BBC's Martin Bashir to be found guilty of deceit.

[CeramicMX5ND2]

On Sky News Press Preview tonight according to The Daily Telegraph, a report finds BBC's Martin Bashir is to be found guilty of deceit in procuring the late Princess Diana interview back in 1995.
If this is confirmed on Thursday the repercussions for the BBC look very serious...

The Daily Mail's take on the story...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9598097/M...

Edited by CeramicMX5ND2 on Thursday 20th May 12:30

[Ridgemont]

CeramicMX5ND2 said:

According to The Daily Telegraph, the BBC's Martin Bashir is to found guilty of deceit in getting the late Princess Diana interview back in 1995.
If this is confirmed on Thursday the repercussions for the BBC look very serious... This story has just broke on Sky News Press Review and will no doubt be discussed further at 11.30pm tonight...

Given the run of events after that, I don’t know how the BBC will handle the fall out. Bashir has gone, but there will be an awful lot of egg on face for those BBC heads that absolutely bathed in the reflected glory of the original interview (John Birt and Tony Hall especially).
This is going to run and run.

[CeramicMX5ND2]

Ridgemont said:

Given the run of events after that, I don’t know how the BBC will handle the fall out. Bashir has gone, but there will be an awful lot of egg on face for those BBC heads that absolutely bathed in the reflected glory of the original interview (John Birt and Tony Hall especially).
This is going to run and run.

If Princes William and Harry go after the BBC with Diana's brother Earl Charles Spencer, this could get quite mucky..

[Biggy Stardust]

"To be found guilty"? Verdicts are decided in advance?

Is this UK or Cardassia?

[Ronstein]

Rather misleading thread title. It's a report, not a trial, so the findings in the report being leaked aren't the same as someone being declared guilty before the verdict, but I suspect you know that already

[Biggy Stardust]

Ronstein said:

Rather misleading thread title. It's a report, not a trial, so the findings in the report being leaked aren't the same as someone being declared guilty before the verdict, but I suspect you know that already

It was indeed a comment on the thread title.

[G7orge]

more from the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57189371

[anonymoususer]

Bashir is a snide and should be hung out to dry

[DeejRC]

He was a journalist and he got the story. 20 yrs ago.

Im not totally sure why so many are up in arms about it.

[bitchstewie]

Presumably because you don't expect BBC reporters to mock up fake documents to help persuade a member of the Royal Family with what were arguably mental health and security issues to give a "tell all" interview.

It's the kind of thing you expect from other media outlets.

Throw in the royal angle and the "grrr BBC" (see what I did there? ) nature of many on here and it's not surprising people think it's poor.

Honestly it's disgusting that he did that.

[sugerbear]

DeejRC said:

He was a journalist and he got the story. 20 yrs ago.

Im not totally sure why so many are up in arms about it.

BBC innit. If he had just hacked her phone instead it would be all ok.

[DeejRC]

I expect most reporters to do most anything.

Ive also found those who are interested in publicity rarely need much of an excuse to do anything.

[Mezzanine]

DeejRC said:

He was a journalist and he got the story. 20 yrs ago.

Im not totally sure why so many are up in arms about it.

I don’t really understand the reemergence of this story either.

Are we systematically going back in time to cancel everything that wasn’t 100% legitimate now as well as trying to sanitise modern culture.

Why the need for endless self-flagellation over a long dead story/‘victim’?

[AJL308]

G7orge said:

more from the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57189371

Mr Bashir said mocking up the documents "was a stupid thing to do" and he regretted it, but said they had no bearing on Diana's decision to be interviewed.

That's pathetic! Whether it had any bearing or not is entirely irrelevant - they did it with the intent that it would.

[Randy Winkman]

Mezzanine said:

DeejRC said:

He was a journalist and he got the story. 20 yrs ago.

Im not totally sure why so many are up in arms about it.

I don’t really understand the reemergence of this story either.

Are we systematically going back in time to cancel everything that wasn’t 100% legitimate now as well as trying to sanitise modern culture.

Why the need for endless self-flagellation over a long dead story/‘victim’?

That's what I think. Surely we know that journalists are going to lie to get stories. But I suppose it's the BBC, so it's a big deal for the right-wing media.

[Mezzanine]

Randy Winkman said:

Mezzanine said:

DeejRC said:

He was a journalist and he got the story. 20 yrs ago.

Im not totally sure why so many are up in arms about it.

I don’t really understand the reemergence of this story either.

Are we systematically going back in time to cancel everything that wasn’t 100% legitimate now as well as trying to sanitise modern culture.

Why the need for endless self-flagellation over a long dead story/‘victim’?

That's what I think. Surely we know that journalists are going to lie to get stories. But I suppose it's the BBC, so it's a big deal for the right-wing media.

Savile and Sachsgate have really left a lasting legacy at the BBC.

The BBC should put a bit more fibre in their bowl stand up for themselves.

A journalist used ‘deceitful’ methods to get a story is not a story if it happened yesterday, let alone 20 years ago!

[stitched]

Mezzanine said:

Randy Winkman said:

Mezzanine said:

DeejRC said:

He was a journalist and he got the story. 20 yrs ago.

Im not totally sure why so many are up in arms about it.

I don’t really understand the reemergence of this story either.

Are we systematically going back in time to cancel everything that wasn’t 100% legitimate now as well as trying to sanitise modern culture.

Why the need for endless self-flagellation over a long dead story/‘victim’?

That's what I think. Surely we know that journalists are going to lie to get stories. But I suppose it's the BBC, so it's a big deal for the right-wing media.

Savile and Sachsgate have really left a lasting legacy at the BBC.

The BBC should put a bit more fibre in their bowl stand up for themselves.

A journalist used ‘deceitful’ methods to get a story is not a story if it happened yesterday, let alone 20 years ago!

I actually disagree with this, the BBC are funded, not reliant on advertising.
The UK public fund the BBC, we should expect a higher accountability from their journalists than is prevalent in the industry.

[bitchstewie]

stitched said:

I actually disagree with this, the BBC are funded, not reliant on advertising.
The UK public fund the BBC, we should expect a higher accountability from their journalists than is prevalent in the industry.

Quite.

If it had been certain rags you might have thought it disgusting but you probably wouldn't be surprised.

You don't expect it from the BBC.

[AJL308]

stitched said:

Mezzanine said:

Randy Winkman said:

Mezzanine said:

DeejRC said:

He was a journalist and he got the story. 20 yrs ago.

Im not totally sure why so many are up in arms about it.

I don’t really understand the reemergence of this story either.

Are we systematically going back in time to cancel everything that wasn’t 100% legitimate now as well as trying to sanitise modern culture.

Why the need for endless self-flagellation over a long dead story/‘victim’?

That's what I think. Surely we know that journalists are going to lie to get stories. But I suppose it's the BBC, so it's a big deal for the right-wing media.

Savile and Sachsgate have really left a lasting legacy at the BBC.

The BBC should put a bit more fibre in their bowl stand up for themselves.

A journalist used ‘deceitful’ methods to get a story is not a story if it happened yesterday, let alone 20 years ago!

I actually disagree with this, the BBC are funded, not reliant on advertising.
The UK public fund the BBC, we should expect a higher accountability from their journalists than is prevalent in the industry.

I entirely agree. Doesn't their motto refer to speaking the truth or some such?

If they are prepared to lie and deceive then how can they complain if someone does it to them? If someone goes for a job at the BBC and lies on the application then what moral right does the BBC have to sanction them? They don't because lying to get something you want is their tactic too.

[ajprice]