The funny thing is, the right wing critics haven’t even brought criticism, at least to my knowledge. It raises the question, is every piece of content put out by the BBC viewed through the lens of whether it’s going to piss off the bumpkins and brownshirts?
The news cycle being what it is, I think it would be pretty easy for the BBC to take their lumps and move on rather than conjuring up opposition where it may not exist in any organized way. The rightwing outrage machine will go back to picking on immigrants and trans people in a few days anyway.
Not quite. The Guardian (an openly and proudly left-of-centre news organisation) quotes anonymous BBC sources on the matter of the decision being taken to avoid “potential critique from the political right”. Given the anonymity of the sources, there seems to be little scope for checking if this is correct or not.
Countering this, the BBC Press Office quotes named and authoritative sources. “Alastair Fothergill, the director of Silverback Films and the executive producer of Wild Isles” who says that the sixth film was not commissioned by the BBC as part of the series, but has been acquired to be shown on the iPlayer (so not exactly hidden away). In addition, another named source, Laura Howard, who produced the programme and used to work at the BBC’s Natural History Unit is quoted as saying that the film in question is non-political, balanced and has been fact-checked (so maybe not much to spark of a “right-wing backlash”).
Sounds to me like the Guardian is overselling this.
Since when did being non-political, balanced and fact-checked preclude anything from being the target of a right wing backlash?
See, for instance, how the right have spent the last 50 years treating climate science as if it’s a communist conspiracy.
Since when have the features in bold ever stopped right-wing outrage at even the mention of issues that shall not be named?
It’s happened already, before the film has even been aired. (A frontlash?)
“This week the Telegraph newspaper attacked the BBC for creating the series and for taking funding from two charities previously criticised for their political lobbying…”
Well, I guess future alien species have something interesting to learn about what happened to the human race as they watch a program narrated by Sir R’thmoglu Alienborough.
“Since when have the features in bold ever stopped right-wing outrage at even the mention of issues that shall not be named?” - How would we know? Or is any form of criticism, no matter how mild, from sources deemed to be right-of-centre now called “outrage”?
As @mallyboon notes, there hasn’t been a noticeable barrage of criticism from “right-wing” critics. I had to go looking for the Telegraph article and that is critical of the funding sources not of the content of the as-yet unseen programme. It’s here - BBC took charity money to fund David Attenborough documentary
Again, IMHO it’s The Guardian trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Are you really trying to characterise the Grauniad using anonymous (really background) sources as “fake news”*? If you want to see news outlets that take an open political position doing irresponsible or dodgy sourcing, the Torygraph and Daily Heil are the textbook examples (I don’t think The Sun counts as a news outlet).
The BBC has always claimed ‘political neutrality’.
This is bullshit.
The BBC has to pander (albeit only slightly) to whatever party is in power at the time.
Otherwise, at the stroke of a pen, the licence-fee disappears.
It’s the only channel(s) with a headstart and guaranteed money coming in.
Which is what makes the BBC’s decision to tuck this away on their streaming platform and not promote it all the more peculiar (and validates the Guardian’s reporting). You don’t get David Attenborough to narrate a documentary then just leave it on your streaming platform, especially when it’s inspired by a successful series that you have just broadcast.
Is the suggestion then that the Guardian is making shit up because they have a left leaning editorial bent (even though this was a news article)? Maintaining the anonymity of sources is pretty standard journalistic practice. It’s not like the BBC is just going to outright admit they are doing it to avoid criticism.
Right? It’s great that Laura Howard is willing to stand by the work, it doesn’t mean that the right isn’t going to whine or that the BBC isn’t going to cower. People will also try to protect eachother and save face in a scandal… the contract between the BBC and Silverback should illuminate whether it was a direct to streaming project. That just seems unlikely to me.
The Attenborough story is almost entirely a reaction to the Lineker furore, I believe. People with an axe to grind about the BBC’s reactions to right wing attacks being the point.
That said, the statement from the independent exec producer about this extra episode appears to have some superficial credibility.
Alastair Fothergill, the director of Silverback Films and the executive producer of Wild Isles, added: “The BBC commissioned a five-part Wild Isles series from us at Silverback Films back in 2017. The RSPB and WWF joined us as co-production partners in 2018. It was not until the end of 2021 that the two charities commissioned Silverback Films to make a film for them that celebrates the extraordinary work of people fighting to restore nature in Britain and Ireland. The BBC acquired this film for iPlayer at the start of this year.”
@GagHalfrunt@rbc67@teknocholer - this statement is a bit more detailed. Whether Mr Fothergill felt he had to help the BBC by framing it this way or if this was just how it was and others are imputing fear as a BBC motive, we’ll probably never know.
Those ‘senior sources’ could easily be disgruntled Beeb managers pissed off with how the Lineker fiasco was handled and deliberately leaking a very spun story to The Guardian, so as to get more ‘Beeb scared of offending right wing establishment/govt’ propaganda out there. I have no doubt there are senior Beeb staff who wish their execs would acquire a backbone and ignore the shrill right-wing screaming over every imagined political slight. All while their Chairman is a significant Tory donor who conveniently forgot he had helped arrange an £800k loan facility for Boris, just before he was appointed to the BBC.
And they still can’t explain why it was okay to employ Andrew Neil as a supposedly impartial political presenter when he ran the rabidly rightwing Spectator magazine and regularly posted tweets attacking the centre and left.
Not forgetting that a £400,000 Tory donor and arranger of a £800,000 loan to Boris Johnson is still BBC Chairman.
They do have a habit of shitting where they eat, don’t they?
There is, however a difference between groups that lobby politically for their own benefit or their corporate clients and those who lobby politically to address policy vacuums that the government should be dealing with themselves. WWF, for certain, is the latter.
