3 ms·

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 (t

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.

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.