Read on Twitter
A request: if you honestly thought the BBC deliberately used the wrong Boris Johnson wreath footage, please, please don& #39;t read Dirty Feed. Also unfollow this account.
I really don& #39;t need absolute fucking imbeciles reading the site. I get enough hits from people I respect.
I really don& #39;t need absolute fucking imbeciles reading the site. I get enough hits from people I respect.
This is a genuine request. If you *still* think it was deliberate, please unfollow this feed, and do not click on any of my articles ever again.
Just go away. I don& #39;t want to debate it. Just go.
Just go away. I don& #39;t want to debate it. Just go.
"I think the BBC should be more honest! And by way of example, I& #39;m going to indulge in pure guesswork about current internal BBC systems, and assume bad faith. That& #39;ll show everyone how it& #39;s done."
There is a person working for the BBC now who feels absolutely wretched.
I don& #39;t know who they are. But they feel utterly, abysmally, sick.
I know, because I& #39;ve been there myself. Not with an error which got this much attention. But I went home wanting to vomit.
I don& #39;t know who they are. But they feel utterly, abysmally, sick.
I know, because I& #39;ve been there myself. Not with an error which got this much attention. But I went home wanting to vomit.
It was an error where the programme& #39;s Editor immediately went on Twitter and assigned it a "-gate" moniker. It was an error which got people talking.
It was an error which could be seen as a deliberate snub, if you viewed it in the wrong light.
It was also just... an error.
It was an error which could be seen as a deliberate snub, if you viewed it in the wrong light.
It was also just... an error.
In short: if Howard Goodall presided over 1,100 hours of news every year, then I& #39;m sure every single second of that would be absolutely correct and there would be no problems whatsoever in any way.
Beware of misplaced anger.
Because you might end up getting exactly what you think you want... and then end up bitterly regretting it.
Because you might end up getting exactly what you think you want... and then end up bitterly regretting it.
This account will shortly be deactivated too, along with @mumoss which is already gone, because I clearly can& #39;t be fucking trusted to shut my face.
But JESUS CHRIST, I have lost so much respect for people I thought were decent enough people.
But JESUS CHRIST, I have lost so much respect for people I thought were decent enough people.
Are there errors in *your* work? Probably. But if you don& #39;t think there are, consider the complexity and amount of your output.
If you& #39;re not putting out 1,100* hours of material a year like Breakfast, maybe consider the inherent issues with that.
If you& #39;re not putting out 1,100* hours of material a year like Breakfast, maybe consider the inherent issues with that.
* More than this, as sometimes there& #39;s four hours of the programme a day. But let& #39;s not quibble.
Sure, it was a really, really bad mistake to make.
Because... errors don& #39;t happen at the worst possible moment ever, do they? That& #39;s LITERALLY UNHEARD OF, in any field, of course.
Because... errors don& #39;t happen at the worst possible moment ever, do they? That& #39;s LITERALLY UNHEARD OF, in any field, of course.
If the BBC put out that erroneous footage all day, then yes, I& #39;d be screaming with the rest of you.
Guess what? They didn& #39;t. And apologised. WHAT A SCANDAL.
Guess what? They didn& #39;t. And apologised. WHAT A SCANDAL.
I think back to people quibbling with Breakfast& #39;s Editor talking about "previewing" the footage.
And I think back to when I did an ultra-important live. I looked back at the previous year& #39;s show. And the year before that. And the year before that.
About 10 years of material.
And I think back to when I did an ultra-important live. I looked back at the previous year& #39;s show. And the year before that. And the year before that.
About 10 years of material.
Just to get a sense of what was happening.
Broadcasters reviewing old material is standard within the industry. I cannot emphasise that enough. Nor do they have to go to a tape library to do it these days.
Broadcasters reviewing old material is standard within the industry. I cannot emphasise that enough. Nor do they have to go to a tape library to do it these days.
Look, I know the BBC has been shooting itself in the foot since 1922. That& #39;s ALSO standard.
But please believe someone who& #39;s sat on the front line with this stuff. Believe someone who& #39;s listened to news talkback for years. Cock-up, not conspiracy.
But please believe someone who& #39;s sat on the front line with this stuff. Believe someone who& #39;s listened to news talkback for years. Cock-up, not conspiracy.
One final thought: yes, news has to be done quickly, and that& #39;s part of the problem here.
But news needs to be *flexible*. Consider that too. This error happened because news needs to be able to spit out any footage at any time.
This is really, really, really important.
But news needs to be *flexible*. Consider that too. This error happened because news needs to be able to spit out any footage at any time.
This is really, really, really important.
We are not talking about - plucking an example clean out of thin air - a careful sitcom edit, where the sources you& #39;re using is extremely limited.
You& #39;re talking about an environment where footage comes from *anywhere*. This is a huge contributory factor.
You& #39;re talking about an environment where footage comes from *anywhere*. This is a huge contributory factor.
Putting out a news programme is not the same as making fucking Blackadder.
And this rant has... gained me a follower, and lost me none.
People are now linking to this thread as an explainer for the situation. I& #39;m truly grateful.
I also perhaps wish I hadn& #39;t started this thread in such a combative mood. That doesn& #39;t help convince people, I know.
I have been brooding about this topic, as you may imagine.
I also perhaps wish I hadn& #39;t started this thread in such a combative mood. That doesn& #39;t help convince people, I know.
I have been brooding about this topic, as you may imagine.
Yes, because I& #39;m protective about the BBC. That& #39;s no secret.
But it& #39;s infuriating when you can easily see how something happened, and people you like and respect have leapt to the wrong conclusion.
It& #39;s also infuriating when you can easily see how it could happen to you.
But it& #39;s infuriating when you can easily see how something happened, and people you like and respect have leapt to the wrong conclusion.
It& #39;s also infuriating when you can easily see how it could happen to you.
There are so many worthwhile ways the BBC should be held to account. So many things that are worth discussing.
I promise you, this isn& #39;t one of them.
I promise you, this isn& #39;t one of them.
P.S. On Monday night, I checked something.
On the channel I play out - no clues! - with a few taps of a keyboard, I could drag out and broadcast an ident which hasn& #39;t been seen for five years, and is two rebrands in the past.
On the channel I play out - no clues! - with a few taps of a keyboard, I could drag out and broadcast an ident which hasn& #39;t been seen for five years, and is two rebrands in the past.
Oh, but old footage is SO DIFFICULT to drag out by mistake, of course.
For those asking me to stay: don& #39;t worry, I& #39;m not going for good, I& #39;m not LEAVING TWITTER, I& #39;m just grumpy and this place isn& #39;t good for me at the moment.
I& #39;ll be my normal cheerful, wisecracking, never grumpy self in a couple of weeks.
I& #39;ll be my normal cheerful, wisecracking, never grumpy self in a couple of weeks.
But yes, this conversation has upset me. Upset me because I take it personally, though I shouldn& #39;t. Upset me because people I really thought were more sensible than this have fallen into a nasty trap.
I know I should just leave the topic the fuck alone.
I know I should just leave the topic the fuck alone.
But when you decide to peek your head over the parapet, and see yet another person spout this bollocks... I just lose my temper.
And people using their "experience" in broadcasting to perpetuate this bollocks is infuriating.
Because inevitably their experience was 20 years ago/was nowhere near news/they wrote a book about a TV show once.
Because inevitably their experience was 20 years ago/was nowhere near news/they wrote a book about a TV show once.
