Cecil Baargs
Junior Acolyte
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2019
- Messages
- 72
Well, they would, wouldn't they? The charge sheet is extensive, pointing to overt bias in favour of the government to the detriment of the Labour party. But, according to Emily Maitlis today, it's our old favourite 'cock up' not conspiracy which is to blame for all those mistakes that unaccountably all favoured Boris Johnson.
Still, no smoking gun, alas.
Wait a minute. What if we could prove that they're not being straight with us? That would be fatal to the 'cock-up' excuse, right? OK, then you gotta prove a lie, I guess.
Hmm. Let's look at the matter of the Question Time Leaders' Debate controversy then. During the live broadcast, a question to Johnson about trust was met with laughter from the audience.
Later, in a news broadcast summarising the debate, the answer Johnson gave to that question was bereft of audience laughter. Cue howls of 'fix'.
Prove it! The BBC's explanation for the missing laughter is that they had trimmed the clip due to time restraints. Yeah, seems odd given that the laughter was quite a big deal, but ok. It was a simple unpolitical editing suite decision.
Bang. Here's your smoking gun. A simple comparison of the two versions of Johnson's answer proves without question that the audio in the 'edited version' is from a different portion of the programme, where Johnson gave exactly the same answer. The same words but not the same answer. Listen here: https://chirb.it/gJ52hp
So. Their explanation of 'trimming' the original clip is a falsehood. The BBC used a bogus explanation to explain why they edited the footage. We now have a questionable decision (the disappearance of the laughter) which rightly rang alarm bells followed up by a patently false self-justification.
Cock-up or conspiracy? I dunno. But look at who's telling the truth and who isn't.
Still, no smoking gun, alas.
Wait a minute. What if we could prove that they're not being straight with us? That would be fatal to the 'cock-up' excuse, right? OK, then you gotta prove a lie, I guess.
Hmm. Let's look at the matter of the Question Time Leaders' Debate controversy then. During the live broadcast, a question to Johnson about trust was met with laughter from the audience.
Later, in a news broadcast summarising the debate, the answer Johnson gave to that question was bereft of audience laughter. Cue howls of 'fix'.
Prove it! The BBC's explanation for the missing laughter is that they had trimmed the clip due to time restraints. Yeah, seems odd given that the laughter was quite a big deal, but ok. It was a simple unpolitical editing suite decision.
Bang. Here's your smoking gun. A simple comparison of the two versions of Johnson's answer proves without question that the audio in the 'edited version' is from a different portion of the programme, where Johnson gave exactly the same answer. The same words but not the same answer. Listen here: https://chirb.it/gJ52hp
So. Their explanation of 'trimming' the original clip is a falsehood. The BBC used a bogus explanation to explain why they edited the footage. We now have a questionable decision (the disappearance of the laughter) which rightly rang alarm bells followed up by a patently false self-justification.
Cock-up or conspiracy? I dunno. But look at who's telling the truth and who isn't.