I think the complaint is the footage edited for the news report removed any laughter, even though is was clearly edited to be clipped for a news report as you'd expect.
The BBC attracting the usual complaints of bias from all sides though, so as usual doing their job it appears.
Also will be interesting how the ratings for the 7 way and Head to Head debate compare to the QT special. From the few comments I saw that were about the format rather than the politics there seemed to be agreement that one by one Q&As worked better than a head to head debate.
My understanding is that it was a little bit different than just editing out the laughter.
As Boris answers the question, he pauses and stumbles over the first few words, which is what causes people to laugh. After the laughter, he appears more confident in his answer.
Thus it changes his appearance from being a little hesitant about answering the question, to making him seem immediately confident in his answer.
While it's obvious that stuff such as the laughter should be removed normally, I do think during an election period, when it is important to get a good look at all the leaders (and there are people who will have watched the news without seeing the debate) and not give a misleading impression of what happened.
EDIT: Also just seen this. Asa or Charlie, I've remove this if needed but I would argue it seems serious.
John Sweeney, a BBC investigative reporter, has turned whistleblower and filed a complaint against the corporation with Ofcom, the broadcasting watchdog. He alleges investigations into Labour’s Lord Mandelson, the former Tory cabinet minister John Whittingdale, the Brexit funder Arron Banks, the oligarch Roman Abramovich and the far-right activist Tommy Robinson were all dropped.
In a hard-hitting letter to Sharon White, Ofcom’s chief executive, Sweeney says he worked on a Newsnight investigation of Mandelson in 2017 that led to the former cabinet minister changing his Lords register to show a shareholding in a Russian firm worth about £400,000. The investigation was never broadcast.
Sweeney accuses James Harding, the former BBC head of news, of making a “direct intervention” to stop the broadcast.
Sweeney also refers to investigations that he did not work on, including a Panorama programme on Abramovich and a BBC News investigation of Banks.
He left the BBC last year after 17 years amid controversy over his unbroadcast film on Robinson. One of Robinson’s aides secretly made a rival “documentary” and embarrassed him by showing footage of the reporter drinking on “expenses”. He says he paid for all the drinks himself. He insists the programme should have been broadcast anyway.
Sweeney writes: “BBC management, led by director-general Tony Hall, has become so risk-averse in the face of threats from the far-right and the Russian state and its proxies that due impartiality is being undermined and investigative journalism is being endangered.”
Last edited by TIGHazard on 24 November 2019 11:25am
I doubt it needs to be removed you talking about presentation, IE you highlighted how the BBC has presented a clip. Alas the BBC has once again shot itself in the foot.
I think the complaint is the footage edited for the news report removed any laughter, even though is was clearly edited to be clipped for a news report as you'd expect.
The BBC attracting the usual complaints of bias from all sides though, so as usual doing their job it appears.
Also will be interesting how the ratings for the 7 way and Head to Head debate compare to the QT special. From the few comments I saw that were about the format rather than the politics there seemed to be agreement that one by one Q&As worked better than a head to head debate.
My understanding is that it was a little bit different than just editing out the laughter.
As Boris answers the question, he pauses and stumbles over the first few words, which is what causes people to laugh. After the laughter, he appears more confident in his answer.
Thus it changes his appearance from being a little hesitant about answering the question, to making him seem immediately confident in his answer.
While it's obvious that stuff such as the laughter should be removed normally, I do think during an election period, when it is important to get a good look at all the leaders (and there are people who will have watched the news without seeing the debate) and not give a misleading impression of what happened.
EDIT: Also just seen this. Asa or Charlie, I've remove this if needed but I would argue it seems serious.
John Sweeney, a BBC investigative reporter, has turned whistleblower and filed a complaint against the corporation with Ofcom, the broadcasting watchdog. He alleges investigations into Labour’s Lord Mandelson, the former Tory cabinet minister John Whittingdale, the Brexit funder Arron Banks, the oligarch Roman Abramovich and the far-right activist Tommy Robinson were all dropped.
In a hard-hitting letter to Sharon White, Ofcom’s chief executive, Sweeney says he worked on a Newsnight investigation of Mandelson in 2017 that led to the former cabinet minister changing his Lords register to show a shareholding in a Russian firm worth about £400,000. The investigation was never broadcast.
Sweeney accuses James Harding, the former BBC head of news, of making a “direct intervention” to stop the broadcast.
Sweeney also refers to investigations that he did not work on, including a Panorama programme on Abramovich and a BBC News investigation of Banks.
He left the BBC last year after 17 years amid controversy over his unbroadcast film on Robinson. One of Robinson’s aides secretly made a rival “documentary” and embarrassed him by showing footage of the reporter drinking on “expenses”. He says he paid for all the drinks himself. He insists the programme should have been broadcast anyway.
Sweeney writes: “BBC management, led by director-general Tony Hall, has become so risk-averse in the face of threats from the far-right and the Russian state and its proxies that due impartiality is being undermined and investigative journalism is being endangered.”
Sounds like there were not happy being called out on certain points.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7719001/To-think-Prince-Andrew-reckoned-Boris-Johnson-pickle.html
According to this Tory spin doctors are not putting up figures for Kay Burley's show after the empty chair incident.
I know there are strict regulations on Election Day but can broadcasters say its Election Day, get out and vote and show the party leaders voting themselves?
I think most UK broadcasters won't say 'get out and vote' but they can show polling stations, say that people and leaders are voting. Twitter turns into 'Dogs at polling stations'
BM
BM11
Those suggesting the BBC is trying to suppress the Prime Minister’s encounter with the public on Friday night ignore the fact that the entire thing was broadcast in evening prime time by, er, the BBC!
No, Boris Johnson didn’t wear a hidden earpiece on #BBCQT. He just has a weird flap of skin in his right ear that sometimes gets picked up by lights and camera flashes. pic.twitter.com/OK2ki2ZikS
I know there are strict regulations on Election Day but can broadcasters say its Election Day, get out and vote and show the party leaders voting themselves?
I think most UK broadcasters won't say 'get out and vote' but they can show polling stations, say that people and leaders are voting. Twitter turns into 'Dogs at polling stations'
Well if the BBC were hoping the Question Time edit outrage would be smaller scale than the cenotaph one, they'll be disappointed. It's now front page of Reddit. And full of overseas viewers talking about how they will no longer trust BBC World News to be impartial. The cenotaph problem only gained outrage here.
Whether the BBC like it or not, there are people who wait all day to attack them over perceived biases and although this report was fixed in the evening and late news airings, I strongly believe that no editing of politicians answers should be done for timing reasons, at least during an election period and that such a policy should be put in place for the reminder of this election coverage.
Well if the BBC were hoping the Question Time edit outrage would be smaller scale than the cenotaph one, they'll be disappointed. It's now front page of Reddit. And full of overseas viewers talking about how they will no longer trust BBC World News to be impartial. The cenotaph problem only gained outrage here.
Whether the BBC like it or not, there are people who wait all day to attack them over perceived biases and although this report was fixed in the evening and late news airings, I strongly believe that no editing of politicians answers should be done for timing reasons, at least during an election period and that such a policy should be put in place for the reminder of this election coverage.
Some complants also that parties making pledges on the BBC makes it harder for the BBC to say to the likes of Russia we not an arm of government unlike your broadcaster.
Well if the BBC were hoping the Question Time edit outrage would be smaller scale than the cenotaph one, they'll be disappointed. It's now front page of Reddit. And full of overseas viewers talking about how they will no longer trust BBC World News to be impartial. The cenotaph problem only gained outrage here.
Are you serious? The same site that acts as a breeding ground for the alt-right and "men's rights activists"?
Well if the BBC were hoping the Question Time edit outrage would be smaller scale than the cenotaph one, they'll be disappointed. It's now front page of Reddit.
Ah Reddit...no tin foil hats there. Up there with Infowars. Get a grip mate
