Diana, the BBC, and a stinking pile of hypocrisy

[Nearly Sane]

The sight of Piers Morgan, Boris Johnson, Kelvin McKenzie amongst others piling on here is hugely emetic. Good piece here from Marina Hyde.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/21/tabloids-hurt-princess-diana-panorama-bbc-scapegoat

[Robbie]

Marina Hyde is an insightful writer, it's a good article.

This business is quite shocking - and disappointing for so many who rated Martin Bashir.

[jeremyp]

What I don't really get is why there is a problem. Perhaps Bashir behaved badly (I haven't watched the documentary) but my memory of the interview from the time is that it was a triumph of PR for Princess Diana.

Anyway, of course all those people are piling on to the BBC. They all hate it. Boris hates it because it isn't a Tory poodle plus he probably has friends in organisations that are in competition with the BBC e.g. the Murdochs. And the others hate it because they work for or worked for organisations in competition with the BBC.

[Harrowby Hall]

I think that what really annoys me is that this is a programme that was made 25 years ago. What real relevance does it really have in 2021?

Is Diana being trailed for sainthood or something?

Diana was certainly a victim of a system which effectively enforced arranged marriage. But then, so was her husband ... and, I dare say, the spectre of David, Prince of Wales, was hovering over the whole affair.

Marina Hyde's piece certainly shows that many of those calling for the BBC's head really ought to be a little more careful.

[Robbie]

Forging documents in order to push someone into spilling all is hardly ethical, in fact it is criminal. It would be the same whoever was involved, we know about this because of the Princess's high profile but she was not alone in being lied to misled by the media. Therefore I think it is correct that this is now public and hopefully changes will be made, however there's no point in Martin Bashir being scapegoated.

[Nearly Sane]

Forging documents in order to push someone into spilling all is hardly ethical, in fact it is criminal. It would be the same whoever was involved, we know about this because of the Princess's high profile but she was not alone in being lied to misled by the media. Therefore I think it is correct that this is now public and hopefully changes will be made, however there's no point in Martin Bashir being scapegoated.

Holding Bashir to account for the fraud would not be scapegoating. Blaming him or the BBC for Diana's death as William has done is scapegoating

[Gordon]

That Diana is the victim in this case isn't arguable given the Dyson report, and that Bashir and any of his colleagues who knew what he was up to behaved reprehensively is also inarguable: the howling from sections of the media is ironic and nauseating given their own history in this regard, and the comments of Johnson are especially laughable since he lied frequently during his career as an alleged journalist to the extent of being sacked from The Times.

That said I don't have that much sympathy for Saint Diana since it seems to me she was inclined to make use of the press, just as her younger son has been doing of late. 

[Nearly Sane]

That Diana is the victim in this case isn't arguable given the Dyson report, and that Bashir and any of his colleagues who knew what he was up to behaved reprehensively is also inarguable: the howling from sections of the media is ironic and nauseating given their own history in this regard, and the comments of Johnson are especially laughable since he lied frequently during his career as an alleged journalist to the extent of being sacked from The Times.

That said I don't have that much sympathy for Saint Diana since it seems to me she was inclined to make use of the press, just as her younger son has been doing of late.

And yet her older son is the one scapegoating the BBC, and ignoring his father's constant affair.

[Gordon]

And yet her older son is the one scapegoating the BBC, and ignoring his father's constant affair.

True: they are a dysfunctional bunch and yet some regard them as paragons of patriotic virtue - they make my stomach churn.

[Owlswing]

The stink of sanctimoniousness is rapidly reaching high Heaven.

Who, on this Forum, including me, can claim to be as perfect as you are requiring from others who happen to be in the public eye?

Owlswing

)O(

[Gordon]

The stink of sanctimoniousness is rapidly reaching high Heaven.

Who, on this Forum, including me, can claim to be as perfect as you are requiring from others who happen to be in the public eye?

Owlswing

)O(

If the monarchy, and its supporters, are having a fevered meltdown because the oh so precious and saintly Diana was exploited by certain of the press then, it seems to me, in their agitation they are conveniently ignoring that the monarchy have themselves exploited their newsworthiness while being economical with the truth, then there is a simple answer: disenfranchise them and let them become private citizens, just like the rest of us, and if they, the press and some of the public want to indulge in celebrity tittle tattle based on their previous status then at least the rest of us can pay them no more attention that we would a trivial story about a singer/actor/sports person such as might be found in the pages of the likes of Hello magazine (assuming it is still being published).
   

[Aruntraveller]

The stink of sanctimoniousness is rapidly reaching high Heaven.

Who, on this Forum, including me, can claim to be as perfect as you are requiring from others who happen to be in the public eye?

Owlswing

)O(

Eh?

I think the point is that the very organisations that are going after the BBC are the ones, that for years profited from Diana by way of chasing after her, manipulating her and hunting her. You think the Scum and the Daily Hate give a rats arse about Diana? Please think again, it was always about circulation. For them to draw some kind of conclusion that Bashir and by extension the BBC are responsible for Diane's death is hypocrisy of the highest kind.

If people are insisting on following chains of responsibility in this matter, there is ultimately only one person responsible for her death. That would be the next King.

[jeremyp]

If people are insisting on following chains of responsibility in this matter, there is ultimately only one person responsible for her death. That would be the next King.

Bullshit.

She was killed in a car crash in which the driver was going too fast and had too much alcohol in his blood and in which she was not wearing a seatbelt. Prince Charles is not responsible for any of that.

[Aruntraveller]

Bullshit.

She was killed in a car crash in which the driver was going too fast and had too much alcohol in his blood and in which she was not wearing a seatbelt. Prince Charles is not responsible for any of that.

Quite. You seem to have missed an important word in my statement. Or completely misconstrued what I was saying.

[jeremyp]

Quite. You seem to have missed an important word in my statement. Or completely misconstrued what I was saying.

You claimed that Prince Charles is responsible for Diana's death. He's not.

[Aruntraveller]

You claimed that Prince Charles is responsible for Diana's death. He's not.

No. I was following on from the point about the BBC being blamed and that IF you want to follow chains of responsibility in that way then you don't stop at the BBC you go further back. I was trying to point out the ludicrous nature of such an argument, not making an argument that Charles was responsible.

I could equally argue by that reasoning, that Diana herself was responsible for marrying into such a strange family in the first place.

[jeremyp]

No. I was following on from the point about the BBC being blamed and that IF you want to follow chains of responsibility in that way then you don't stop at the BBC you go further back. I was trying to point out the ludicrous nature of such an argument, not making an argument that Charles was responsible.

I could equally argue by that reasoning, that Diana herself was responsible for marrying into such a strange family in the first place.

Why do you stop the chain at Charles then? He was pressured into marrying Diana.

[Aruntraveller]

Why do you stop the chain at Charles then? He was pressured into marrying Diana.

Because I didn't want to do an infinite regress to the point of orgasm of Diana's parents.

[Enki]

I don't have any particular interest in Diana or the royal family and I long ago stopped taking any newspapers as I found them so full of hypocrisy and bias that I didn't see the point in reading them. However, unlike the ragbag of newspapers that spill out their own distorted views, I am forced to pay for the privilege of being able to watch an organization(the BBC) which seems to display a certain amount of corruption, covering up, ignoring and punishing whistleblowers, and is party to allowing a lying journalist of suspect integrity access to its medium, and all this seems linked to its highest echelons. Putting it simply, I want the BBC licence to be scrapped, an anomaly which I have considered for some time to be way beyond its sell by date.

[Aruntraveller]

Putting it simply, I want the BBC licence to be scrapped, an anomaly which I have considered for some time to be way beyond its sell by date.

Yes. You can have that, just as soon as every company makes available what part of their advertising budget goes to SKY tv and the Daily Mail.

[jeremyp]

Putting it simply, I want the BBC licence to be scrapped, an anomaly which I have considered for some time to be way beyond its sell by date.

But doing that would destroy the BBC. And although it has some problems, they pale into insignificance compared to the alternatives.

[Enki]

Yes. You can have that, just as soon as every company makes available what part of their advertising budget goes to SKY tv and the Daily Mail.

No, I want it regardless. I am very much in favour of every company making their advertising budgets available but that's a separate point entirely. At least if I know,  I have a choice as to whether I buy their products. I don't have any choice with the BBC.

[Aruntraveller]

No, I want it regardless. I am very much in favour of every company making their advertising budgets available but that's a separate point entirely. At least if I know,  I have a choice as to whether I buy their products. I don't have any choice with the BBC.

My point is you don't know. You say you don't buy the tabloids, you still pay for them though and what choice do you have. I shop at John Lewis sometimes, I know for a fact that they advertise with, and have commercial deals with The Daily Mail. What to do? Buy it from Amazon and increase the centralisation of control over our spending.

You can of course apply that to other organisations. The NHS for example, you have to pay for that. You might want to simply go private, but you have no choice but to pay. What about infrastructure projects like HS2, you are going to pay for that, will you ever use it? And on, and on, and on.

I would echo Jeremyp's comment:

"But doing that would destroy the BBC. And although it has some problems, they pale into insignificance compared to the alternatives."

If you want a system that emulates the worst excesses of free market media then getting rid of the BBC puts you on a fast track to that place.

[Enki]

My point is you don't know. You say you don't buy the tabloids, you still pay for them though and what choice do you have. I shop at John Lewis sometimes, I know for a fact that they advertise with, and have commercial deals with The Daily Mail. What to do? Buy it from Amazon and increase the centralisation of control over our spending.

You can of course apply that to other organisations. The NHS for example, you have to pay for that. You might want to simply go private, but you have no choice but to pay. What about infrastructure projects like HS2, you are going to pay for that, will you ever use it? And on, and on, and on.

I would echo Jeremyp's comment:

"But doing that would destroy the BBC. And although it has some problems, they pale into insignificance compared to the alternatives."

If you want a system that emulates the worst excesses of free market media then getting rid of the BBC puts you on a fast track to that place.

Just because I would wish to ban the licence fee doesn't mean it follows that I have to support the idea of not paying for the NHS. I consider that the NHS, even with all its problems, does a valuable and essential job. I don't consider the BBC to be in the same category at all. I would much prefer a subscription fee for those who would wish to watch the BBC channels rather than trying to force people who simply have a TV to pay for the privilege. As regards the HS2, I consider that to be a waste of public money and have sympathy with those who would cancel the whole project.

At least, if I am buying a product, I have some control over whether I choose to buy it. With the BBC licence fee, I have none.