Martin Bashir

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
27,021
Location
Northumberland
Visit site
Silly question maybe but why did he need fake bank statements to interview Diana? I'm confused.
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.
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
25,581
Location
Watford
Visit site
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.
Oh, wow. Cheers for that. In fairness I was only about 11 years old when this was all going on. :LOL:
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,793
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
Visit site
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.

Are the papers condemning this now the same papers that were hacking into celeb phones around the same time and subsequently?
 

Patster1969

Assistant Pro
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
518
Visit site
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.
To be fair, the BBC should have two against them due to the Cliff Richard incident
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
27,021
Location
Northumberland
Visit site
Are the papers condemning this now the same papers that were hacking into celeb phones around the same time and subsequently?
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.
 

IanM

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
12,376
Location
Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
www.newportgolfclub.org.uk
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.
 

Ser Shankalot

Active member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
124
Location
London
Visit site
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.

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.
 

stefanovic

Medal Winner
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
1,613
Visit site
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.
 

The Dog.

Active member
Joined
May 19, 2021
Messages
165
Location
Yorkshire
Visit site
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.
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
11,793
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
Visit site
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.

Really? How would things have turned out differently?
 

chrisd

Major Champion
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
24,829
Location
Kent
Visit site
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.
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,385
Visit site
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.
This is an anti-BBC thread and therefore almost 100% political so should be closed.
 

Ser Shankalot

Active member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
124
Location
London
Visit site
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.

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?
 
Top