Do you trust the BBC to tell the truth 100% of the time

[INTERVIEWER]

The Swan Show fakes: BBC's One Show 'provoked Mr Asbo and pretended his mate was him'

 

"Angry and prone to attacking passers-by, ill-behaved swan Mr Asbo seemed like ideal material for television. But, unsurprisingly, producers of BBC’s The One Show found he wasn’t as co-operative as they had hoped – and their attempts to record him have plunged the Corporation into a fresh fakery row. A wildlife expert claims that the swan viewers saw attacking the BBC’s two-man canoe on Monday’s show was actually Mr Asbo’s mate. Michelle Childerley says the film crew provoked Mr Asbo to get a reaction but he flew away – and the female swan launched an attack as she was frightened.

 

Mr Asbo gained his name for the reign of terror he has brought to the banks of the River Cam in Cambridge. Rowers have been so upset that they have written to the Queen asking for permission to have him removed. All swans are her property. During Monday’s edition of The One Show, host Adrian Chiles said the swan attacking one of the canoe’s oars was Mr Asbo. He said the filmmakers, who protected themselves with crash helmets, had not provoked him.

 

But Michelle Childerley, 41, said the BBC team had called out to passing canoeists: ‘We’re not getting much reaction out of him, are we?’ Complaint: Animal expert Michelle Childerley caught the BBC crew on camera. She accused them of asking two canoeists to chase the bird 200 yards to try to cajole him, but he fled. As they moved to within yards of the swans’ nest, the rowers upset Mr Asbo’s mate so much that she felt forced to defend her eggs.

 

‘The boys came back in the canoe and she [Mr Asbo’s mate] went for them,’ Miss Childerley said. ‘It was disgraceful – car crash TV at its worst.’ Caught on camera: The footage shows the crew provoking the swan near its nest. ‘They were poking round her nest and got very close to it. She actually got off the nest and I don’t think she would have done that had she not felt fearful or intimidated by them. Shame on you BBC.’

 

The BBC has been embroiled in a string of fakery rows in recent years. Last year BBC2’s Sun, Sea and Bargain Spotting and BBC1’s Trash for Cash were found to have misled viewers after staff posed as customers. And in 2008, Peter Fincham, then controller of BBC1, resigned after a trailer for a documentary about the Queen incorrectly suggested that she flounced out of a photo shoot.[/b]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269166/RSPCA-slams-BBCs-One-Show-provoking-swan-trying-protect-nest.html#ixzz144BCFHbv

 

Another example of the BBC's 'engineered reality' - 'real' life brought to you every weekday neatly packaged up by the BBC lie masters...

[emmysdad]

He knows that but he'll say any old cobblers to suit his ideological agenda.

 

If you don't trust the BBC it does not mean that you have any agenda, I would trust the BBC if it made the effort to rectify the wrongs it passes as true which are later found to be falsehoods.

The corporation is too large and remote from the viewers it extorts money from.

It's typical of those who don't like the results or the count so far to blame the question.

Its a stupid question.....Stamps feet and takes ball home

[INTERVIEWER]

The pro-BBC fanatics will be foaming at the mouth when looking at the results of this poll so far. If the BBC had been in charge of the voting, those who trust the corporation would have been a very comfortable majority.

[roxybalboa]

can you ever trust anyone 100%?

[Mr Prime]

If you don't trust the BBC it does not mean that you have any agenda, I would trust the BBC if it made the effort to rectify the wrongs it passes as true which are later found to be falsehoods.

The corporation is too large and remote from the viewers it extorts money from.

It's typical of those who don't like the results or the count so far to blame the question.

Its a stupid question.....Stamps feet and takes ball home

 

I have answered your question in some detail more than once. Therefore you have no reason to get aggressive with me unless you are also Interviewer under a different name which would not surprise me in the slightest.

 

If not then your response shows you to be another anti BBC campaigner, starting with a seemingly innocent though loaded question but now getting angry because someone is against your agenda. Strangely I don't take very seriously posters who simply go around cutting and pasting anti BBC tabloid articles repetitively, nor should you. The quote I gave is one of his and a tabloidesque lie. Do you like lies?

[INTERVIEWER]

Do you like lies?

 

The BBC certainly does.

[purdyamos]

I personally don't know anybody that trusts the BBC to tell the truth.

 

 

Is that because your only friends are your other usernames?

[chem1st]

The even tell the truth in Arabic

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/languages/LANG8/?WT.mc_id=214

[INTERVIEWER]

BBC's Panorama 'distorted facts' in documentary about ADHD

 

"A Panorama programme 'distorted' some known facts in a report on research into the treatment of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the BBC Trust said today. The BBC Trust's Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) partially upheld an appeal over a complaint about BBC1's flagship current affairs show, titled What Next for Craig?, which aired on November 12 2007. An apology will be broadcast during a future edition of Panorama, and the BBC's deputy director general Mark Byford will meet with the committee to ensure the breaches of the editorial guidelines are not repeated."[/b]

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253480/BBCs-Panorama-distorted-facts-documentary-ADHD.html#ixzz144L7HKkq

 

Yet more evidence that the BBC distorts reality for its own purposes.

[Funky_Gibbon]

My trust in the BBC has waned a lot since working in Manchester. I would hear interviews in full on the way over to work and it was always amazing how tiny parts were taken wildly out of context to say things that obviously weren't intended by the interviewee by the evening...

 

That's journalists in general.

 

I remember hearing Victoria Derbyshire talking to a politician on FiveLive before the election and they talked for 30 minutes or so but they said one thing that lasted 10 or so second that she immediately latched onto. Lo and behold the news reporting of the interview focused solely on that one thing and all the context was lost. As soon as the politician said it I just knew that was the story for the day.

 

To answer the OP, I trust the BBC a hell of a lot more than any other news organisation but 100%? You'd have to be naive to trust any news organisation that much.