBC, and there are so many far more important things to be worrying about right now, so WGAS?
+1
The Tories are jumping on the bandwagon as they want to turn the BBC into a soviet style propaganda machine.
I'm genuinely confused by people thinking the BBC is already a government propaganda machine.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Yeah, Martin Bashir should definitely not have hacked that dead schoolgirl's phone.
Oh ...
Wait ....
It’s worth remembering that Diana herself was very pleased to have given that interview and never showed any signs of regret.
I think the Public and certain bits of the print media have a really bizarre relationship with Royalty. On the one hand they are overly protective of the people in it and the institution as a whole, whilst simultaneously being utterly fascinated and beholden to stories of the terrible family disfunction at it's heart. Despite the faux outrage and horrific editorials the Paper owners know full well that their business model would be most likely finished if the royals ever did just disappear.
I think half the outrage aimed at the BEEB is the slightly sickening thought that they're worried that the BBC will be better at the god-awful coverage than they are...But the BBC are sometimes their own worst enemy, had they dealt with this properly in the 90's it wouldn't be used as a stick to beat them with now.
Yeah, Martin Bashir should definitely not have hacked that dead schoolgirl’s phone.Oh …
Wait ….
Not aimed at you DRJ, but For pity's sake. There are a set of people, let's call them the left and the liberal middle, in this country who are still reeling over the fact that the Government and its media supporters have the moral compass of a ****ing roulette wheel.
These people still expect the best to come out of those who voted for this Government once they see the Government for what it is, that they will see the light, that their moral compass will re-set itself. Its is foolish to think this way.
It doesn't matter to the people who matter whether Johnson did this or that, they know what he is, it doesn't matter whether the press did this or that, and the list goes on, the people who matter only care about eroding the trust the BBC has with the public. They aren't going to destroy it...yet, its far too useful in the culture war and a very useful dead cat.
You ain’t seen nothing yet.
I fear you are right.
Being a less radical but more trusted propogandist makes them more dangerous.
Rightio. Sounds like they are dammed either way with that approach.
Sounds like they are dammed either way with that approach.
The organisation you want died many years ago, if it ever existed at all. All I am saying is that people need to stop believing in a mythical authoritative and trustworthy beast, and just accept what it is, part of the same machine as all the rest of the media and institutions that make up a rather dishonest and corrupt system.
I can only echo what others have said.
Do I care about a 25 year old story about "Princess Di"? No.
Is what Martin Bashir did the worst thing a journalist has ever done to get a story? Oh god no, It wouldn't make the top 100 list if the truth was known.
I personally don't think the interview would have gone any other way if they hadn't used the false statements to get it, frankly the way things were going back then, I'm sure the interview would have happened one way or another.
I do wonder why, 25 years later they were suddenly able to gain a full public enquiry into something the Police have said has no chance of ever becoming a criminal case.
Who does it serve? Well, the Royals are able to divert some attention from that whole Harry and Megan thing, "oh here, see Diana was coerced into saying mean things about us".
The Government get another big story to bury others, like Boris missing Cobra meetings to write a book, the other Media outlets get another dig at the BBC etc.