91热爆

91热爆.co.uk

Talk about Newsnight

Latest programme

Thursday, 12 July, 2007

  • Newsnight
  • 12 Jul 07, 05:17 PM

By

The Queen and the 91热爆

queen.gif
How could the 91热爆 make such a mistake? We'll try to find out. Especially since it comes after the 91热爆 was fined 拢50,000 by OFCOM for misleading viewers of Blue Peter over a phone-in competition.

Iraq

I've been thumbing through the "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report" to the US Congress on Iraq. Some progress - a mixed bag. What will be the political implications when - as we reported on Tuesday - some prominent Republicans are already uneasy?

Fundraising

We're live at Wembley for a big Labour fundraising rally. How much difficulty are all the parties in when it comes to raising cash?

Turkey

One of the most important yet under-covered stories is the future of this pivotal country right between Europe and the Middle East. Elections coming up; unease in the army; Turkish troops massing on the Iraq border. We've a special report.

Comments  Post your comment

Fundraising for political party 鈥渨ar chests鈥.
At the risk of sounding like Alastair Campbell, 鈥淚 am going to go on repeating myself until someone realises I have a point.鈥 The party approach to politics not only wastes money 鈥 one lot of purchased propaganda negating an opposing lot; summing to zero 鈥 but also dilutes representation 鈥 supposedly at the heart of democracy - as MPs are 鈥渙n message鈥 before being on their mettle in constituency terms. The party battle rages behind every piece of legislation and leads to bizarre acts of social vandalism and voting nihilism. Other institutions do not run this way. Suppose major companies had rival boardrooms, each wasting money rubbishing the other? How long would the shares hold up? If we Britons had half an idea, we would sack ALL of the current lot and rebuild government with MPs of integrity 鈥 not ambition - who are sworn to form no cliques and to uphold truth and dignity. Then perhaps we could say to the wayward in our society: 鈥淲hy don鈥檛 you take your cue from our politicians?鈥 I can only hope that some disaffected general, on returning from Iraq with a few thousand hacked off squaddies, will mount a coup and re-build government without parties. Not only would it save cash but Britain might get some status back in the World.

  • 2.
  • At 07:45 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • Stranded in Babylon wrote:

The Queen's Non-Strop:

So, we're now being told the pictures of the Queen apparently leaving the photo-shoot are in fact of her entering.

The question, then, is: why, in that case, is she fuming, saying "I'm not changing anything"?

That strongly suggests someone had previously asked her to change what she was wearing.

Is it possible that the photo-shoot was actually in several sessions, so the pictures shown may well have been of her *entering* for a session, but *after* an earlier session at which she had been asked to remove her "crown"? And she's still fuming about it! Or were the "sessions" inadvertant, with the pictures shown being of the Queen coming back to resume after she had stormed out?

In which case the 91热爆's apology is, in fact, nothing more than deference to the monarch.

  • 3.
  • At 08:49 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • Peter Hughes wrote:

Whilst viewing itself as balanced and objective, the 91热爆, far from being an edgy voice from the radical sidelines, is often, perhaps unfairly, considered to be a mouthpiece of the British Establishment. Few holds are barred on Newsnight when critiquing government policy. However, the attention paid by the 91热爆, including Newsnight, to the UK monarchy addresses the agenda of reactionary people, and the tastes of people who enjoy the fantasy of pomp and celebrity. It seems to me that the royalist agenda always prevails, forever speaking over or belittling the edgy voices of alternative views.

  • 4.
  • At 09:52 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • Joseph wrote:

Nice to see the PC brigade out in force, rather then attack the Queen, I suggest you query why the 91热爆 has lied to the British Public.

Of course you cannot do this as it would insult your Republican views, although your views may be popular in Islington, I can assure you that the other 99% of the UK have total respect for OUR Queen.

There is an interesting parallel between the 鈥渇louncing queen鈥 report and the 鈥45 minutes鈥 furore; but a crucial difference. In both cases the media went wild with a false story, but only in today鈥檚 event was a correction issued. The 45 minute 鈥渕isconception鈥 was allowed to lie (I use the word advisedly) buffering from criticism Parliament鈥檚 decision for Britain to go to war with the dense shrub 鈥 Bush.
Where was McCavity Brown when the 45 minute deception needed rebuttal?

  • 6.
  • At 10:26 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • paul wrote:

On deception and/or cock-ups

Why does the 91热爆 allow another deception on "The Apprentice" that the winner from the two finalists on the programme gets chosen based solely on the programme and not as it really happens, after they both work for SIX MONTHS with Alan Sugar first??!!!

Then on "cock-ups" I still don't understand how the "decision" was made to pull the plug on Tony Blair at his final PMQs. I mean someone at the level where they have the authority to make the decision....what was the thought process???!!! please just give us a simple explanation.

  • 7.
  • At 10:50 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • Mahler wrote:

Cock-up, conspiracy or palace wobbly, why are we subjected to such lengthy coverage of an non-issue. It is very boring. Spend our licence money on something more educational or entertaining please.

  • 8.
  • At 10:54 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • Sam Scott wrote:

Talking about the Queen on Newsnight, 91热爆 Controller Peter Fincham seemed to be telling Gavin Esler that it doesn't matter if you misrepresent reality to journalists as long as you get it right for the viewers. Such a flexible approach to reality in the Controller of 91热爆 1 is frightening. Heaven help the 91热爆!

  • 9.
  • At 11:02 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • D Allan wrote:

3 programmes on cambell sums up for me why I will have to go to jail I will not pay for this **** brown bull**** corp

  • 10.
  • At 11:03 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • Mahler wrote:

When a military coup occurs it is common practice to take over the TV station. In Nu-Britain things are done with much more subtlety. We are led to believe that the 91热爆 is a leftist-leaning organisation and a thorn in the side of the establishment. In reality it is the mouthpiece and the shield of the establishment. He who pays the piper... or in this case, sets the licence fee.

  • 11.
  • At 11:06 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • Peter wrote:

What was Newsnight thinking of in having the Gavin Esler interview with Peter Fincham, 91热爆1 Controller, about offending the queen, embarrassing the queen, having to apologise to the queen, and the numerous other times and ways that Esler strung out an interview that went on and on and on and on and on in its deferential way? Was there no news tonight? Were there no other items in stock that could have been used, rather than pad out the programme in this way?

  • 12.
  • At 11:10 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • john wrote:

Dear 91热爆,


I Think you should Ban The Blue Peter Programme or Re Move it from bbc-1. The 91热爆 is to big for its boots for what we pay for the TV-Fee-ETC,
Yours John

  • 13.
  • At 11:11 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • Gavin Elliot wrote:

I agree with previous comment about the Queen. Are we to believe that she stormed INTO the shoot, complaining that she would not change anything BEFORE she had been asked? I smell a cover up- watch this space!

  • 14.
  • At 11:14 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • Giles wrote:

The controller of 91热爆1 has just stated on Newsnight that the misleading Queen footage was "not broadcast" and "only shown to select journalists", when in fact it was broadcast on 91热爆 News on Wednesday in a trailer on their Autumn programme line-up!

  • 15.
  • At 11:14 PM on 12 Jul 2007,
  • penny simpson wrote:

Having watched the Controller of Programmes being interviewed, it's easy to understand why the 91热爆 gets in such a mess. What a totally unimpressive bloke and how absolutely flabergasting that the world's leading media organisation thinks it's okay to show things to journalists, but not to the public! This guy works in media and he doesn't know what they'll pick up on?

Also, we're expected to believe that for a major pr launch for their autumn programmes, nobody had even looked at the tape they were going to show? Come of it. And if he didn't know what was on it, how come he was briefing journalists about the Queen being in a strop? This guy, and all his press office, should be sacked for total and utter incompetence.

  • 16.
  • At 12:18 AM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • Bob Goodall wrote:

Dear Newsnight

sorry to say this but I'm appalled by the Queen non -story. What does it say about all of us that this even gets a mention, it was a mistake, it happens -SO WHAT ?


and I thought it was an unfortunate question to ask someone if they should resign, easily said in our rotten society where this seems to be the norm

the person concerned loses his livelihood -for what

does anyone out there understand what all this represents? the malaise, the decay,

this story DOES NOT deserve a mention,
if you wanted to look at it the Queen looked cross, again so what, all that happened is that a film was not run in sequence

what are the consequences and results of overplaying all this?

the 91热爆 has its confidence knocked, some would like that, people become nervous, how does that play out

in the wider media, the constant tearing people down continues, what does that do to all of us and to the people and organisations concerned

and what happens to the thousands that have suffered or died around the globe whose chance of any mention in the news was pushed out by this rubbish

sorry you are way of the mark on this

tell the critics to get stuffed an assure Mr Fincham and the rest involved that their jobs are safe and get on with what you are meant to be doing
Bob

  • 17.
  • At 03:44 AM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

Many of us have said time and again that 91热爆 does not report the news accurately or fairly but skews its reports to conform to the prejudices of its reporters and managers. Up until now, 91热爆 has shrugged its shoulders and just ignored it all. But now the Queen of England herself has said the same and this time 91热爆 has taken notice. 91热爆, how about going back to the countless times you've done the same with far more important stories and apologize to the audience at large with a mea culpa and not just to the Queen you've offended. And while you're at it, how about coming up with policies that don't lead to this kind of journalistic crime against the news.

  • 18.
  • At 09:20 AM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • Stranded in Babylon wrote:

I still want to know why, if no one had raised the matter beforehand, the Queen was coming *in* to the shoot, obviously annoyed, and complaining she wasn't going to change anything.

After all the hours of broadcasting devoted to this incident no one has left me any the wiser on that point.

And I think it's an important one to address.

  • 19.
  • At 09:30 AM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • wrote:

So... Newsday, or is it night (it seems they can now be one in the same)?

Not long ago I had a pathetic, insincere, form (I have had others that are lifted from the same template - sorry for the delay, we know it's important, we've had a check, so we screwed up, so what, yadayada...) 'apology' from the 91热爆 following a complaint about a piece where what I had written got 'edited' to make it the exact reverse of what I said.

Having just had a complaint to OFCOM about an edit that featured me and my company - which turned black into white - upheld, SKY has replied in its defence to the effect that because it was only a few seconds long it doesn't matter (so showing Fidel Castro on the Grassy Knoll would be fine), and in any case it would set 'a bad precedent' for reality TV shows to accurately represent, er, reality. Astounding.

And to show this extends to every level of our current media, this is the Editor's full reply in my local paper to a letter from a reader (rightly) complaining that they edited his letter to completely change its meaning: 'Apologies to... It is not our normal practice to alter the sense of letters.'

Well all I can say is that it seems to be a pretty prevalent, abnormal practice nowadays across the whole sorry industry (even news, apparently), and getting more and more frequent as ever more sad ways are sought to drive up ratings through 'enhancing' actuality. Bear in mind that when they say 'Tell us what you think..' and you do so, that what they say you think may end up a very different version in this edit-obsessed, unaccountable, fake media age.

And now, on top of Blue Peter, etc, we have this.

I created a while ago a category on my blog called tushtissue. It refers to the gobsmacking front to try and weasel out of the fact that you were caught with your pants down. More appropriately, with them round your ankles deliberately trying to score a cheap rating, or political point, or column inch by conveying something totally untrue. And then denying it.

So, who would like to take a bet that no one, anywhere, will be found to carry the can, or bear the consequences? A myriad fingers will point in every direction, and the whole thing will get lost in the 'What's?'.

It's a sad, sad state we are in. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. Thanks 91热爆. Thanks Fleet Street. Thanks every miserable overpaid 'senior executive' out there who laps the cream but will never shoulder the pain - of their own sorry actions.

I am sure we can look forward to a bumper edition of Newswatch, where all three of those up at dawn at the weekend can review the arrogant troupe of executive 'mea not blooming culpas' for whopping abuses of editorial standards broadcast to millions during prime time, fobbing off Uncle Ray during his cozy file-size chat with the usual 'it wasn't me, or if it was it wasn't that bad, or if it was it didn't matter, or if it does who cares?'

91热爆 Trust? Interesting, oxymoronic choice of words.

You cannot lie and expect to get away with it. Repeat. You should not be able to lie and get away with it. Repeat. You can lie and get away with it.

Now that's what I call editing.

  • 20.
  • At 09:42 AM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • Bob Goodall wrote:

Dear Newsnight

I've just heard an "anonymous" email read out on 91热爆 radio by someone who says they are a 91热爆 journalist, saying some pretty unpleasant things about the 91热爆.

But how do you know this 'anonymous message' is actually from one of your own journalists and not from someone who doesnt like you and perhaps works for someone else?

Bob

  • 21.
  • At 10:35 AM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • Ed Mahony wrote:

The 91热爆 has now made a new batch of enemies (monarchists), right across the country, over the row with the queen. It wasn't as if some important news had been uncovered about the the royal family that we should all know about but that the queen has a bit of a temper. But not just this but that it appears that the sequence of events was fabricated to make the story even better. Can i just remind people that the 91热爆 is paid for by the public to make programmes of integreity (as well as creativity and innovation).
Something like this could only happen, in my view, if there was already a self-publicity policy in place that was aggressive (as opposed to moderate) in nature. The sort of policy of a commercial broadcaster (as opposed to the sort of policy that a publically-funded broadcaster should have). When the 91热爆 should really be focusing on the integrity of their content in such cases. So i don't believe this could just be a one-off but is something based on policy and management. I don't believe heads should fall but i certainly believe that the 91热爆, in light of other, recent events, needs to take a good, hard look at itslef, and remember why it exists and what it stands for.
Finally. Has the 91热爆 really changed since the Vanessa Feltz debacle - and its obsession with sensationalism, short-term popularity and ratings? At the cost of long-term respect and loyalty? Come on, this is a no brainer.
As a massive supporter of the idea of a publically-funded national braodcaster (that we call the 91热爆 - but that some in the 91热爆 seem to take for granted) i really hope that the 91热爆 wakes up and gets real.

  • 22.
  • At 10:39 AM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • andrew cramb wrote:

Scrap the licence fee, scrap the 91热爆. Why should I have to pay to listen to political propanganda under the guise of "impartiality". Get rid of the lot of them.

  • 23.
  • At 11:23 AM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • AJ Connolly wrote:

That report on Turkey last night was a bit mental.

The secularists are so not the right people to run even a sunday fair never mind a country. And the Turkish military are all your worst nightmares come to life.

I dont care how long that journalist has been in the middle east, he doesnt know squat about Turkey - he made the AK party sound like the taliban and the secular parties came across like the Women's Institute or the Liberal Democrats. The political scene in Turkey is so much more sophisticated than the trite, two dimensional caricature that was presented last night.

  • 24.
  • At 12:16 PM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • csharp wrote:

there is no such thing as bad publicity?

As the old story goes that explains the difference between promotion, advertising, publicity, public relations and marketing.

When the circus comes to town and the elephants walk down the street that is promotion, when the posters go up in the shops that is advertising, if the elephants trample the mayors rose garden that's publicity, if you can get the Mayor to laugh about it that's public relations and if you planned it all that's marketing.

So in this case the only box that was not ticked was public relations -getting people to laugh about it which means it was not planned and thus we cannot assume this was a marketing exercise?

  • 25.
  • At 12:33 PM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • Epimethean wrote:

The 91热爆 has its problems but it MUST NOT be scrapped! Have you seen the inane rubbish put out by the commercial channels punctuated but even more inane commercials?

  • 26.
  • At 12:54 PM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • wrote:

"MEA NOT BLOOMING CULPAS."
Thanks Peter - that made I larf. A perfect tag for all the rissoles running the show. I went to your site to congratulate you but you wanted me to sign up. That wasn't what I wanted - so I didn't. The outside looks nice.

  • 27.
  • At 01:03 PM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • wrote:

Oh Epimethean - thou speakest false!
The population grows ever older; average eye and ear grows weaker while mental acuity (well - up to a point) is enhanced. I say unto you, from my lofty 70 year perch, the 91热爆 has now lost any idea of self control. I have recently tried to follow two layers of speech and one of musack, all superimposed, on Radio 4, and The Daily Politics (91热爆 2) has gone all Blue Peter and
U-Tube with cutout masks and viewer photos.
"Inane rubbish" you say? Couldn't have put it better.

  • 28.
  • At 03:21 PM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • Curious George wrote:

While the impartiality of the 91热爆 is under hot debate, it's perhaps worthy of note that while any perceived left wing bias anywhere on the 91热爆 provokes frenzied jumping up and down by commentators, Newsnight's 'Broken Society' having been lifted from the Tories new touchy feely agenda (or vice versa) hasn't prompted the smallest skip.
Isn't it equally open to misinterpretation?

  • 29.
  • At 10:09 PM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • susie wrote:

It was good to see the inestimable Tim Whewell back, presenting a typically illluminating analysis of the tumltuous political scene in Turkey. An elegantly put together package on the political and religious forces at work, with the army waiting in the wings. Kayseri was a particularly well-chosen case study. And Tim seems to have a way with the scarfies.

This post is closed to new comments.

The 91热爆 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites