9 ms·

BBC will not broadcast Attenborough episode over fear of rightwing backlash

76 points by ndsipa_pomu 4y ago

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
This is worrying as the BBC is supposed to be impartial and yet seems to be moving rightwards. There would seem to be a pattern of events: Richard Sharp made a loan to Boris Johnson and then was made the Chair of the BBC which has been described as "an error of judgement". More recently, there's been the criticism of Gary Lineker for calling out the Home Office's use of language (he compared it to Nazi Germany). There certainly seems to be a trend of the right-wing not allowing freedom of speech or criticism of their more toxic policies and lies.
- dontlaugh 4y ago
  There’s been a clear right wing shift since around the Iraq war. It’s only gotten worse under the Tories, with party members in senior positions.
  - gadders 4y ago
    The Iraq Was was started by a Labour government, and from what I remember the BBC seemed to be very against it.
    - dontlaugh 4y ago
      Yes, that's why the BBC was then subjugated more directly to state control. New Labour was a centre-right party, just like Labour today.
      - gadders 4y ago
        Sadly so is the Tory party.
        dontlaugh 4y ago
        I’d say they’re still to the right of this New New Labour.
- jjbinx007 4y ago
  And don't forget the BBC's political editor exclaimed incredulously "that's quite a charge!" when a politician said that the former PM Boris Johnson has told lies in the past. BBC often prides itself of having "both sides" of an argument in a debate (as if there are only 2 sides). Not all subjects need to a counter point of view. For example, if the BBC produce a document about black holes I don't to hear from a flat earther who denies gravity exists.
  - BrianHenryIE 4y ago
    Dara Ó Briain has a great skit on that (about a minute in, again at 4:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZN-hBTBUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZN-hBTBUE
- gadders 4y ago
  BBC presenters are supposed to be politically neutral, so Lineker was right to be criticised (quite apart from the fact he was talking rubbish). The ex-director general of the BBC Mark Thompson joined that hotbed of right wing activism, the New York Times. You also have ex-Labour minister James Purnell who had a senior role in the BBC. Frankly if you think the BBC is anything other than the broadcast media wing of the Guardian you are severely deluded.
  - KineticLensman 4y ago
    > Frankly if you think the BBC is anything other than the broadcast media wing of the Guardian you are severely deluded. The extensive airtime given to Nigel Farage on BBC Question Time (> 30 appearances) contradicts this statement.
    - Veen 4y ago
      Of the nine people who have appeared on Question Time most often, two might be considered right-wing: Farage and Ken Clarke. The remainder are Labour or Lib Dem MPs: Shirley Williams, Menzies Campbell, Harriet Harman, Charles Kennedy, Clare Short, Paddy Ashdown, and Roy Hattersley. Of these, Farage is the only Brexiteer; Clarke is a right-wing Remainer. Just this year, it has featured the following left-wing politicians and journalists: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Bridget Phillipson, Ash Sarkar (a libertarian communist), Wes Streeting, Tracy Brabin, Jenny Gilruth, Ian Murray, India Willoughby, Lisa Nandy, Stephen Kinnock, Thangam Debbonaire, and Sarah Jones. I think perhaps your issue is with right-wing people getting any airtime at all.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        What's your view on this: https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/an-open-letter-to-the-bbc/ https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/an-open-letter-to-th... particularly: "there is a clear and well-evidenced bias toward panellists from right-leaning media organisations"
    - lamp987 4y ago
      The number is meaningless without comparison to others.
- misssocrates 4y ago
  Can you think of any ways in which the BBC moved leftwards in recent years? And is it bad for them to adjust in either direction to orient toward neutrality?
  - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
    Nothing springs to mind. I don't want them to be adjusting their position one way or another politically - I want them to be reporting and investigating facts as far as possible without using loaded language. However, I do have an axe to grind against the BBC as they are institutionally anti-cyclist and I've made many complaints to them over their cycling/active transport coverage. Usually they sit on the complaint for weeks/months and then adjust the original article which no-one will ever see as it's then too old.
  - beardyw 4y ago
    Well if we take Gary Lineker's comments, would it have been right for the BBC to move closer to their philosophy?
- Veen 4y ago
  The Guardian article is misleading to the point of dishonesty. The episode that isn't being broadcast was not intended to be broadcast because it isn't part of the Wild Isles series. It's a companion documentary commissioned by the RSPB and the WWF. And for all the good both these charities do, the BBC should not be broadcasting programs made by what are, in effect, political lobbying organizations (and I say that as someone who agrees with their aims). Look at the last paragraph in the article, where they've put the real reason it isn't being broadcast. Lineker compared the Home Secretary to the Nazis. He's entitled to his personal opinions, but he's a very prominent and massively over-paid BBC employee, so he should know better than to air his views on Twitter.
  - beardyw 4y ago
    > The episode that isn't being broadcast was not intended to be broadcast because it isn't part of the Wild Isles series. Apart from the statement by the BBC spokesman do you have any evidence of that?
    - jrex 4y ago
      The WWF have confirmed that it is a complementary documentary. (https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634230395037204482?s=61&t=ZgE1VbL7HoKxgex12KflNA https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634230395037204482?s=61&t...). Google shows that Wild Isles has always been referred to as being in five parts.
  - Steven420 4y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out. The last paragraph offers some much needed context. This article is just anti right wing propaganda
- marcusverus 4y ago
  The home office released this milquetoast video about stopping illegal immigration. Watch it. It's only a minute long.[0] Gary Lineker, who presents on the BBC, responded with hysterical comment "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s'". Tim Davie, a director at the BBC, said "If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC." If this is the BBC "moving right", it's hard to imagine that such a change is a bad thing. [0] https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1633022905628884992 https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1633022905628884992
  - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
    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 Tories, so a lot of the statements are a result of their toxic-environment policy on immigration. Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - marcusverus 4y ago
      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 entering a given country is generally 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 UK doesn't grant asylum to people who travel to the UK through a 'safe third country'[0]. Why would sneaking across the channel be made any less illegal by making an invalid asylum claim? > The immigration services have been completely stripped back by the Tories, so a lot of the statements are a result of their toxic-environment policy on immigration. Tories were elected to implement immigration reform. What makes it toxic? > Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK. The Tories are in power and this issue matters to their constituents. Waving it off as a "dog whistle" assumes bad faith which is, in my experience, a poor substitute for understanding the other side's arguments. Also, "It's not that big of a problem" is an odd formulation. You acknowledge that there's a problem, but don't want it solved? Help me understand this mindset. [0]https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility
madaxe_again 4y ago
Of course they won’t. The BBC is a government organ, with the sole purpose of disseminating government messaging. Criticism of government or policy is non-existent, and when it does appear, microphones are cut and apologies are made. Reminds me of an email I had from the home office recently - “we welcome all positive feedback”. “If you don’t have approving comments to make, keep your mouth shut” is the ethos of Britain in 2023. It’s rather like Germany in the 1930s.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
warning26 4y ago
But I was told that only the left cancels things they disagree with!
- lamp987 4y ago
  Nobody cancelled anyone. How can the alleged "rightwing" viewers or commentators cancel BBC? Can they fire the directors and ensure they dont get employed? Or what are you talking about? Corrupt BBC managers decided this on their own.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
prohisto 4y ago
Almost like the government should not be funding media.
eurasiantiger 4y ago
This is what any great nation reduces to when the people let their leaders become power brokers.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  I'm struggling to think of a "great nation" that doesn't or didn't allow this.
thegrim33 4y ago
This has nothing to do with technology and is just yet another piece of culture war propaganda.
heywhatupboys 4y ago
This is a classic headline in the modern world. Some actor (not the film actors) says they won't do x because of fear for some other actor. The whole community then comes to critize actor 2 despite them having absolutely NO SAY in the decision and might even be okay with the situation at large. Just like I could say: Programmer stops publishing a book on Java out of fear for HN.
adolph 4y ago
The BBC has a tricky needle to thread. Agnostic to any claim made the episode, it seems a very normal scepticism would come from a documentary funded in part by organizations that then promote themselves based on the gravitas of said documentary. I'd think that the BBC wouldn't even start a documentary about rural electrification funded by a coal company, or poverty mitigation by payday lenders. A sixth episode has also been filmed, which is understood to be a stark look at the losses of nature in the UK and what has caused the declines. It is also understood to include some examples of rewilding, a concept that has been controversial in some rightwing circles. The documentary, which was part-funded by nature charities the WWF and RSPB, will not be broadcast along with the others and will instead be available only on the BBC’s iPlayer service. . . . . . . This week the Telegraph newspaper attacked the BBC for creating the series and for taking funding from “two charities previously criticised for their political lobbying” – the WWF and RSPB. [...] The charities involved in the programme are already using it to launch a campaign – unaffiliated with the BBC – called Save Our Wild Isles. They have also gained the support of the National Trust, the Guardian understands.
sys32768 4y ago
>allintitle: "rightwing backlash" site:theguardian.com 10 results. >allintitle: "leftwing backlash" site:theguardian.com 0 results. In my experience, the left-leaning people I know tend to protest and organize a lot more than the right-leaning. In fact the right-leaning mostly seem to whine and grumble and then return to their regularly scheduled programming.
Jiro 4y ago
My first reaction is "we have no idea if the BBC actually did this for the stated reasons at all, or whether they are refusing to show it for some other reason and are blaming outside groups to deflect the blame and/or to make a political attack." My second reaction is "assuming the BBC is not just lying, do they have reason to think some groups would oppose it, or did they just magically come up with the idea? The only entity that this article names as objecting is the Telegraph. That doesn't seem like enough all by itself. Is there anyone else specific who objected? My third reaction is "assuming that that's true too, on what grounds did the groups object?" Neither the BBC nor the Grauniad gives any details about their objections. Just "it's right-wingers". The Telegraph link says that the episode was funded by political groups, and that doing so is not standard procedure--if so, this sounds like a completely reasonable objection.
stakhanov 4y ago
When I'm in a certain kind of mood, I often long for something that's a bit "slow TV", a bit "feelgood", a bit escapist, etc. I then frequently turn to a nature documentary and really enjoy the breathtaking imagery of the deep sea or Yellowstone wildlife or whatever. Then, after about 5mins, the guilttripping starts. And I'm like "...while all that may be accurate, I've had a tough day at work, and reflecting upon why my consumption behaviour is killing lovely fluffy polar bear babies is just not what I'm in the mood for right now." ...so while all this is lamentable from a political perspective, I find it coincidentally quite agreeable from an entertainment value perspective.
- nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
  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?
  - stakhanov 4y ago
    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 destroying nature. It's all this same weird psychology, where man loves to set up systems to keep reminding him that he's a sinner. The political right, in the U.S., gets their weekly fix in church. The political left works the message into nature documentaries instead. I wish both sides would stop evangelizing. I really kind of want to just say "No, thank you" in the same way I would say "No, thank you" to a Jehovah's witness knocking at my door.
    - nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
      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?
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Human destruction of nature has been known for hundreds of years. It's not exactly controversial to say on TV in England that humans deforested Europe, drove a bunch of species extinct and covered the place in coal dust. What is it about this episode that's so inflammatory vs the other ones in the series?
fwlr 4y ago
“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!
- beardyw 4y ago
  Well, to be fair, that's the spokesman's take on it. The truth is probably somewhere between.
  - johneth 4y ago
    How? The statement is unambiguous. The WWF also confirmed this: https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634290349098057728 https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634290349098057728
- crtasm 4y ago
  I note that paragraph has since been removed.
  - fwlr 4y ago
    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.””
    - madaxe_again 4y ago
      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.

76 points by ndsipa_pomu 4y ago

This is worrying as the BBC is supposed to be impartial and yet seems to be moving rightwards. There would seem to be a pattern of events: Richard Sharp made a loan to Boris Johnson and then was made the Chair of the BBC which has been described as "an error of judgement". More recently, there's been the criticism of Gary Lineker for calling out the Home Office's use of language (he compared it to Nazi Germany). There certainly seems to be a trend of the right-wing not allowing freedom of speech or criticism of their more toxic policies and lies.

dontlaugh 4y ago
There’s been a clear right wing shift since around the Iraq war. It’s only gotten worse under the Tories, with party members in senior positions.
- gadders 4y ago
  The Iraq Was was started by a Labour government, and from what I remember the BBC seemed to be very against it.
  - dontlaugh 4y ago
    Yes, that's why the BBC was then subjugated more directly to state control. New Labour was a centre-right party, just like Labour today.
    - gadders 4y ago
      Sadly so is the Tory party.
      - dontlaugh 4y ago
        I’d say they’re still to the right of this New New Labour.
jjbinx007 4y ago
And don't forget the BBC's political editor exclaimed incredulously "that's quite a charge!" when a politician said that the former PM Boris Johnson has told lies in the past. BBC often prides itself of having "both sides" of an argument in a debate (as if there are only 2 sides). Not all subjects need to a counter point of view. For example, if the BBC produce a document about black holes I don't to hear from a flat earther who denies gravity exists.
- BrianHenryIE 4y ago
  Dara Ó Briain has a great skit on that (about a minute in, again at 4:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZN-hBTBUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZN-hBTBUE
gadders 4y ago
BBC presenters are supposed to be politically neutral, so Lineker was right to be criticised (quite apart from the fact he was talking rubbish). The ex-director general of the BBC Mark Thompson joined that hotbed of right wing activism, the New York Times. You also have ex-Labour minister James Purnell who had a senior role in the BBC. Frankly if you think the BBC is anything other than the broadcast media wing of the Guardian you are severely deluded.
- KineticLensman 4y ago
  > Frankly if you think the BBC is anything other than the broadcast media wing of the Guardian you are severely deluded. The extensive airtime given to Nigel Farage on BBC Question Time (> 30 appearances) contradicts this statement.
  - Veen 4y ago
    Of the nine people who have appeared on Question Time most often, two might be considered right-wing: Farage and Ken Clarke. The remainder are Labour or Lib Dem MPs: Shirley Williams, Menzies Campbell, Harriet Harman, Charles Kennedy, Clare Short, Paddy Ashdown, and Roy Hattersley. Of these, Farage is the only Brexiteer; Clarke is a right-wing Remainer. Just this year, it has featured the following left-wing politicians and journalists: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Bridget Phillipson, Ash Sarkar (a libertarian communist), Wes Streeting, Tracy Brabin, Jenny Gilruth, Ian Murray, India Willoughby, Lisa Nandy, Stephen Kinnock, Thangam Debbonaire, and Sarah Jones. I think perhaps your issue is with right-wing people getting any airtime at all.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      What's your view on this: https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/an-open-letter-to-the-bbc/ https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/an-open-letter-to-th... particularly: "there is a clear and well-evidenced bias toward panellists from right-leaning media organisations"
  - lamp987 4y ago
    The number is meaningless without comparison to others.
misssocrates 4y ago
Can you think of any ways in which the BBC moved leftwards in recent years? And is it bad for them to adjust in either direction to orient toward neutrality?
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  Nothing springs to mind. I don't want them to be adjusting their position one way or another politically - I want them to be reporting and investigating facts as far as possible without using loaded language. However, I do have an axe to grind against the BBC as they are institutionally anti-cyclist and I've made many complaints to them over their cycling/active transport coverage. Usually they sit on the complaint for weeks/months and then adjust the original article which no-one will ever see as it's then too old.
- beardyw 4y ago
  Well if we take Gary Lineker's comments, would it have been right for the BBC to move closer to their philosophy?
Veen 4y ago
The Guardian article is misleading to the point of dishonesty. The episode that isn't being broadcast was not intended to be broadcast because it isn't part of the Wild Isles series. It's a companion documentary commissioned by the RSPB and the WWF. And for all the good both these charities do, the BBC should not be broadcasting programs made by what are, in effect, political lobbying organizations (and I say that as someone who agrees with their aims). Look at the last paragraph in the article, where they've put the real reason it isn't being broadcast. Lineker compared the Home Secretary to the Nazis. He's entitled to his personal opinions, but he's a very prominent and massively over-paid BBC employee, so he should know better than to air his views on Twitter.
- beardyw 4y ago
  > The episode that isn't being broadcast was not intended to be broadcast because it isn't part of the Wild Isles series. Apart from the statement by the BBC spokesman do you have any evidence of that?
  - jrex 4y ago
    The WWF have confirmed that it is a complementary documentary. (https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634230395037204482?s=61&t=ZgE1VbL7HoKxgex12KflNA https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634230395037204482?s=61&t...). Google shows that Wild Isles has always been referred to as being in five parts.
- Steven420 4y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. The last paragraph offers some much needed context. This article is just anti right wing propaganda
marcusverus 4y ago
The home office released this milquetoast video about stopping illegal immigration. Watch it. It's only a minute long.[0] Gary Lineker, who presents on the BBC, responded with hysterical comment "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s'". Tim Davie, a director at the BBC, said "If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC." If this is the BBC "moving right", it's hard to imagine that such a change is a bad thing. [0] https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1633022905628884992 https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1633022905628884992
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  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 Tories, so a lot of the statements are a result of their toxic-environment policy on immigration. Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    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 entering a given country is generally 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 UK doesn't grant asylum to people who travel to the UK through a 'safe third country'[0]. Why would sneaking across the channel be made any less illegal by making an invalid asylum claim? > The immigration services have been completely stripped back by the Tories, so a lot of the statements are a result of their toxic-environment policy on immigration. Tories were elected to implement immigration reform. What makes it toxic? > Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK. The Tories are in power and this issue matters to their constituents. Waving it off as a "dog whistle" assumes bad faith which is, in my experience, a poor substitute for understanding the other side's arguments. Also, "It's not that big of a problem" is an odd formulation. You acknowledge that there's a problem, but don't want it solved? Help me understand this mindset. [0]https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

madaxe_again 4y ago

Of course they won’t. The BBC is a government organ, with the sole purpose of disseminating government messaging. Criticism of government or policy is non-existent, and when it does appear, microphones are cut and apologies are made. Reminds me of an email I had from the home office recently - “we welcome all positive feedback”. “If you don’t have approving comments to make, keep your mouth shut” is the ethos of Britain in 2023. It’s rather like Germany in the 1930s.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

warning26 4y ago

But I was told that only the left cancels things they disagree with!

lamp987 4y ago
Nobody cancelled anyone. How can the alleged "rightwing" viewers or commentators cancel BBC? Can they fire the directors and ensure they dont get employed? Or what are you talking about? Corrupt BBC managers decided this on their own.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

prohisto 4y ago

Almost like the government should not be funding media.

eurasiantiger 4y ago

This is what any great nation reduces to when the people let their leaders become power brokers.

chitowneats 4y ago
I'm struggling to think of a "great nation" that doesn't or didn't allow this.

thegrim33 4y ago

This has nothing to do with technology and is just yet another piece of culture war propaganda.

heywhatupboys 4y ago

This is a classic headline in the modern world. Some actor (not the film actors) says they won't do x because of fear for some other actor. The whole community then comes to critize actor 2 despite them having absolutely NO SAY in the decision and might even be okay with the situation at large. Just like I could say: Programmer stops publishing a book on Java out of fear for HN.

adolph 4y ago

The BBC has a tricky needle to thread. Agnostic to any claim made the episode, it seems a very normal scepticism would come from a documentary funded in part by organizations that then promote themselves based on the gravitas of said documentary. I'd think that the BBC wouldn't even start a documentary about rural electrification funded by a coal company, or poverty mitigation by payday lenders. A sixth episode has also been filmed, which is understood to be a stark look at the losses of nature in the UK and what has caused the declines. It is also understood to include some examples of rewilding, a concept that has been controversial in some rightwing circles. The documentary, which was part-funded by nature charities the WWF and RSPB, will not be broadcast along with the others and will instead be available only on the BBC’s iPlayer service. . . . . . . This week the Telegraph newspaper attacked the BBC for creating the series and for taking funding from “two charities previously criticised for their political lobbying” – the WWF and RSPB. [...] The charities involved in the programme are already using it to launch a campaign – unaffiliated with the BBC – called Save Our Wild Isles. They have also gained the support of the National Trust, the Guardian understands.

sys32768 4y ago

>allintitle: "rightwing backlash" site:theguardian.com 10 results. >allintitle: "leftwing backlash" site:theguardian.com 0 results. In my experience, the left-leaning people I know tend to protest and organize a lot more than the right-leaning. In fact the right-leaning mostly seem to whine and grumble and then return to their regularly scheduled programming.

Jiro 4y ago

My first reaction is "we have no idea if the BBC actually did this for the stated reasons at all, or whether they are refusing to show it for some other reason and are blaming outside groups to deflect the blame and/or to make a political attack." My second reaction is "assuming the BBC is not just lying, do they have reason to think some groups would oppose it, or did they just magically come up with the idea? The only entity that this article names as objecting is the Telegraph. That doesn't seem like enough all by itself. Is there anyone else specific who objected? My third reaction is "assuming that that's true too, on what grounds did the groups object?" Neither the BBC nor the Grauniad gives any details about their objections. Just "it's right-wingers". The Telegraph link says that the episode was funded by political groups, and that doing so is not standard procedure--if so, this sounds like a completely reasonable objection.

stakhanov 4y ago

When I'm in a certain kind of mood, I often long for something that's a bit "slow TV", a bit "feelgood", a bit escapist, etc. I then frequently turn to a nature documentary and really enjoy the breathtaking imagery of the deep sea or Yellowstone wildlife or whatever. Then, after about 5mins, the guilttripping starts. And I'm like "...while all that may be accurate, I've had a tough day at work, and reflecting upon why my consumption behaviour is killing lovely fluffy polar bear babies is just not what I'm in the mood for right now." ...so while all this is lamentable from a political perspective, I find it coincidentally quite agreeable from an entertainment value perspective.

nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
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?
- stakhanov 4y ago
  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 destroying nature. It's all this same weird psychology, where man loves to set up systems to keep reminding him that he's a sinner. The political right, in the U.S., gets their weekly fix in church. The political left works the message into nature documentaries instead. I wish both sides would stop evangelizing. I really kind of want to just say "No, thank you" in the same way I would say "No, thank you" to a Jehovah's witness knocking at my door.
  - nyc_data_geek1 4y ago
    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?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

Human destruction of nature has been known for hundreds of years. It's not exactly controversial to say on TV in England that humans deforested Europe, drove a bunch of species extinct and covered the place in coal dust. What is it about this episode that's so inflammatory vs the other ones in the series?

fwlr 4y ago

“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!

beardyw 4y ago
Well, to be fair, that's the spokesman's take on it. The truth is probably somewhere between.
- johneth 4y ago
  How? The statement is unambiguous. The WWF also confirmed this: https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634290349098057728 https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634290349098057728
crtasm 4y ago
I note that paragraph has since been removed.
- fwlr 4y ago
  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.””
  - madaxe_again 4y ago
    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.