Martin Bashir

Orikoru said:
Silly question maybe but why did he need fake bank statements to interview Diana? I'm confused.
Click to expand...
The statements, falsely, showed that royal associates, employees etc were receiving payments from news organisations to pass on stories about Diana. It fed the narrative that the palace was working against her. From her persepective it convinced her that giving an interview was the only way to get her side of the story across.

It was sneaky yet clever. Journalism at that time was often not in a nice place. The tactics used were not honourable but were frequently forgiven as they 'got the story'. I'm not condoning this, I'm explaining journalism in the 80's and 90's as I saw it growing up. Don't fogret, Bashir was lauded for his scoop at the time, won awards etc. Other papers etc would have been fuming that he beat them to it. The bank statements were partly how he beat them.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
The statements, falsely, showed that royal associates, employees etc were receiving payments from news organisations to pass on stories about Diana. It fed the narrative that the palace was working against her. From her persepective it convinced her that giving an interview was the only way to get her side of the story across.

It was sneaky yet clever. Journalism at that time was often not in a nice place. The tactics used were not honourable but were frequently forgiven as they 'got the story'. I'm not condoning this, I'm explaining journalism in the 80's and 90's as I saw it growing up. Don't fogret, Bashir was lauded for his scoop at the time, won awards etc. Other papers etc would have been fuming that he beat them to it. The bank statements were partly how he beat them.
Click to expand...
Oh, wow. Cheers for that. In fairness I was only about 11 years old when this was all going on. :LOL:
 
Lord Tyrion said:
The statements, falsely, showed that royal associates, employees etc were receiving payments from news organisations to pass on stories about Diana. It fed the narrative that the palace was working against her. From her persepective it convinced her that giving an interview was the only way to get her side of the story across.

It was sneaky yet clever. Journalism at that time was often not in a nice place. The tactics used were not honourable but were frequently forgiven as they 'got the story'. I'm not condoning this, I'm explaining journalism in the 80's and 90's as I saw it growing up. Don't fogret, Bashir was lauded for his scoop at the time, won awards etc. Other papers etc would have been fuming that he beat them to it. The bank statements were partly how he beat them.
Click to expand...

Are the papers condemning this now the same papers that were hacking into celeb phones around the same time and subsequently?
 
Jimaroid said:
Let’s just take a moment to refresh ourselves with the scores on the dirty journalism tally.

BBC 1
Murdoch empire 11111111111111111111111111111111 etc.

Now I'm not defending Bashir but there is a convenient aspect to the timing and that which we cannot talk about in all of this.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the BBC should have two against them due to the Cliff Richard incident
 
Ethan said:
Are the papers condemning this now the same papers that were hacking into celeb phones around the same time and subsequently?
Click to expand...
The same ones. The irony meter is exploding at their fake outrage. Their real anger is that Bashir got the interview they all wanted and their journos were not as clever as he was at getting it.

The other irony I heard this morning was from politicians complaining at the BBC investigating themselves and going easy on the findings. Who is it that investigates politicians?

You have to love self righteous outrage.
 
Orikoru said:
Oh, wow. Cheers for that. In fairness I was only about 11 years old when this was all going on. :LOL:
Click to expand...

All I remember when she died is I woke my mum and said mum the cartoons aren't on some lady has died in a car crash
 
BBC is on rocky ground when it accept "any" money from sources other than flogging its output and the tax, sorry Licence Fee.

Bloated and agenda driven, when that it is not it's remit. If it wants to ditch the Licence and pursue it's agenda (like other broadcasters) so be it. But if it wants subs, it needs to adhere to its Charter.
 
Jimaroid said:
Let’s just take a moment to refresh ourselves with the scores on the dirty journalism tally.

BBC 1
Murdoch empire 11111111111111111111111111111111 etc.

Now I'm not defending Bashir but there is a convenient aspect to the timing and that which we cannot talk about in all of this.
Click to expand...

It might be a race to the bottom, but as long as the BBC is compulsorily taxing me, even though it's no longer the 1950s and we have way more options of what to watch or listen to, then I hold them to a much much higher standard. I have a choice of funding Murdoch or not. The BBC does not give me an option. The BBC want to have their cake and eat it too.
 
I haven't liked the BBC for a long time.
They seem to be too obsessed with banging their own drum and far too politically correct.
They are not accountable.
They take their public for granted.
Only Radio 3 in my opinion is better than it used to be.
 
Bashir was a lying scumbag and worse than that, two BBC investigations covered it up with the blessing of senior execs. Heads should roll.

There's an argument to say that had the investigations been done correctly, Diana's life may have turned out very differently.
 
The Dog. said:
Bashir was a lying scumbag and worse than that, two BBC investigations covered it up with the blessing of senior execs. Heads should roll.

There's an argument to say that had the investigations been done correctly, Diana's life may have turned out very differently.
Click to expand...

Really? How would things have turned out differently?
 
The BBC have long since failed to be the people's broadcaster. Look at their Brexit reporting, so biased it was farcical. Really now they should have the licence fee abolished and live off those who they can persuade to pay for their content. Failing that they should have a cull, and replace the scum at the top with fair and reasonable people.
 
chrisd said:
The BBC have long since failed to be the people's broadcaster. Look at their Brexit reporting, so biased it was farcical. Really now they should have the licence fee abolished and live off those who they can persuade to pay for their content. Failing that they should have a cull, and replace the scum at the top with fair and reasonable people.
Click to expand...
This is an anti-BBC thread and therefore almost 100% political so should be closed.
 
chrisd said:
Really now they should have the licence fee abolished and live off those who they can persuade to pay for their content. Failing that they should have a cull, and replace the scum at the top with fair and reasonable people.
Click to expand...

First sentence above can debated thoughtfully, and which I happen to agree with. But it's got nothing to do with what ones thinks of their political or editorial stance. To me, that is and should be irrelevant. Otherwise debate just devolves to a never ending political argument. It should be about what purpose the BBC fulfills in the modern world as a publicly funded universal broadcaster.
Second sentence I don't agree with. One person's "scum" is equally another person's "fair and reasonable". Beside's being pejorative, who get's to decide?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
The hype around caddies
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
jim8flog
jim8flog
Crazyface
Do Clubs Matter?
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
sunshine
S
Orikoru
Worst Ryder Cup Captains?
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
5K
Lucifer MorningStar
Lucifer MorningStar
Crazyface
Type 2 Diabetes
Replies
9
Views
2K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
P
Why are people A-Holes when playing MATCHPLAY?
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
16K
Sid Rixon IV
S
Top