5 ms·

What is the problem with editing a show for rebroadcast? If the archive is destroyed or inaccessible, that is certainly terrible. But seems perfectly normal to

What is the problem with editing a show for rebroadcast? If the archive is destroyed or inaccessible, that is certainly terrible. But seems perfectly normal to edit a show broadcast (the same way a modern version of a Shakespeare play is different than the original).

tpoacher 5y ago
Depends on the broadcast. If it's barney the dinosaur to make the dinosaur less pink, I don't care. If it's stuff which was used to haul the country to war on Iraq, I do care.
- krastanov 5y ago
  Well, good thing that it was the former, right? Which is what is being described in this article: editing entertainment programs for today's broadcast, not censoring the archive copy and definitely not touching newscasts.
  - washadjeffmad 5y ago
    I'm assuming you read the article, but the BBC is sanitizing historical programming concerning entertainers who have been involved in and recently convicted of certain crimes, notably organized paedophlilia and sex trafficking. That seems less like harmless cleanup as much as it does a directed PR campaign on behalf of the perpetrators and their associates at the BBC.
    - krastanov 5y ago
      I am (sincerely) missing something in your second paragraph. Why is that on behalf of the perpetrators? It sounds more like taking away from the perpetrators (they are not celebrated as great entertainers anymore) and ensuring the people they have targeted do not need to see their faces on TV presented to unaware watchers as some great "nice funny guy".
      - tpoacher 5y ago
        Why would that kind of sanitization be a good thing? People, e.g. do not need to be protected from the fact the Hitler was a pretty good painter, lest they think in classic black-and-white disney-villain stereotypes, and give the next Hitler a pass just because "he can't be that bad if he's such a good painter". Equally, I have no trouble celebrating good works by people who were later found to be objectionable, as long as the works themselves are worthy in isolation. Human nature is flawed, sometimes deeply so, the good can coexist with the bad, and there's no better reminder than this. And I haven't even touched the whole "every hero is some other guy's traitor (and vice versa)"
        krastanov 5y ago
        Yeah, sure, you are making a good point and I mostly agree. But my question (about which I am still confused) is why "on behalf of the perpetrators" was the claim being made.
        washadjeffmad 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_sexual_abuse_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_sexual_abuse_cases The articles being sanitized are a subtle attempt to distance the BBC from the above scandal by removing the public's access to reporting that tied their employees and facilities to (now) known abusers. There's a film from the 80s, Broadcast News, where a charismatic upstart anchor doctors an interview to make it appear he was crying after hearing a young woman's tale of sexual abuse, and when his producer and potential love interest discovers it, she abjures him professionally and romantically. Journalism ethics would dictate that the BBC account honestly why they are changing the past. They can republish the articles (corrections are not a new concept) and link to the old ones with a "trigger warning" if they wish to, but to make it appear there was less involvement than there was, and to use the victims' feelings as an excuse, is nothing if not wrong.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      I don't think cutting a brief clip introducing much loved national treasure Jimmy Savile from an old magazine show on repeat and not rebroadcasting his original shows is going to make anyone feel more kindly disposed towards Jimmy as a perpetrator. I do think it's going to stop people ringing OFCOM to complain that the TV/iPlayer is still broadcasting that disgusting man like he's a lovable guy. If they wanted to control the PR narrative, they'd hide references to him as a notorious paedophile or questions about whether the BBC staff working on his programmes should have known, not Jim'll Fix It.

tpoacher 5y ago

Depends on the broadcast. If it's barney the dinosaur to make the dinosaur less pink, I don't care. If it's stuff which was used to haul the country to war on Iraq, I do care.

krastanov 5y ago
Well, good thing that it was the former, right? Which is what is being described in this article: editing entertainment programs for today's broadcast, not censoring the archive copy and definitely not touching newscasts.
- washadjeffmad 5y ago
  I'm assuming you read the article, but the BBC is sanitizing historical programming concerning entertainers who have been involved in and recently convicted of certain crimes, notably organized paedophlilia and sex trafficking. That seems less like harmless cleanup as much as it does a directed PR campaign on behalf of the perpetrators and their associates at the BBC.
  - krastanov 5y ago
    I am (sincerely) missing something in your second paragraph. Why is that on behalf of the perpetrators? It sounds more like taking away from the perpetrators (they are not celebrated as great entertainers anymore) and ensuring the people they have targeted do not need to see their faces on TV presented to unaware watchers as some great "nice funny guy".
    - tpoacher 5y ago
      Why would that kind of sanitization be a good thing? People, e.g. do not need to be protected from the fact the Hitler was a pretty good painter, lest they think in classic black-and-white disney-villain stereotypes, and give the next Hitler a pass just because "he can't be that bad if he's such a good painter". Equally, I have no trouble celebrating good works by people who were later found to be objectionable, as long as the works themselves are worthy in isolation. Human nature is flawed, sometimes deeply so, the good can coexist with the bad, and there's no better reminder than this. And I haven't even touched the whole "every hero is some other guy's traitor (and vice versa)"
      - krastanov 5y ago
        Yeah, sure, you are making a good point and I mostly agree. But my question (about which I am still confused) is why "on behalf of the perpetrators" was the claim being made.
        washadjeffmad 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_sexual_abuse_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_sexual_abuse_cases The articles being sanitized are a subtle attempt to distance the BBC from the above scandal by removing the public's access to reporting that tied their employees and facilities to (now) known abusers. There's a film from the 80s, Broadcast News, where a charismatic upstart anchor doctors an interview to make it appear he was crying after hearing a young woman's tale of sexual abuse, and when his producer and potential love interest discovers it, she abjures him professionally and romantically. Journalism ethics would dictate that the BBC account honestly why they are changing the past. They can republish the articles (corrections are not a new concept) and link to the old ones with a "trigger warning" if they wish to, but to make it appear there was less involvement than there was, and to use the victims' feelings as an excuse, is nothing if not wrong.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    I don't think cutting a brief clip introducing much loved national treasure Jimmy Savile from an old magazine show on repeat and not rebroadcasting his original shows is going to make anyone feel more kindly disposed towards Jimmy as a perpetrator. I do think it's going to stop people ringing OFCOM to complain that the TV/iPlayer is still broadcasting that disgusting man like he's a lovable guy. If they wanted to control the PR narrative, they'd hide references to him as a notorious paedophile or questions about whether the BBC staff working on his programmes should have known, not Jim'll Fix It.