+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: Propaganda (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Propaganda)
+--- Thread: Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair (/Thread-Mark-Steel-A-clear-case-of-attack-by-wheelchair)
Pages:
1
2
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair - Magda Hassan - 15-12-2010
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
The police like to set their public relations department a special Christmas challenge, don't they? Because that's the only explanation for them being filmed on the anti-fees demonstration, chucking a disabled man out of his wheelchair and shoving him along the road, unless it was to enjoy telling their PR team, "Stick a positive spin on that for us, could you?"
Ben Brown of the BBC tried his best, when he interviewed Jody McIntyre, the man who was dislodged, and said aggressively: "There's a suggestion that you were rolling in the direction of the police." Now, let's suppose this was the case (which I can't help but doubt), how much force is needed, I wonder, to stop a man with cerebral palsy who keeps rolling, even when asked to stop?
Presumably the police turned to each other in shock, spluttering: "Oh my God, he's rolling straight for us. These riot shields and helmets with visors offer woefully inadequate protection against such a persistent rolling machine. If we're lucky our batons can buy us some time, but his momentum is terrifying, it's like a cerebral palsy tsunami."
Maybe this is how to win in Afghanistan. We recruit a multiple sclerosis battalion to roll mercilessly through Helmand province and the Taliban will run away shrieking in fear.
Even as they showed the film on the news, Ben Brown said it "appeared to show Mr Mcintyre being pulled from his wheelchair", with a lingering ambiguous "appeared", as if he was going to add: "but it turned out to be a stunt staged by Derren Brown. We were misled by the power of suggestion, and when you look more closely you can see it's a butterfly landing on a petal."
This process started on the day of the demonstration, when live footage of mounted police charging into the crowd and swinging batons was accompanied by a reporter saying: "It looks as if the crowd are getting restless." This is a common disorder among news reporters, which ought to have a name such as "Confused Baton Charge Back-to-Front Bashed and Basher Syndrome". Sufferers would make novel boxing commentators, saying: "Audley Harrison is lashing out with tremendous aggression there as he stares with a blank, concussed expression into the paramedic's torch."
They might also consider Alfie Meadows, who was so restless he ended up in hospital in a critical condition, having a brain operation after being whacked with a police truncheon. It has also emerged that, when he arrived there, the police insisted he should be taken somewhere else as that hospital was to be used only by their officers. So there seems to be a misunderstanding of how hospitals work, with the Metropolitan Police under the impression they have the same system as restaurants. So you arrive unconscious, then a porter says, "Do you have a reservation?" But if it's busy you get told, "I'm sorry sir, we're fully booked this evening. The police have taken all three wards I'm afraid, but if you survive the night you're welcome to see if we've a brain surgeon available tomorrow."
And yet most coverage of the demonstration has surrounded the violence of the students. Maybe this is because most reporters and politicians believe with such fervour the police are innately honourable, and demonstrators are troublesome, they can't help but see such a one-sided view. But imagine the uproar if a policeman had needed a brain operation after being hit by a student, or if students announced that following recent events they were investigating getting a water cannon, or that a reporter might angrily ask Camilla, "But there's been a suggestion you were rolling towards the demonstrators."
Or maybe the incident with Jody McIntyre is nothing to do with students, and this is the new test for anyone on disability benefit. The police sling you on the floor, poke you about a bit, and if you manage to roll anywhere, there is clearly nothing wrong with you and you get your payments cut.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-a-clear-case-of-attack-by-wheelchair-2160454.html
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair - Peter Lemkin - 15-12-2010
Where do they get all the sadists found in Police Departments around the world? No doubt they'll not get a suspension or even a reprimand....maybe a promotion. That'll teach all those in a wheelchair to just stay home where they belong....:argh:
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair - Peter Presland - 15-12-2010
I haven't had a reply from Ben Brown, though I did get a delivery confirmation. He's clearly forwarding such outrageous attacks on him to his boss. Anyway, note my highlighting which is PRECISELY the problem that the BBC and its apparatchiks are incapable of recognizing.
Quote:We have received a considerable number of complaints about an interview Ben Brown did last night on the BBC News Channel with Jody McIntyre. The context of the interview was that Mr McIntyre was on the student demonstrations in London last week and video emerged yesterday of him being pulled out of his wheelchair by police.
I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview, the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it. However I am genuinely interested in hearing more from people who have complained about why they object to the interview. I would obviously welcome all other views.
I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances: it was quite a long interview and Mr McIntyre was given several minutes of airtime to make a range of points, which he did forcefully; Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions.
Mr McIntyre says during the interview that "personally he sees himself equal to anyone else" and we interviewed Mr McIntyre as we would interview anyone else in his position. Comments more than welcome.
Kevin Bakhurst is the controller of the BBC News Channel and the BBC News at One and the deputy head of the BBC Newsroom.
OOPs. This should probably be in the other thread.
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair - Peter Lemkin - 15-12-2010
Peter Presland Wrote:I haven't had a reply from Ben Brown, though I did get a delivery confirmation. He's clearly forwarding such outrageous attacks on him to his boss. Anyway, note my highlighting which is PRECISELY the problem that the BBC and its apparatchiks are incapable of recognizing.
Quote:We have received a considerable number of complaints about an interview Ben Brown did last night on the BBC News Channel with Jody McIntyre. The context of the interview was that Mr McIntyre was on the student demonstrations in London last week and video emerged yesterday of him being pulled out of his wheelchair by police.
I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview, the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it. However I am genuinely interested in hearing more from people who have complained about why they object to the interview. I would obviously welcome all other views.
I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances: it was quite a long interview and Mr McIntyre was given several minutes of airtime to make a range of points, which he did forcefully; Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions.
Mr McIntyre says during the interview that "personally he sees himself equal to anyone else" and we interviewed Mr McIntyre as we would interview anyone else in his position. Comments more than welcome.
Kevin Bakhurst is the controller of the BBC News Channel and the BBC News at One and the deputy head of the BBC Newsroom.
So, add many at the BBC to the sadists, along with the Police. :marchmellow: Anyway, they just boost up TPTB and whatever they do - whatever position they take, with a few jibes thrown in on rare occasion for the look of objectivity.
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair - David Guyatt - 15-12-2010
Peter Presland Wrote:I haven't had a reply from Ben Brown, though I did get a delivery confirmation. He's clearly forwarding such outrageous attacks on him to his boss.
I didn't even get a confirmation of delivery - either from him or his BBC complaints department. I think they've switched the phoned off and are hunkering down, waiting for it to blow over.
But Ben Brown will never been viewed by me again in the same way -- and the Beeb has been defiled by it too.
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair - Jan Klimkowski - 15-12-2010
As a former BBC journalist (I'm aware that may appear oxymoronic), allow me to deconstruct the BBC's defence by the BBC's own code.
This will be somewhat tedious. However, every word of the official BBC position has been pored over by committees and lawyers, and deliberately chosen.
Quote:Section 4: Impartiality
Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.
The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. However, its requirements will vary.
The term 'due' means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.
Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.
The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-introduction/
In practice this means that interviewers should be neutral, balanced, "objective", and give all sides the opportuntiy to put their views etc. The role of the interviewer is to draw out the key claims of the interviewee and challenge them, or allow them to be challenged by another participant holding an opposing viewpoint, where appropriate.
Quote:Section 4: Impartiality
Controversial Subjects
4.4.5
We must apply due impartiality to all our subject matter. However, there are particular requirements for 'controversial subjects', whenever they occur in any output, including drama, entertainment and sport.
A 'controversial subject' may be a matter of public policy or political or industrial controversy. It may also be a controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters entirely.
4.4.6
In determining whether subjects are controversial, we should take account of:
the level of public and political contention and debate
how topical the subjects are
sensitivity in terms of relevant audiences' beliefs and culture
whether the subjects are matters of intense debate or importance in a particular nation, region or discrete area likely to comprise at least a significant part of the audience
a reasonable view on whether the subjects are serious
the distinction between matters grounded in fact and those which are a matter of opinion.
Advice on whether subjects are 'controversial' is available from Editorial Policy.
4.4.7
When dealing with 'controversial subjects', we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.
(See Section 4 Impartiality:4.4.2)
4.4.8
Due impartiality normally allows for programmes and other output to explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed. When dealing with 'controversial subjects' this should be clearly signposted, should acknowledge that a range of views exists and the weight of those views, and should not misrepresent them.
Consideration should be given to the appropriate timeframe for reflecting other perspectives and whether or not they need to be included in connected and signposted output.
If such output contains serious allegations, a right of reply may be required, either as part of the same output, or in a connected and clearly signposted alternative.
(See Section 4 Impartiality: 4.4.25 - 4.4.28 and Section 6 Fairness, Contributors and Consent: 6.4.25 - 6.4.28)
4.4.9
In addition, we must take particular care and achieve due impartiality when a 'controversial subject' may be considered to be a major matter. 'Major matters' are usually matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy that are of national or international importance, or of a similar significance within a smaller coverage area. When dealing with 'major matters', or when the issues involved are highly controversial and/or a decisive moment in the controversy is expected, it will normally be necessary to ensure that an appropriately wide range of significant views are reflected in a clearly linked 'series of programmes', a single programme or sometimes even a single item.
(See Section 4 Impartiality: 4.4.25 - 4.4.28)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-controversial-subjects/
OK - note particularly (my emphasis boldened) "When dealing with 'controversial subjects', we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active", and "If such output contains serious allegations, a right of reply may be required, either as part of the same output, or in a connected and clearly signposted alternative."
ENSURE a WIDE RANGE of SIGNIFICANT VIEWS.
A right of reply may be REQUIRED.
The viewpoint opposing Jody McIntyre's claims is that of the Metropolitan Police. However, the rozzers refused to put an officer up to discuss the claims, instead issuing stonewall statements.
In most circumstances, where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing (in this case mobile phone footage independently corroborating McIntryre's claims of being dragged from his wheelchair by cops), the fact that the accused organization refuses to put up a spokesperson or otherwise respond to the accusations, would then be severely (and in Paxman's case probably derisively) commented upon by the interviewer.
In this case, the BBC has failed to place sufficient weight on the failure of the Metropolitan Police to defend or attempt to explain the actions of their officers (allowing them to get away with the stalling for time defence of "we are investigating the incident").
Instead, Ben Brown conducted a robust, arguably aggressive and dismissive in tone, interview with McIntyre, epitomised by:
Quote:Ben Brown of the BBC tried his best, when he interviewed Jody McIntyre, the man who was dislodged, and said aggressively: "There's a suggestion that you were rolling in the direction of the police."
This is a complete abuse of the concept of journalistic "impartiality".
Jody McIntryre was in a wheelchair, not driving an armoured car.
The content and tone of the interview were, in my judgement, a breach of the BBC concept of impartiality, especially since the Metropolitan Police, the perpetrators of the alleged assault on Jody McIntyre, were allowed by BBC journalists to avoid any meaningful contribution to the investigation of the matter.
Mark Steel articulates perfectly why the coppers didn't put up a chief officer to defend their actions:
Quote:The police like to set their public relations department a special Christmas challenge, don't they? Because that's the only explanation for them being filmed on the anti-fees demonstration, chucking a disabled man out of his wheelchair and shoving him along the road, unless it was to enjoy telling their PR team, "Stick a positive spin on that for us, could you?"
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair - David Guyatt - 15-12-2010
Thanks for your valuable insights Jan,
I wonder if, in light of the apparently large number of complaints, if Ben Brown is due for a terrible bollocking from the Beeb executives or whether the Beeb is content with his performance?
Oh dear, on reflection... wot a silly question that was eh? Brown would've been briefed and prepared and had the okay of his producer to set into Jody McIntyre the way he did.
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair - Jan Klimkowski - 15-12-2010
David Guyatt Wrote:Thanks for your valuable insights Jan,
I wonder if, in light of the apparently large number of complaints, if Ben Brown is due for a terrible bollocking from the Beeb executives or whether the Beeb is content with his performance?
Oh dear, on reflection... wot a silly question that was eh? Brown would've been briefed and prepared and had the okay of his producer to set into Jody McIntyre the way he did.
I dobut the private views of BBC News Channel Controller Bakhurst differ much from his public utterance as follows:
Quote:I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances: it was quite a long interview and Mr McIntyre was given several minutes of airtime to make a range of points, which he did forcefully; Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions.
In other words, Ben Brown will be congratulated for allowing BBC senior managers to defend his interview in terms of their interpretation of "impartiality". I disagree with Bakhurst's interpretation, but he thinks he can get away with it.
Fundamentally though, what Bakhurst's defence fails to mention is the GAPING OMISSION. There were no other interviewees to provide balance and ensure impartiality because Scotland Yard refused to provide a senior officer for interview.
So, the probable victim was robustly (aggressively) interviewed.
The probable perpetrator of the assault was neither interviewed nor challenged.
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair - David Guyatt - 15-12-2010
Or to paraphrase Jody McIntyre during his "interview", the victim is being blamed for being victimized.
Nice.
Mark Steel: A clear case of attack by wheelchair - Peter Lemkin - 15-12-2010
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:Thanks for your valuable insights Jan,
I wonder if, in light of the apparently large number of complaints, if Ben Brown is due for a terrible bollocking from the Beeb executives or whether the Beeb is content with his performance?
Oh dear, on reflection... wot a silly question that was eh? Brown would've been briefed and prepared and had the okay of his producer to set into Jody McIntyre the way he did.
I dobut the private views of BBC News Channel Controller Bakhurst differ much from his public utterance as follows:
Quote:I have reviewed the interview a few times and I would suggest that we interviewed Mr McIntyre in the same way that we would have questioned any other interviewee in the same circumstances: it was quite a long interview and Mr McIntyre was given several minutes of airtime to make a range of points, which he did forcefully; Ben challenged him politely but robustly on his assertions.
In other words, Ben Brown will be congratulated for allowing BBC senior managers to defend his interview in terms of their interpretation of "impartiality". I disagree with Bakhurst's interpretation, but he thinks he can get away with it.
Fundamentally though, what Bakhurst's defence fails to mention is the GAPING OMISSION. There were no other interviewees to provide balance and ensure impartiality because Scotland Yard refused to provide a senior officer for interview.
So, the probable victim was robustly (aggressively) interviewed.
The probable perpetrator of the assault was neither interviewed nor challenged.
Hey, he'd on the side of TPTB and are infallible, as god and crown would have it.....say no more, say no more.....
A disgusting view into the BBC's inpartiality [sic] and balance [sic]. I don't have to pay for the license fees for the BBC, but those who do, should vomit and then complain loudly; then refuse to support it further.......whatever the legal costs.