Bungling Baboon Circus

July 13, 2007 1:23 AM

The BBC is certainly having a mensis horribilis. First, they were fined £50,000 for lying to children, then they were exposed for doing a hatchet job on the Queen (something they claim was a mistake). Peter Fincham, the BBC One boss, has apologised for running a trailer (for a documentary) which showed the Queen "walking out in a huff" during a photo session with Annie Liebowitz. Not amusing, apparently. All this has led to a review of all programming aimed at uncovering instances of viewer deception.
posted by chuckdarwin (54 comments total)

"All this has led to a review of all programming aimed at uncovering instances of viewer deception."
You Brits are screwed - "viewer deception"? Man, this kind of thing would never be tolerated in the American Press.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:39 AM on July 13, 2007

And the BBC is well known for its Republican Communist tendencies, too. I think it should be privatized and scattered to the four winds. Who needs a public service broadcaster these days when most media outlets are decent stenographers.
posted by gsb at 1:51 AM on July 13, 2007

Can we bitch about the licence fee?
posted by cardamine at 1:56 AM on July 13, 2007

Not to mention its recent Panorama scandals. (1, 2).

The Scientology programme was astonishingly biased, although perhaps justified considering the nature of the beast. The wifi programme was just crazy science and alarmist, like a tabloid.
posted by humblepigeon at 1:58 AM on July 13, 2007

The only upshot that I can see coming out of this is that Peter Fincham's day at the Beeb must be numbered- and not for this 'viewer deception' involving old Sour Face (that has never actually been broadcast yet). Anyone who saw his performance on Newsnight last night would have thought it was a parody of 'Blinking Bastard' Ben from The Thick of It. He looked totally out of his depth under intense questioning from Gavin Esler, then on breakfast news this morning he struggled to cope with even the easy questions gently tossed across the breakfast sofa from a sympathetic Bill Turnbull. I am sure that once this carry on dies down, BBC Director General Mark Thompson must be thinking of getting rid of him at the first expedient opportunity.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 2:02 AM on July 13, 2007

I think the truth is that they routinely re-edit stuff to make people look entertainingly more angry and unreasonable than they actually were. They just forgot that when the Queen complains about misrepresentation, you can't shrug it off the way you can when it's some chav off a 'reality' show.
posted by Phanx at 2:16 AM on July 13, 2007

Here's what strikes me.

These people are from my generation. I'm in my mid-thirties. People of my generation are running the BBC right now. And it's starting to look like they're all pretty much incompetent and/or irreverent, two characteristics that don't fit with the BBC's brief.

When my generation graduated, they ALL wanted to work in the media. I believe this is still listed as the number one career choice of graduates. Why? I don't know, but I suspect it's because that's where power lies in our modern society. As crazy as it sounds, back in the 60s/70s, people had similar aspirations to go into local government, or even the civil service. Back then, that was where the power lied.

The trouble is that people are getting into the media for all the wrong reasons. They're not creative. They don't have creative judgement. They're not driven by creative urges.

So they become scandal mongers. If they can't get people to notice them by their actions, they try to get people to notice them by shouting and acting the clown. Hence we get a run of the mill documentary on the Queen ruined by deliberate editing to make it seem scandalous. Now they're saying this was simple incompetence. So you have a choice of irreverence or incompetence. Personally I look on the Queen as a woman doing a tough job at a tough time through no fault of her own. I don't believe she's fair game for pot-shots.
posted by humblepigeon at 2:27 AM on July 13, 2007 [4 favorites]

I like how you re-edited the text from the Guardian's blog entry to make it look like the Queen editing fiasco has led to a review of programming - thus making your story more dramatic - when in fact it was the phone-in stuff. Very subtle matching of form to content, there.
posted by flashboy at 2:45 AM on July 13, 2007

humblepigeon, I enjoy a good Queenie joke as much as the next man, but blatantly misrepresenting her actions (to make her look like a vapid bitch instead of an icy monarch) is out of line.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:20 AM on July 13, 2007

What is a Babbon? Is this something I'd need to watch the Beeb to know about?
posted by Eideteker at 3:22 AM on July 13, 2007

I like how you re-edited the text from the Guardian's blog entry to make it look like the Queen editing fiasco has led to a review of programming.

You caught that, did you? You have a good eye for editorial details... maybe you'd like Peter Fincham's job. I thought the stupid fucking arseholes deserved a little misrepresentation, as well.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:23 AM on July 13, 2007

There was something terribly sad about listening to Michael Grade on the Today programme this morning repeating words to the effect of The golden rule of programme making is 'You Don't Lie.' The whole elephant in the room point with this story is that lying of this sort has now become such routine practise in programme making that only when it happens in the case of the Queen does anyone bother to raise a flag. Even then, afterwards, no-one in the industry seems to have the balls to say that they were only doing what they all do all the time, that they thought everyone knew and was alright about it, and that anyone who was still taken in by things like this was just naive. This may or may not damage the BBC and or Peter Fincham, but what a fantastic Media Studies lesson for anyone with eyes to see. It damages all TV. And you know what? Good.
posted by motty at 3:28 AM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Humblepigeon you are making no sense. The scientology program was somehow biased but it was justified? What the hell does that mean?

Then you go on to say that the media people are not creative so they're wrong for the media. Faking the news is creative! The problem isn't they aren't creative. The problem is that they are. It's facts and science the bbc has problems with. Precisely the areas most "creatives" breeze right past. When they do decide to check with experts they seek out ridiculous media whores (Big Brother on the couch for example) because those are the kind of people creatives can understand.

Then to top it all off you say the queen is doing a tough job at a tough time.

Is this some sort of subtle english troll or do you actually believe what you are saying?
posted by srboisvert at 3:29 AM on July 13, 2007

Oh, Christ, Eideteker! That means even the URL is fuxx0red. Splendid. Anyone would think I work at BBC One.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:30 AM on July 13, 2007

The thing with the Queen's actually pretty surprising. Seriously, have you ever read the BBC news stories on the royal family? You'd think they were the greatest thing since sliced bread. I've never seen the BBC make any kind of negative comment about the Queen before, in fact, I've noticed that when dirt comes out about the royal family they tend to minimize the coverage. Makes me wonder if the editing thing really was just some sort of mistake.
posted by unreason at 3:48 AM on July 13, 2007

at least it's not a menses horribilis, to complement the previous annus horribilis.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:53 AM on July 13, 2007

I think that most viewers are far more sophisticated in their understanding of these programmes than is imagined. For example, the instances on programmes where a 'spontaneous' phone call are made between two locations and camera crews handily capture it all on film. There is no way this happens naturally but viewers accept it.

I am sure that there is a degree of implicit collusion between viewer and producer to make the programme more enjoyable and that viewers accept some creative editing to improve the flow of the narrative (even if that narrative itself is false) and create some drama. Otherwise Bargain Hunt would be utter shite.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 3:58 AM on July 13, 2007

Is this some sort of subtle english troll or do you actually believe what you are saying?

With respect, and I'm not going to get into a flamewar, but I think my posting might be too British for you. I don't understand some postings by American Mefites so it's interesting to read somebody complain about mine for the same reasons.

The essence of what I said is:

1) The queen is hereditary. She didn't really have much choice because she was born into the job. Previously documentaries have shown that she's a diligent but actually rather human individual who's just doing her job, and one that she might not enjoy. But she respects her position and that of the monarchy. The problem is that some people in the media target her, largely because of republican sentiments, even though that thinking is largely anachronistic nowadays. "Republican" in this instance means getting rid of the royal family and turning Britain into a republic. These feelings were very strong in the 70s and 80s, particularly amongst the left wing of politics.

2) People leaving university want to work in the media. They don't necessarily have creative skills (ie the built-in skills needed to make good programmes), but they want the job anyway. As I say, I don't know why this is, but I suspect it's because the media has enormous power. Like I said, just 20-30 years, it was the fashion to go into local government/the civil service for very much the same reasons.
posted by humblepigeon at 4:00 AM on July 13, 2007

I think that most viewers are far more sophisticated in their understanding of these programmes than is imagined.

This is very, very true. Viewers are very sophisticated nowadays. They know how TV works. They're no longer naive, as they were in the 70s/80s. That said, deception is deception, and the above shouldn't be used as a license to lie.
posted by humblepigeon at 4:01 AM on July 13, 2007

Can we bitch about the licence fee?

We can execute the Royal family on pay per view TV and use the proceeds to replace the license fee. Problem solved, and the BBC survives unscathed. All is well.
posted by vbfg at 4:02 AM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oy, if you're putting people up against a wall, leave Harry out of it. He's a Hewitt / Spencer, anyway. He should be given a pass.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:18 AM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

viewers are far more sophisticated in their understanding of these programmes

I don't quite follow. And I think it's my own fault but when I saw the clip of the Liebovitz/H.R.H. photo shoot, there was no way to know she was 'going' to the shoot and not 'coming from.' This is the bone of contention, isn't it? Misdirection when there is absolutely no way of otherwise discerning it?

And as I said initially, the Beeb might have its problems but it has a lot of catching up to do.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:29 AM on July 13, 2007

Part of the problem is that the footage was supplied by an external production company - rdf. (Blame Thatcher for forcing external production.)

Storm in a tea cup. This is an excellent opportunity for the Grundiad, Sun et al to continue the BBC-bashing (with added royal spice - what a gift!). All in the public interest of course. And the interest of their paymasters who have significant (competitive) TV interests. I'm sure I'm not the only person who laughs at the irony of the UK news media slating anyone else for being even slightly dodgy.

BTW, the BBC has to be balanced, not unbiased. There is a biiiiig difference.
posted by i_cola at 4:38 AM on July 13, 2007

vbfg wins! I'd pay so much money to watch that.
posted by i_cola at 4:39 AM on July 13, 2007

No one seems to have pointed out that all these stories have been widely published by the BBC on their own sites. Admirable I think. Whats the US perspectve on that? Does Fox ever admit to being neo-con fascists with an agenda straight outta the bush administration etc.? (ok i digress, you get my point), how introspective are US news networks?
posted by daveyt at 4:40 AM on July 13, 2007

I'm genuinely astonished that anybody can possibly give a shit about this. It's about as trivial and irrelevant as it gets.
posted by influx at 4:53 AM on July 13, 2007

daveyt, when I was researching this FPP, I went to BBC's homepage and was unable to find anything on this story... on the front page. Oddly enough, this is the top news story on every other site, radio show, tv news show, and newspaper in Britain.

I'm not exactly falling all over myself with admiration for BBC One just now.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:56 AM on July 13, 2007

Geez, that uk.Yahoo site crashed Firefox two times in a row.
posted by Goofyy at 5:55 AM on July 13, 2007

To be fair to the BBC, the edited Queen footage was provided by an independent company, RDF Media; it's not clear if the BBC knew it was edited, and considering how quickly it backfired they probably didn't.

The faking of a charity contest is in pretty piss-poor taste though. This was a contest to raise money for for children orphaned by AIDS in Malawi...
posted by mek at 5:57 AM on July 13, 2007

It was all over the news last night on the BBC. It was on Radio 5 as I was coming home, it was on PM on Radio 4 and it was on the Today programme this morning. Didn't see any TV so I can't comment on that, but certainly some parts of the BBC news dept has delighted in it. I'm astounded it wasn't on their news site this morning.
posted by vbfg at 5:57 AM on July 13, 2007

I went to BBC's homepage and was unable to find anything on this story... on the front page. Oddly enough, this is the top news story on every other site, radio show, tv news show, and newspaper in Britain.


Uh, you might have wanted to try the BBC's News homepage, where the story was one of the top stories all day yesterday. Because, you know, that's where they put the news. On their news site.
posted by flashboy at 6:02 AM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Actually, I'd love to know how this selective editing is any different to *any* other reality TV prog in the history of the world ever.

chuckdarwin: You might want to try the BBC News front page. You know, where the news goes. The couple of stories that get linked to the front page (at the moment 'Mother and teenagers found murdered' & 'Rail worker held over crash') are more current (and IMHO more newsworthy).

BTW, the organisation is the BBC, their main channel is BBC 1.
posted by i_cola at 6:03 AM on July 13, 2007

To put one or two of the above comments in context, it's worth noting that the TV licence fee - a tax on owning a television, which is paid to the BBC, even if you never watch their output, and some of which they spend on programming which you can't even see unless you buy more equipment - is currently £135.50 per year. The annual cost of the Royal Family to each individual is approximately 60 pence. I know where I see better value for money.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 6:06 AM on July 13, 2007

I know where I see better value for money.

Me too. The BBC, by a country mile.
posted by flashboy at 6:08 AM on July 13, 2007 [4 favorites]

"Surely we could save on the costs of keeping the library of Alexandria if we just burnt the fscking thing down!"

That's what license fee arguments sound like to me.
posted by vbfg at 6:16 AM on July 13, 2007

It's also worth noting that the TV license fee supports the BBC news operation which pays for foreign correspondents and also has a knock on effect of raising the bar for other broadcasters - resulting in a far better TV news environment than what is available in the US.

So you get - 2 TV channels on terrestrial, BBC News, BBC radio, and the BBC website. Then if you spend the money for a freeview box (which can set you back a whopping one time cost of 20 quid) you get several more BBC channels along with several other digital channels and the BBC text info service (more or less a text version of the BBC website on your TV).

The BBC is one of the greatest things about Britain. It is a spectacular achievement. It entertains, it promotes British values and identity, it informs, it helps support a vibrant musical scene. The Canadian equivalent developed on pretty much the same model but starved for funding comes nowhere close. BBC World is everywhere. It may be best promoter of Western values in the rest of the world.

As someone coming from the outside, and now paying the TV license and having spent for a freeview box, I am sad Canada hasn't found a way to fund our national broadcaster at levels that would allow this kind of success. I'm glad to pay the TV license fee. I think it is a great deal.
posted by srboisvert at 6:36 AM on July 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

Oh, I saw it on the news site... I just wanted to see if the BBC One site linked to it. Perhaps they did yesterday.
posted by chuckdarwin at 6:38 AM on July 13, 2007

The BBC, by a country mile.

OK, I'll pay your share of the Royal Family and you pay my share of the BBC.

"Surely we could save on the costs of keeping the library of Alexandria if we just burnt the fscking thing down made it self-financing!"

Fixed that for you.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 6:41 AM on July 13, 2007

chuckdarwin, you don't appear to understand either the BBC or the internet.
posted by ninebelow at 6:50 AM on July 13, 2007

srboisvert: I think it is a great deal.

It is. It's the archive that does it for me. Since 1927 (ish) these people have been recording pretty much the entire output of British culture and sticking it in archives. Whilst they might not always have done such a spectacular job of hanging onto it all, there isn't another archive like it anywhere in the world. Make it all available for free on the internet for anyone to do what they want with and you've de facto made British culture the reference point for the entire world. If that doesn't do morefor the advancement of Britain in the modern world than some crusty bird in a diamond hat we're basically fscked.
posted by vbfg at 6:50 AM on July 13, 2007

My perspective on why this is grabbing so much attention:

The BBC'c coverage of the queen is generally pretty positive - so negative coverage stands out

I think the more serious issue and the reason it's being commented on is that it points to a shift in culture at the BBC, which is depressing and a cause for concern to many - including others upthread.

This story exemplifies 2 strands to that shift:

1) declining standards of investigative journalism, related to the changes in personnel identified by humblepigeon: BBC journalists were widely reporting the 'story' of the queen storming out without having checked the story (even though presumably this could have been done without leaving the building - even if the production company was independently contracted)

2) increasing concern with ratings to justify the licence fee: this leads to a focus on 'scandals' within stories covered in current affairs programmes, which are widely reported / advertised on BBC news bulletins, thus drawing viewers for the current affairs programme. This often then leads to 'apologies' (cf the pages devoted to John Sweeney's breast-beating after the Scientology Panorama programme) which attract yet more attention.

As others have said upthread the retraction of the queen-strop story, and the ensuing soul-searching would be welcome from some US media organisations, and I'm not sure whether this apology story is as cynical as I think the Sweeney one was - but the point is that for many people, the only real justification of the licence fee is that it should permit those working for the BBC to produce independent journalism of integrity. This crap shakes the confidence of many.
posted by melisande at 6:56 AM on July 13, 2007

I really wish the licence fee didn't exist and the BBC was just funded through income tax. Then people like No Mutant Enemy wouldn't even notice it. I mean everyone in the country pays for S4C and only a tiny minority have ever even seen it.

You can't make the BBC or the British Library self-financing without essentially burning them to the ground.
posted by ninebelow at 7:02 AM on July 13, 2007

The trouble is that people are getting into the media for all the wrong reasons. They're not creative. They don't have creative judgement. They're not driven by creative urges.

The described problem was a surfeit of creativity.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 7:11 AM on July 13, 2007

Actually, I would notice it, just as I notice everything that I'm obliged to pay for that I don't use. Citing one iniquity as apologia for another doesn't really work.

You can't make the BBC or the British Library self-financing without essentially burning them to the ground.

Why not? Channel 4 is self-financing despite being state-owned. ITV and Channel 5 are self-financing. If, by 'essentially' you imply 'while maintaining their alleged impartiality by being free from the influence of advertisers', all that happens is that their inate impartiality takes over.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 7:16 AM on July 13, 2007

I would gladly pay my licence fee just for a bit of Radio 4. I love a lot of the BBC's output and feel overall it is the best Anglophonic broadcaster out there (especially now that Channel 4 is more 'reality' freakshow than an alternative voice). However, I am very angry at it. It wastes tonnes of public money doing things that make no commercial sense - like paying a tonne of money for former D-lister Samantha Janus (topless pap shots of whom I doubt are worth more than £17 to Fleet Street), to come onto the tired EastEnders for enough money to hire 20+ unknowns with equal press profile. Or pay presenters like Johnny Vaughn tonnes of money to helm failure after failure of show (and format).

They also have ITV-like contempt for their audience. 'Accessible' means dumbed-down. Alan Titchmarsh or Spring Watch instead of David Attenborough. Idiotic call in shows instead of Coldcut's Solid Steel. Edith Bowman instead of John Peel (I know he's passed on but you know what I mean). BBC3 gets more money than BBC4 because it shouldbe more popular than 4 in their minds and is not, etc.

Awful and sad. It needs to be better and different than commercial broadcasters while still pulling enough viewers and listeners to make its existence politically viable. A tough job, but too many of those in charge recently have come from the stupid day-glo world of TV-AM ratings chasers and are uninterested in public service broadcasting. Bring back Alan Yentob! Do what ITV and the rest won't or can't: More Planet Earth, Storyville and Arena and less Fame Academy (which cost millions to put on despite poor ratings) would not go amiss.
posted by The Salaryman at 7:22 AM on July 13, 2007

I'd gladly pay the BBC licence fee if I could get all their channels in the U.S. I contribute more than that to our PBS affiliate every year for a minute fraction of the quality. Basic cable costs six times as much and it's all pretty much sewage. Sewage with advertising.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:32 AM on July 13, 2007

Having lived abroad for a number of years now, I would share the view that the BBC is enormous value for money.
In terms of international influence alone, my sense is that through the BBC, the UK is associated with what is widely regarded as the fairest and most authoritative media outlet in the world. Really, if you were briefed with creating the kind of positive associations that the BBC brings the UK, no amount of billions in your budget would allow you to achieve a fraction of the good feeling generated.
posted by Abiezer at 9:49 AM on July 13, 2007

Not only that, Abiezer - it also seems to be pretty damn near universal. No matter where you go in the world there's an implicit reverence for the BBC, it seems.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:00 AM on July 13, 2007

Since 1927 (ish) these people have been recording pretty much the entire output of British culture and sticking it in archives.

Well, mostly.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:17 AM on July 13, 2007

Great comment, srboisvert. CBC Radio does some great work already, but I would happily pay a license fee if it meant it could reach its full potential.
Tenuously related: Haw-haw!

People of my generation are running the BBC right now. And it's starting to look like they're all pretty much incompetent and/or irreverent

Aw, Gen X is all growed up!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:36 AM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

Aw, Gen X is all growed up!!!

In a nutshell, yes. You might just listed the main cause of the world's problems for the next 20-30 years.
posted by humblepigeon at 11:27 AM on July 13, 2007

I for one believe it. Did you see the way she looked at our Beloved Leader when he compared her to a stegasaurus? Oh my, if looks could kill....
posted by Twang at 5:56 PM on July 13, 2007

All this has led to a review of all programming aimed at uncovering instances of viewer deception.

But there is this in the BBC's favour: at least it has a review system. I don't think one could say, f'rinstance, that Fox gives a good goddamn about the truth.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:33 PM on July 13, 2007

Fox doesn't give a good goddamn about anything that falls outside of its agenda: depriving gays, women, minorities, and anyone they don't like of their Constitutional rights. That's it: they hate anyone who isn't a straight, white American male.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:11 AM on July 14, 2007