4 ms·

This is a a strange article. I have no doubt that the 'archived' version is retained. However, yes if they are rebroadcasting some radio show from the 1950 for

• shellac 5y ago
  > I have no doubt that the 'archived' version is retained. Working in the preservation area, and being aware of what the BBC has lost over time, the title immediately had my interest. But this isn't a serious piece of journalism at all. The author doesn't make any attempt to verify the claim, and liberally decorates his piece with specious references to Orwell. He doesn't appear to know what an archive actually is, and thinks the BBC is 'state owned'. It appears to serve little purpose than to ensure the header and footer are visually separated in a pleasing way.
• mahogany 5y ago
  This article is a pretty fascinating experiment showing how propaganda (or, to be more generous: click-bait) works in real time. Look at how many comments in this thread think that the archive versions were censored based on the misleading title. You could probably argue that the title is technically correct and that's what makes propaganda so effective. It's unfortunate, because there is a nuanced discussion to be had here, about whether re-broadcasts should be modified (e.g. should we be okay with that if there is a disclaimer?), but the conversation gets derailed immediately because many people only read headlines. But of course, they know what they are doing, trying to get a rise. They could have easily used a more accurate, but boring, title such as "BBC re-broadcasts differ from archived versions."