Hogwash.
You claimed Naga was 'told off', but you got no proof whatsoever, because she wasn't.
You just can't admit you were wrong.
That's it, end of
Muzzled
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
You claimed Naga was 'told off', but you got no proof whatsoever, because she wasn't.
You just can't admit you were wrong.
That's it, end of
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,455
- Reaction score
- 3,359
- Country
Read it and weep , loser.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...censure-of-naga-munchetty-over-trump-comments
Back on ignore.
Ha ha ha
Nowhere does it say she was told off.
All it says is the BBC upheld the complaint.
So you are talking hogwash
Sponsored Links
It doesn't say she was told off.
For all we know the BBC might have said to her: "I'm sorry we have to uphold the complaint, impartiality and all that, even though we agree with you and you are doing a fantastic job"
Ihavenojob is trying to defend an argument he can't, there is no proof.
E
EddieM
Oh, I'm not for 1 minute criticizing what she said, quite the reverse.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,455
- Reaction score
- 3,359
- Country
"The BBC has defended the decision to censure Breakfast Show host Naga Munchetty for her comments about Donald Trump, with the corporation’s director of editorial policy saying it is not the BBC’s policy to be “calling out people for being liars or racist”.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
You got your quote from a newspaper, whose job it is, is to sensationalise news so that papers are sold?
The official report from the Executive Complaints Unit of the BBC
Complaint
The programme was broadcast on the morning after the US House of Representatives had condemned President Trump’s tweeted comments on four Democrat Congresswomen, in which he wrote “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”, as racist. Following an interview with a London-based Trump supporter who denied that the comments were racist, Dan Walker initiated an exchange with his co-presenter Naga Munchetty. A viewer complained that this had led to the expression of personal opinions which were inconsistent with the BBC’s commitment to impartiality.
Outcome
In the view of the Executive Complaints Unit it was entirely legitimate for Ms Munchetty, when pressed by Mr Walker for a personal response, to reply in terms which reflected her own experience of racism and the racist context in which suggestions that people from ethnic minorities should go back to their own countries are generally made. However, she went on to comment critically on the possible motive for, and potential consequences of, the President’s words. Judgements of that kind are for the audience to make, and the exchange fell short of due impartiality in that respect.
Partly upheld
Note: The matter was subsequently reviewed by the Director-General, who concluded that Ms Munchetty's words were not sufficient to justify the partial upholding of the complaint. In consequence, the ECU's finding no longer stands.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/breakfast-bbc-one-17-july-2019
If the comments in bold red are your idea of being berated or even censured, you must be a larger-than-life snowflake.The programme was broadcast on the morning after the US House of Representatives had condemned President Trump’s tweeted comments on four Democrat Congresswomen, in which he wrote “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”, as racist. Following an interview with a London-based Trump supporter who denied that the comments were racist, Dan Walker initiated an exchange with his co-presenter Naga Munchetty. A viewer complained that this had led to the expression of personal opinions which were inconsistent with the BBC’s commitment to impartiality.
Outcome
In the view of the Executive Complaints Unit it was entirely legitimate for Ms Munchetty, when pressed by Mr Walker for a personal response, to reply in terms which reflected her own experience of racism and the racist context in which suggestions that people from ethnic minorities should go back to their own countries are generally made. However, she went on to comment critically on the possible motive for, and potential consequences of, the President’s words. Judgements of that kind are for the audience to make, and the exchange fell short of due impartiality in that respect.
Partly upheld
Note: The matter was subsequently reviewed by the Director-General, who concluded that Ms Munchetty's words were not sufficient to justify the partial upholding of the complaint. In consequence, the ECU's finding no longer stands.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/breakfast-bbc-one-17-july-2019
Last edited:
D
durhamplumber
LMAO....Naga on Radio 5 live now!!...Proper BBC bollőcking dished out to her.
Fundamental to all this is - was what she said true?
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,455
- Reaction score
- 3,359
- Country
YESThe Guardian, a bastion of truth, on par with the BBC and The Independent . The point I was making, using a word with the same meaning, that she WAS told off, no action taken(like I said), complaint partially upheld (like the article I linked stated). The fact the bollo cking was maybe deemed unfair, she was still told off.
Last edited:
I don't think it is fundamental at all, as she is not paid or permitted to express her opinion. AFAIK anyway.
The truth is not an opinion.
Plus - she wasn't reading the news but hosting a chat show.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,455
- Reaction score
- 3,359
- Country
An opinion can be the truth. The news and current affairs staff at the BBC have to be impartial, she wasn't in her views on Trump (rightly or wrongly). She went against company policy, something a lot of normal people would be sacked for. Gary Lineker, on the other hand, is not a news and current affairs employee, so can give an opinion (or so it seems, as he did and no action was taken) which is why a lot of people, me included, thought the treatment of Naga was unfair.
Sponsored Links
