BBC Apologizes to Queen

[Teddy Bear]

How much the BBC is responsible for this gaff I don't know. But what really sucks is that mainstream media has been given 'access' to what one must think is a confidential BBC memo (shown at end of article) to senior staff, which makes it appear that they are so concerned about any loss of trust. This 'leak' itself shows their corruption.

Crisis of trust after BBC says sorry again
Adam Sherwin, Media Correspondent
The BBC called on its staff last night to inform their managers about programmes that have misled or deceived the public.

The initiative to shore up trust in the corporation came after it was forced to apologise to the Queen — the second embarassing apology within four days.

Mark Thompson, the BBC Director-General, has been asked by the BBC Trust to explain why a channel controller issued promotional footage that wrongly implied that the Queen had walked out of a photo shoot.

It admitted that footage which purported to show the Queen storming out of a sitting with the celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz had been spliced together out of sequence. In fact the Queen was filmed walking into the shoot.

The position of Peter Fincham, the BBC One Controller, was under threat. He admitted that he had released the footage to the media in order to promote a documentary about the Queen, but said that he had no prior knowlege of the manipulation. Mr Fincham told the media that viewers would see the Queen “walking out in a huff”.

But last night, the corporation said that the raw footage, repeated yesterday on BBC news bulletins, should never have been screened in the first place.

The scandal erupted days after the BBC was hit with a £50,000 fine after admitting that it faked the winner of a Blue Peter phone-in quiz. Senior executives sent a memo to staff yesterday urgently seeking any evidence of other BBC programmes where audiences may have been misled. The memo, signed by Jana Bennett, the corporation’s head of television, said in her memo: “It is crucial if there have been any other instances in which audiences have been misled that I find out about them now.”

It added: “The principal mistake on Blue Peter was the deception of its audience. This issue is clearly not exclusively related to the use of premium-rate telephony. However, it is central to maintaining audience trust in the BBC.” The Palace was said to be “dismayed” over the affair, which made headlines around the world.

Sources said that the Palace felt let down after giving the film crew “unprecedented access” to the Royal Family for a whole year.

The BBC Trust is currently investigating Panorama amid claims that episodes in its new prime-time slot, such as a Scientology exposé, have substituted sensationalism for rigorous journalism.

Last night, RDF Media, which earned the trust of the Royal Family after producing a behind-the-scenes BBC One series about Windsor Castle, took the blame for the episode.

It said that the extracts shown were from “an early assembly of the footage”.

A spokesman said: “This assembly was never intended to be seen by the public or the press. Unfortunately, this was given in error to the BBC personnel who were preparing the autumn launch tape.”

The corporation said that the clips “were not intended to provide a full picture of what actually happened or of what will be shown in the final programme”.

A spokesman said: “In this trailer there is a sequence that implies that the Queen left a sitting prematurely. This was not the case, and the actual sequence of events was misrepresented.”

Both the BBC and RDF Media sent full apologies to the Palace and to Leibovitz.

In the footage, the Queen walks into a room in Buckingham Palace, cluttered with camera equipment, wearing her crown and her Order of the Garter robes.

Leibovitz tells her: “I think it will look better without the crown because the Garter robe is so . . .” But before the photographer can finish saying “extraordinary”, the Queen gives her an icy stare and replies: “Less dressy? What do you think this is?”

The next sequence shows the Queen walking down a corridor, saying to a lady-in-waiting: “I’m not changing anything. I’ve had enough dressing like this, thank you very much.”

This sequence actually preceded her arrival at the shoot.



BBC memo to senior staff

“As we have made clear, the principle [sic] mistake on Blue Peter was the deception of its audience. This issue is clearly not exclusively related to the use of premium-rate telephony. However it is central to maintaining audience trust in the BBC. “Therefore as a matter of top priority I would now like to ask you to consult both your records and your colleagues to identify any further programmes where you feel there may be a risk that in some way audiences could have been misled. “Please could you let me, your senior line manager, or if you prefer David Jordan (controller editorial policy) have details — however sketchy — of any programme broadcast since January 2005 about which you have any concerns in this context. “It is crucial if there have been other instances in which audiences have been misled that I find out about them now.”
Jana Bennett, Director of Vision, Mark Byford, deputy director-general, Helen Boaden, Director of News

[steevo]

Don't know if you read Melanie Phillips on this?...

If it transposes a picture sequence like this to sex up a story about the Queen by transmitting an outright falsehood, just think what it is doing in the Middle East.

This from Roger Simon. Really, who is Annie Liebovitz?

I am not surprised the Beeb lied or "misrepresented" or whatever they call it. That's what they do. (They are a self-sustaining propaganda outfit, just as any public broadcasting system must perforce be. As we all know, the BBC is virtually unsupervised with a mammoth budget that taxes television owners in the UK with less representation than the citizens of colonial America.) But I am a little disappointed that the Queen didn't walk out on Annie Liebovitz. I mean who is Liebovitz anyway? A celebrity photographer! (Okay, a good one, but still just someone who goes around taking pictures of famous people.) It was more than a little funny to envision Elizabeth giving her the gate. Like the recent movie, it made me like the Queen.

[Teddy Bear]

An excellent article in the Telegraph today really puts the BBC gaff into proper perspective. An apology just doesn't really wash, it's the mindset that't the real problem. No respect for anything unless they feel it serves their own interests.

Behaving badly... the BBC and Fincham
By Simon Heffer

Let us suppose, for a moment, that our beloved Queen had behaved in the way that a BBC trailer originally showed her to have done: that she had stormed out of a photo-shoot in an act of petulance towards a world-famous photographer.

Even if she had done that - which, of course, she had not - would it have been proper for the Controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham, to show the clip to journalists and talk it up in order to obtain publicity for his programmes?

Of course it wouldn't. Yet Mr Fincham, in his desperation to blame other people for what in the end must be the BBC's responsibility - and to save his own highly paid, publicly funded skin - misses what is actually the main point.

The ethics of what happened would stink even if the victim had been the lowliest of Her Majesty's subjects from the meanest of Her Majesty's council estates. But using the Queen in this fashion was particularly monstrous, and would have been monstrous even if the truth had not been distorted. If Mr Fincham doesn't understand why, then let me tell him.

The Queen is not just another celebrity. She is our Head of State. She never seeks publicity. She will have agreed to co-operate with the makers of the BBC programme about a year in her life not to aggrandise herself - as if that were possible or necessary - but to ensure the public remains informed about the institution she embodies.

However, with that disgusting cynicism so redolent of the broadcast media, Mr Fincham chose to treat our Head of State and Sovereign as just another celebrity. She was a convenient and rather exciting way of publicising his programmes, his network and, of course, himself.

Why should it be any concern of Mr Fincham's that this might lead to the state broadcaster damaging the Queen and the whole institution of monarchy? Why indeed?

Like the people who edited the trailer to distort the truth, Mr Fincham seems to have something of a values deficit here. I am sure he didn't know it was distorted, I am sure he hasn't the time to check every trailer, and I'm sure he does a magnificent job at talking up his network (which, incidentally, should be privatised, but that's another matter).

However, he doesn't seem to grasp the basic need to have a set of manners in relation to the Sovereign that might be different to those exercised towards, say, a member of the cast of EastEnders, or one of those trivial people of uncertain sexuality who seem to populate BBC1 during the evenings.

The people who edited the Queen in this way displayed a lack of training, a lack of understanding, a lack of experience, a lack of ethical judgment but, above all, a lack of breeding.

It is terribly funny for the stupid and ignorant to use the Queen as a means of getting a laugh: but Mr Fincham is not stupid or ignorant - at least on paper.

Yet to hear the way he talked about Her Majesty at his infamous press conference "throwing a wobbler" suggests not that he has a lot to learn, but that it must be doubted that he could ever learn it.

I don't believe the Queen should be above criticism, although quite frankly I think her conduct over the past 81 years suggests she almost certainly is.

However, those in the media, if they wish to be taken seriously, have a duty to treat the Queen in a way unlike any politician, and certainly unlike any run-of-the-mill celebrity.

This must apply especially to the state broadcaster. This is because the Queen's position cannot be compromised by her giving interviews, or taking a public point of view on any question: she is the figurehead for the entire nation.

And those with power in the respectable media have a duty, therefore, to protect her and her special position. Mr Fincham's use - or misuse - of her was contemptible and indefensible. Why is he still in his job?

[Teddy Bear]

Another (mea-culpa) 'private' BBC memo somehow gets passed to the rest of the media so we can really see how "sorry they really are, and how they really must get their act together in future not to lose the public trust"

The reason they are are in this position in the first place is because they are so totally corrupt that incidents like these and the recent Blue Peter episode are bound to 'seep out'. Their usual method of dealing with dissent is to ignore it, or undermine it. never mind that it is their own licence fee payers that they choose to denigrate, after all, what do they know compared to the all-wise BBC? Evne now they think they can ride this out with nothing more than a 'leaked memo' of their supposed intent and a public apology. If the populace let them get away with this, and they probably will - again, then this is what they deserve.

Expect more - much more!

BBC head warns Queen row risks public trust
By Andrew Pierce

The director general of the BBC has warned the corporation's 25,000 staff that it had jeopardised the trust of the public because of the row over misrepresenting the Queen.

Mark Thompson: BBC has to put its house in order

In a hard-hitting email, a copy of which has been passed to The Daily Telegraph, Mark Thompson said that the BBC had to put its house in order urgently.

The humiliating apology to the Queen came only days after the BBC was fined £50,000 for cheating on a phone-in on Blue Peter, the children's programme.

Mr Thompson has set up an inquiry into how the BBC incorrectly declared in a trailer for A Year with the Queen that she had flounced out of a photo shoot with Annie Leibovitz, the American photographer, after objecting to the suggestion that she should remove her crown.

RDF Television, the independent production company that edited the trailer, may now be sacked as a BBC contributor.

Peter Fincham, the controller of BBC1, who fuelled the controversy by saying that the Queen had "lost it" and walked out in a "huff" was last night insisting that he would not quit. He was buoyed by a private message of support from Mr Thompson.

Dame Helen Mirren, who won an Oscar for her portrayal of the Queen, called the BBC "idiotic". She said: "The BBC should have known better. I think it was a disgrace."

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat culture spokesman, called for dismissals if the inquiry found there had been a deliberate attempt to deceive viewers. He said: "An apology in this instance is wholly inadequate. The public rely on the BBC to deliver information which is impartial, without agenda and accurate.

"If the trust's investigation shows there was a deliberate attempt to deceive the viewing public then the BBC must consider the position of those responsible."

In the email, the director general said the incident threatened "the precious relationship of trust between the BBC and our audiences".

He added in the message to staff: "We cannot take that trust for granted."

He will report to the BBC Trust, which replaced the governors as the regulators of the corporation, on Wednesday.

[jimbob]

I am becoming concerned that I am the only person in the world to have spotted a major media conspiracy in the way this BBC blunder is being reported. All the reports on this incident talk about the screening to journalists of the "sexed up" trailer. Am I the ONLY person that saw the trailer broadcast on BBC News 24? Why has this never been mentioned by any journalist and why has the defense put forward by the now displaced BBC controller, that the trailer was not shown "publicly" not been torn to pieces? Surely other people saw this trailer broadcast? From about two hours of searching on the internet - I have only found the News 24 broadcast mentioned in one forum by one commentor and it was largely ignored on the forum! When I saw the trailer broadcast - my immediate reaction was that it was pretty dodgy! I was initially confused what type of programme it was advertising and initially thought that the queen had been overdubbed! I immediately thought that this was a controversial and risky clip! Please tell me that other people have seen this broadcast! The ommissioin of this key fact that the trialer was shown on public TV must make this one of the worst reported big stories of the year!

[Teddy Bear]

Welcome Jimbob.

You may well have the distinction of being the only person who watches BBC News 24

It would appear doubtful that any journalist that might have seen this clip broadcast live would then have failed to report it in their article. Have you contacted any newspaper or TV station to tell them of the clip's appearance on News 24? If so, what was their response?

[jimbob]

I haven't reported the public broadcasting of the trailer to any newspaper or TV station but I had considered it. For me the significant issue here is that, as I recall, one of Fincham's key defenses was the fact that the trailer was only shown to a group of journalists rather than being publicly broadcast. Perhaps at some top level meeting someone quietly came over to whisper in his ear that it was actually shown on BBC News 24! This may have been one of the factors influencing his departure. This would have certainly meant more egg on his face and more humiliating back-tracking if his lack of knowledge or deceit over the public broadcast came out. I am still very surprised that no journalist has picked up on this....and surprised that I am the only person that watches News 24! I might well call a news paper tomorrow to see if they are interested, or now heads have rolled, it may already be old news!

[Teddy Bear]

I would suggest contacting a few different media outlets with this news and see what follows rather than surmise. If then they decide to bury it its a whole other story, rather than making assumptions that they have.

According to the Telegraph today, Fincham did not resign voluntarily, but rather feels he was the sacrificial lamb, and was forced out. Many are calling for the ousting of his controller.