Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

#51

Post by fwlr »

crtasm wrote: post #50
fwlr wrote: post #23

“A BBC spokesperson said: “Wild Isles consists of five episodes: Our Precious Isles, Woodland, Grassland, Freshwater and Ocean. Saving Our Wild Isles is a separate film inspired by the series that was commissioned by the RSPB and WWF. We’ve acquired it for iPlayer.” “ Talk about burying the lede! This is the last line of the article!

I note that paragraph has since been removed.

Yes, it’s been moved to further up in the piece (less buried) and the BBC spokesperson quote has been updated to a more strident one:

“In a statement provided after the story was first published, the BBC said: “This is totally inaccurate, there is no ‘sixth episode’. Wild Isles is – and always was – a five part series and does not shy away from environmental content. We have acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB and WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles.””

Re: BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

#52

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

gadders wrote: post #49
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And are you going to address who they do share employees with? It's a party that's not left-wing. That's factual. The rest "not a great article", "North London left wing orthodoxy", and "BBC is insufficiently pro-Brexit" is vague, feelings-based not fact-based.

The BBC also had Gavyn Davies as a chairman.

"Gavyn Davies ... is a former Goldman Sachs partner who was the chairman of the BBC from 2001 until 2004"

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavyn_Davies

So this ended 19 years ago. I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance of this historical anecdote to what's currently true?

Re: BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

#53

Post by madaxe_again »

fwlr wrote: post #51
crtasm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I note that paragraph has since been removed.

Yes, it’s been moved to further up in the piece (less buried) and the BBC spokesperson quote has been updated to a more strident one: “In a statement provided after the story was first published, the BBC said: “This is totally inaccurate, there is no ‘sixth episode’. Wild Isles is – and always was – a five part series and does not shy away from environmental content. We have acquired a separate film for iPlayer from…

And we have always been at war with EastAsia.

Here’s the thing - they’ve shot their credibility so badly that I don’t actually believe them any more.

Re: BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

#54

Post by madaxe_again »

marcusverus wrote: post #47
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I certainly don't agree with Braverman's words there at all. If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal. It's not possible to apply for asylum from outside of the UK, so they can only apply once they hit our shores and yet Braverman is branding them all as "illegal"? The immigration services have been completely stripped back by the To…

It's all well and good to disagree with the policy, or the choice of the word "illegal". Had Gary Lineker done so, we wouldn't have heard a peep. But he called it Nazi rhetoric, which is hysterical, divisive and harmful to the public discourse. > If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal. Intentionally circumventing legal entry points when…

You don’t seem to do anything here except for spout right wing rhetoric. Perhaps you’ll find yourself more at home on parler or on the stormfront forums than here.

Re: BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

#55

Post by johneth »

beardyw wrote: post #25
fwlr wrote: post #23

“A BBC spokesperson said: “Wild Isles consists of five episodes: Our Precious Isles, Woodland, Grassland, Freshwater and Ocean. Saving Our Wild Isles is a separate film inspired by the series that was commissioned by the RSPB and WWF. We’ve acquired it for iPlayer.” “ Talk about burying the lede! This is the last line of the article!

Well, to be fair, that's the spokesman's take on it. The truth is probably somewhere between.

How? The statement is unambiguous. The WWF also confirmed this: https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634290349098057728

Re: BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

#56

Post by fwlr »

madaxe_again wrote: post #53
fwlr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it’s been moved to further up in the piece (less buried) and the BBC spokesperson quote has been updated to a more strident one: “In a statement provided after the story was first published, the BBC said: “This is totally inaccurate, there is no ‘sixth episode’. Wild Isles is – and always was – a five part series and does not shy away from environmental content. We have acquired a separate film for iPlayer from…

And we have always been at war with EastAsia. Here’s the thing - they’ve shot their credibility so badly that I don’t actually believe them any more.

I mean if you want my cynical take, it goes like this. Some BBC producer wanted to make the Wild Isles series about conservation and climate change, they couldn’t get sign-off to spend BBC money on it, but they did get charities to pay for it. BBC upper management was okay with this because it was pitched as a “separate companion” film on the same topic. Once it was made the producer pushed for it to be screened as the sixth episode and was told no, so they called up their friends at The Guardian and said “I’ll be your unnamed source if you say this is about kowtowing to the radical right”. The plan was to generate pressure from the left on the BBC to air the film as if it were the sixth episode. That is why the unnamed BBC source and the BBC spokesperson are making contradictory statements.

Re: BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

#57

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

marcusverus wrote: post #47
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I certainly don't agree with Braverman's words there at all. If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal. It's not possible to apply for asylum from outside of the UK, so they can only apply once they hit our shores and yet Braverman is branding them all as "illegal"? The immigration services have been completely stripped back by the To…

It's all well and good to disagree with the policy, or the choice of the word "illegal". Had Gary Lineker done so, we wouldn't have heard a peep. But he called it Nazi rhetoric, which is hysterical, divisive and harmful to the public discourse. > If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal. Intentionally circumventing legal entry points when…

He did not use the word 'Nazi' at all, he compared the language used to the language of 1930s Germany - a comparison which is justified.

The asylum "issue" is being exaggerated by right-wing media to distract from the many bigger problems that have either been caused by or exacerbated by the Tories mis-management of the UK.

Personally, I think that refugees need to be shown some empathy and kindness. In terms of solving problems, I'd much prefer that the financial crimes were prosecuted more harshly and that tax loopholes were closed.

Re: BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

#58

Post by nyc_data_geek1 »

stakhanov wrote: post #40
nyc_data_geek1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the point of a nature documentary isn't to make you feel good, but to present an accurate depiction of the state of the world?

Most nature documentaries don't leave it at that, though. They present facts, but then weave them into a narrative. I don't know why this "weaving a narrative" is something they all do. ...maybe they teach that at film school or something. Science itself has no narratives. And at some point in the 90s, it seems to me that someone decided that the narrative for all nature documentaries was going to be: Man is destroyi…

Except that humans are destroying the ecosystem. It is quantitatively what is happening around us. A documentary is intended to document, if you don't like what is beung documented that sounds like a you problem?

Re: BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

#59

Post by stakhanov »

nyc_data_geek1 wrote: post #58
stakhanov wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most nature documentaries don't leave it at that, though. They present facts, but then weave them into a narrative. I don't know why this "weaving a narrative" is something they all do. ...maybe they teach that at film school or something. Science itself has no narratives. And at some point in the 90s, it seems to me that someone decided that the narrative for all nature documentaries was going to be: Man is destroyi…

Except that humans are destroying the ecosystem. It is quantitatively what is happening around us. A documentary is intended to document, if you don't like what is beung documented that sounds like a you problem?

But the space of facts that are true facts is vast, and there's a selection process, and there is no objectively correct way to make that selection, only subjective choices that some people are making, and they have decided that "humans are destroying the ecosystem" is a fact that I need to be bombarded with.

It's also a fact that the universe is vast, violent, and indifferent, with our planet being nothing but an insignificantly tiny spec in the fabric of the galaxy. It's also a fact that our planet has seen many epochs come and gone before the anthropocene, and will produce many more epochs after it, bringing forward new and different kinds of life after humanity is long gone.

To make it look like we, humanity, are big and mighty in relation to nature, and nature is fragile and timid and needs the good ones among the humans to protect it from the bad ones among the humans: This is not facts. It's spin.

Now don't get me wrong: I think every single one of the sustainable development goals [1], including the environmental ones, is a no brainer, and something I can get behind. But it's also a normal function of the human psyche that one doesn't want to be bombarded with cognitive dissonance-inducing messaging all the time, and I want creators of mass media to respect that. Now, it's difficult to make a newscast reporting on the war in Ukraine without inducing cognitive dissonance. But it would be perfectly possible to make a nature documentary that way, and, somehow, mass media aren't doing it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals

Re: BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

#60

Post by marcusverus »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #57
marcusverus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all well and good to disagree with the policy, or the choice of the word "illegal". Had Gary Lineker done so, we wouldn't have heard a peep. But he called it Nazi rhetoric, which is hysterical, divisive and harmful to the public discourse. > If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal. Intentionally circumventing legal entry points when…

He did not use the word 'Nazi' at all, he compared the language used to the language of 1930s Germany - a comparison which is justified. The asylum "issue" is being exaggerated by right-wing media to distract from the many bigger problems that have either been caused by or exacerbated by the Tories mis-management of the UK. Personally, I think that refugees need to be shown some empathy and kindness. In terms of solv…

> He did not use the word 'Nazi' at all, he compared the language used to the language of 1930s Germany

This is a distinction without a difference, as you well know.

> a comparison which is justified.

And yet you're unable to actually make such an argument. The argument, of course, isn't the point. The point is associating your political opponents with Nazis.

> The asylum "issue" is being exaggerated by right-wing media to distract from the many bigger problems that have either been caused by or exacerbated by the Tories mis-management of the UK.

The Tories were elected in large part to address immigration issues, remember? Who convinced you that enacting their platform is somehow nefarious?

> Personally, I think that refugees need to be shown some empathy and kindness.

The ones who are safe and sound in France or Germany, who're affected by this new law? Why do they need your empathy when they're in a safe third country? Is this refusal of empathy sufficient to brand someone a Nazi?

Post reply on HN