BBC Live Interview on Parsons Green ends in farce

Watch
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
BBC Radio 5 interviewed the former head of counter terrorism at the Met. Asked him loads of questions about incident response and the like.

He concluded with "This won't stop until we tackle the dangerous ideologies out there - salafism and the like."

The BBC host immediately moved to stop the interview and couldn't get his comment "that's all speculation" in quickly enough. "We don't know it's that kind of terrorism"

The guest simply stated "Yes, it is."

The interiew was immediately wound up, and moved to a tone of dismissing or almost mocking the guest - an expert in counter-terrorism who they had invited on.

This is where this war is going to be lost.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by Trinculo)
BBC Radio 5 interviewed the former head of counter terrorism at the Met. Asked him loads of questions about incident response and the like.

He concluded with "This won't stop until we tackle the dangerous ideologies out there - salafism and the like."

The BBC host immediately moved to stop the interview and couldn't get his comment "that's all speculation" in quickly enough. "We don't know it's that kind of terrorism"

The guest simply stated "Yes, it is."

The interiew was immediately wound up, and moved to a tone of dismissing or almost mocking the guest - an expert in counter-terrorism who they had invited on.

This is where this war is going to be lost.
BBC has to be impartial and can't be seen, or thought, to be reporting facts that aren't known. Reporter was just covering their back.
5
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Drewski)
BBC has to be impartial and can't be seen, or thought, to be reporting facts that aren't known. Reporter was just covering their back.
You can interview on the BBC and say almost anything you like. You can say that 9/11 was an Israeli conspiracy, you can say "The West" has murdered millions of innocent Muslims. You can say all British soldiers are murderers. They will never stop an interview or interject with covering caveats under those circumstances.

People do it every day, especially on Radio 5 - and it's only when they invite their own guest on, who goes off their expected message, that they rush to redact.
1
reply
Ladymusiclover
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Nah, the BBC did the right thing. We haven't got the details of who was behind the attack.
3
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Trinculo)
You can interview on the BBC and say almost anything you like. You can say that 9/11 was an Israeli conspiracy, you can say "The West" has murdered millions of innocent Muslims. You can say all British soldiers are murderers. They will never stop an interview or interject with covering caveats under those circumstances.

People do it every day, especially on Radio 5 - and it's only when they invite their own guest on, who goes off their expected message, that they rush to redact.
Not from someone they're bringing on as an expert. There are rules they try to follow.
0
reply
Prince Philip
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Trinculo)
You can interview on the BBC and say almost anything you like. You can say that 9/11 was an Israeli conspiracy, you can say "The West" has murdered millions of innocent Muslims. You can say all British soldiers are murderers. They will never stop an interview or interject with covering caveats under those circumstances.

People do it every day, especially on Radio 5 - and it's only when they invite their own guest on, who goes off their expected message, that they rush to redact.
This is a developing story and millions are tuning in to get the facts. Broadcasters (and especially the BBC) must be careful to separate speculation and fact.

This thread is a non-story.
5
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Drewski)
Not from someone they're bringing on as an expert. There are rules they try to follow.
We'll have to disagree on this. They don't usually bring an expert on and then end up basically mocking them. They don't bring on a climate scientist who says "if we don't stop driving cars, the world will end in 50 years time" they never say "that's just your opinion, that's speculation, thank you very much goodbye"
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by Notnek)
This is a developing story and millions are tuning in to get the facts. Broadcasters (and especially the BBC) must be careful to separate speculation and fact.

This is a non-story.
So you dismiss the opinion of the former head of CT at the Met?
1
reply
Prince Philip
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Trinculo)
So you dismiss the opinion of the former head of CT at the Met?
The aim of the BBC right now is not to give opinions but to provide facts. There's a very good chance that it is Islamic terrorism but there's no evidence yet. If someone came on the air to dismiss Islamic terrorism in relation to this incident then they would also be cut-off.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Notnek)
The aim of the BBC right now is not to give opinions but to provide facts. There's a very good chance that it is Islamic terrorism but there's no evidence yet. If someone came on the air to dismiss Islamic terrorism in relation to this incident then they would also be cut-off.
No, they wouldn't be, and it's pretty obvious they wouldn't be.

Come on, the BBC join in early speculation witch hunts all the time when it doesn't involve Islamic terrorism. Look at how they handled Cliff Richard. Look at their coverage of just about everything else.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Ladymusiclover)
Nah, the BBC did the right thing. We haven't got the details of who was behind the attack.
And you don't believe that an expert on counter terrorism can give an opinion?
0
reply
Ladymusiclover
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Trinculo)
And you don't believe that an expert on counter terrorism can give an opinion?
Of course they can. But you can give an opinion w/o blaming/implying an group or religious group w/o evidence yet.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Ladymusiclover)
Of course they can. But you can give an opinion w/o blaming/implying an group or religious group w/o evidence yet.
Then there's no point in having an opinion.

"I think terrorists are responsible for this terrorism"
0
reply
Ladymusiclover
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Trinculo)
Then there's no point in having an opinion.

"I think terrorists are responsible for this terrorism"
An expert is supposed to make statements that are factual and based on evidence rather than just opinions. If it turns out to be Islamic terrorism and the details are known then it would be fair to make such a statement but we don't know who was behind the terrorist attack currently, so it was pure speculation and thus the BBC was right to tie down and change the course of the conversation.

BBC made the right call. Not changing my mind on that.
0
reply
astutehirstute
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
Trump has tweeted it was terrorism.

He gets briefings from MI5 and would know.
0
reply
Prince Philip
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by astutehirstute)
Trump has tweeted it was terrorism.

He gets briefings from MI5 and would know.
The UK police have already confirmed it is a terrorist incident.
0
reply
astutehirstute
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
If people seriously think that the BBC gives facts and not opinions, and that opinions don't influence the "facts" they give prominence to, they are too stupid to contribute to a message board.

The BBC presents a sanitised version of Islamic terrorism. They think their viewers are too uneducated, dim and unsophisticated to notice. And clearly in many cases they are right.
0
reply
astutehirstute
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Notnek)
The UK police have already confirmed it is a terrorist incident.
Either way, he knew.

But of course will be criticised for stating the truth.
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
I'm more concerned by the former Met head being so quick to rush to the conclusion that it was an Islamist attack.
This, he should know better than to jump to conclusions...

Unless he knows something that hasn't been made public yet which would raise serious questions about security at than at itself.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
L
(Original post by Ladymusiclover)
Nah, the BBC did the right thing. We haven't got the details of who was behind the attack.
1. So someone with expertise can't express an opinion/belief?
2. While we don't "know" we pretty much do know what the motivation behind this will have been. HINT: the same as the guy who attacked a soldier at Chatelet station in Paris this morning.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (712)
33.94%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (897)
42.76%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (396)
18.88%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (93)
4.43%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed