What should the BBC do if the new US President’s references to global warming in his inaugural speech don’t quite come up to expectations?
Last night I was reading through the full text of Barack Obama’s speech just before the BBC’s daily current affairs magazine, Newsnight, came on television. So his words were fresh in my mind when Susan Watts, Newsnight’s science editor, presented a piece on the implications of the speech for science in general and global warming in particular. I was surprised when it started with this sound bite from the inaugural speech:
We will restore science to its rightful place, [and] roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.
I didn’t seem to remember him saying that at all.
When the program was over, I went back to the text and this is what I found.
It would seem that someone at the BBC had taken the trouble to splice the tape so that half a sentence from paragraph 16 of the inauguration speech was joined on to half a sentence from paragraph 22, and this apparently continuous sound bite was completed by returning to paragraph 16 again to lift another complete sentence.
Susan Watts then started her report by saying:
President Obama couldn’t have been clearer today. And for most scientists his vote of confidence would not have come a moment too soon.
In the eight years of the Bush presidency, the world saw Arctic ice caps shrink to a record summer low, the relentless rise of greenhouse gas emissions, and warnings from scientists shift from urgent to panicky.
But the ‘quotation’ that she was referring to only exists in a digital file concocted by a sound engineer. (It would be kind draw a veil over evidence that Newsnight’s science editor seems not to know the difference between sea ice and an ice cap, but that’s another story.)
This is what the two paragraphs that were pillaged to create an ersatz quotation say:
Paragraph 16
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do. [My emphasis]
Paragraph 22
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. [My emphasis]
Paragraph 16 does not refer to climate change in any way, but to economic and infrastructure problems. The reference to harnessing the sun, wind and soil could as easily refer to energy security as global warming.
Even in paragraph 16, ‘the spectre of a warming planet’ is tacked on to the threat of nuclear proliferation, almost as an afterthought. The following sentence is, ‘We will not apologise for our way of life’, hardly an endorsement of the environmentalist’s pleas that we should all change our lifestyle to save the planet.
And why use the very strange term ‘spectre’ to describe concerns about climate change? Of course spectres are threatening and scary, but they are also insubstantial and not believed in by most people.
The only other mention of global warming is in paragraph 4:
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
Once again, the reference to climate change seems to have been thrown in as an afterthought.
It would be a mistake to think the Barack Obama drafted his speech on the back of a fag packet just before he climbed into bed on Monday night. The text runs to about 2400 words, and it is certain that every single one of these will have been very carefully weighed, not only by the President, but by teams of advisers and speech-writers too. So why is he talking about ‘the spectre of a warming planet’, rather than the threat, the problem, the catastrophe or even the reality of a warming planet? Isn’t that the kind of thing that should attract a science editor’s attention?
But this is not nearly such a tantalising mystery as why the BBC spliced that tape in such an extraordinary way.
Of course there could be a perfectly innocent explanation, and it would be a pity if Newsnight sank to the same level in the public’s estimation as some of the BBC’s dodgy games shows. So I will be writing to the BBC Trustees requesting an investigation with a view to an explanation or an apology being broadcast on a future edition of Newsnight.
You can watch the whole of Susan Watts report here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7841946.stm (HT to davblo2)
Update, 23/01/2009: I’ve written to the BBC and am awaiting a response. If anyone else would like to ask them about this, then the address is: trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk
Update, 23/01/2009: This comment from Robin Guenier is far to good for anyone to miss:
I see the BBC’s magazine Monitor talks of:
… the week’s news, sliced, diced and processed for your convenience.
So there you have it.
There are now updates on this story:
Warming up Obama at the BBC - what Newsnight’s editor has to say
BBC Newsnight’s Obama quote - ethical considerations, and the BBC explains everything
This is rather like photoshopping a digital image isn’t it?
Re the sound splice and Photoshop, I think the the difference is that some photo-manipulations can be very clever and convincing. This example of digital fakery appears to be neither. Do the BBC think we’re all stupid?
…absolutely incredible. I used to think the BBC were paragons of media integrity. I hope this travesty of broadcasting becomes a major embarassment for them. Do you have a complaints service ? do the BBC have a charter that obliges them to seek balance and forbids such manipulation ?
Please see my blog.
Bishop
I think it is far, far worse than photoshopping a pic.
The inauguration speech is already a historic document that will be referred to decades, and perhaps even centuries, from now. No responsible reporter messes about with things like that. And if Obama really was saying what Watts claimed, why was there no un-manipulated quote to support her view?
I’ve got pretty hardened to surprises since I started taking an interest in the way that the BBC reports climate change, but nothing had prepared me for this when I spotted it:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=147
…further to my earlier posting, I note your intention to write to the BBC and look forward to hearing of their reply.
TonyN
As this sounded like Blair Mk2 I quickly lost interest but not before he said this which I thought meant he wasn’t convinced by Hansens letter to him
“…and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics.”
An odd thing to say unless he has asked for more definitive proof of the spectre-insubstantial and ill defined-than he has seen
TonyB
[…] who, not content with weeks of jerking off (as OAC put it) over the coronation of Obama have now evidently seen fit to edit his presidential address in order to to make it more ‘on-message’ […]
“Do the BBC think we’re all stupid?”
Do you even need to ask?
Newsnight has been dumbed down for sometime, Paxman has already admitted bbc bias about global warming ..
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jan/31/broadcasting.digitalmedia - searech for “impartiality”)
and even bbc executives have admitted the bbs is biased ..
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371706-details/Yes,%20we%20are%20biased%20on%20religion%20and%20politics,%20admit%20BBC%20executives/article.do).
The bbc is a dangerous threat to democracy and it is time the bbc tax a.k.a. licence fee, is scrapped.
uripadees:
Thanks for your comment, but I do not share your opinion that the ‘bbc is a dangerous threat to democracy’ nor was my post intended as an exercise in BBC bashing. More an attempt to try and ensure that Auntie knows that if she fails to comply with the standards set out in their charter, then people will notice and ask questions.
Incidentally I can’t get your link to the Guardian to work. Any chance of re-posting it?
Well spotted, Tony, and you’ve presented your findings very clearly. Congratulations. But I don’t think I agree that this action by the BBC is a “tantalising mystery”. The real climate change story arising from the speech is surely that Obama’s references to it were, as you point out, surprisingly general and unspecific. That may turn out to be quite important. But it seems likely to be a disappointment to the climate alarmists - including I’m afraid the BBC. So - most unwisely in my view - they decided to beef it up. And that enabled Susan Watts to claim precisely the opposite of the real story when she said, “President Obama couldn’t have been clearer today. And for most scientists his vote of confidence would not have come a moment too soon.” He could have been a lot clearer and for the BBC to deliberately distort the US President’s remarks on this critical matter is, in my view, a serious error.
[…] the full post (with audio links) at Harmless Sky. Nice to know where your licence see is […]
Ooh good post. I will link and hawk out. Really very naughty BBC.
Actually I don’t see any clear reference to your quote of para 4. It seems to me he is referring to the way they use energy as.. if they are comletely reliant on foreign oil, and also squander energy, rather than greater utilising what they have (wind sun etc.) they will give oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, Russia and even Iran political power over them. Well, that’s how it seemed to me.
sorry I meant to say: I don’t see any clear reference to GLOBAL WARMING in your quote of para 4.
…perhaps some civil disobedience re annual license fee payment is called for. Total refusal worked here in NZ…the broadcasting fee was eventually scrapped…they no doubt now collect it elsewhere from us, but nevertheless, refusal or delayed payment on a wide basis seems to be called for. BBC bastards !
Robin:
Thanks!
In Richard D North’s contribution here he accuses the BBC of a failure in its duty of ‘professional journalistic curiosity’ and I think that he is right. The conundrum, if it is a conundrum at all, is why there is a lack of curiosity about this particular subject. As you so rightly say, for any well-informed and curious journalist the story about the inauguration speech must have been the lack of references to AGW, given the buildup in the months before.
Things have been kind of busy for the last couple of days, but I haven’t noticed warmers crowing about the contents of the speech, which leaves them in pretty difficult position. If they moan about it publicaly, as I am sure many are doing privately, that would undemine their own position, drawing attention to the extent of their failure to influence the man who they thought would be their champion.
I have written to the BBC, quoting chapter and verse, and asking for an explanation. I have also asked that a correction and apology should be broadcast in a future edition of Newsnight, and I intend to pursue this vigorously, even unto Ofcom if necessary.
Re: #15, Philipa
You said:
Nor did I, but I thought that I had better include that paragraph as I suspect that there may be people who will happily try to read more into it than is actually there, and I wouldn’t want them to think that I had glossed over it.
I’m not surprised at this. A classic example of this would their weather forecasts they typically add 1-2 degree’s centigrade to their temperature forecasts paricularly in winter even for rural locations and i don’t think i have ever seen a sceptical news item on the subject broadcast by the BBC. but what do you expect from a government controlled organistion.
I don’t fancy the Beeb’s chances if Obama’s lawyers get wind of this!
Good work. This needs to hit the MSM in a big way.
Whats next for ‘al-beeb’ perhaps they will re-edit the ’soundfile’ of the Gettysburg address to confirm that Lincoln secretly spied for the Confederacy….
Only Obama-man can save us now…is it a bird, is it a plane?
Just wanted to echo the sentiments of others here and say: good work, Tony. It’s heartening to find that there are people who are awake to what is going on. Also to say that there are comments re Splicegate now appearing here on the blog of BBC Newsnight science editor Susan Watts. The news appears to be spreading…
Very well spotted. My complaint is on its way.
TonyN: Many thanks Derek.
Many thanks Alex, I hadn’t seen that.
I just emailed Instapundit. Well, it was worth a try!
Tony: there’s also a reference in the comments on a recent story in Iain Dale’s Diary (a much visited blog) - here. See the exchange between Rob and DespairingLiberal towards the end.
More coverage here.
TonyN
Before I join in the fray at the BBC over splicegate can you confirm that Obama said what I quoted below in #7 or was it my imagination?
“…and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics.”
An odd thing to say unless he has asked for more definitive proof of the spectre-insubstantial and ill defined-than he has seen”
Thanks
TonyB
I wish you luck in getting a favourable response from the BBC Trust, Tony. I have tried to no avail….all they seem to do is to field awkward questions, saying they have no control over day-to-day editorial matters.
As for Mark Thompson, he simply ignores the problem in the hope that it will go away. I have written to him on seven occasions since 29th October 2006. I am still awaiting a response.
Perhaps if you and others on this blog were to write directly to him, assuring him you will not go away until you have answers (as I have repeatedly told him) maybe we will eventually get somewhere!
After adding a comment to Susan Watts’s blog, I sent something similar to the editor of Newsnight - no reply yet, though!
I note that Feedback returns next week to R4, so a few emails in that direction might bear fruit…
I’m (just) too fond of the Beeb to tip off the Murdoch press about this, but I can imagine what they would make of it.
I see the BBC’s magazine Monitor talks of
So there you have it.
Re:#31, Robin
That is far to good for anyone to miss, so I’ve added it to the end of the post.
Thanks to everyone for letting me know where this post is being discussed in the bogosphere. It’s getting hard to keep track, but I quite like this one because it seems to be written by journalists for journalists, and there’s a nice cartoon too:
http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/editordetail.php?preview=1&id=251#comment
Re: #7, TonyB
If you use the link in the header post to the full text of the speech at The Independent you’ll see that he said those words, in that order, but with a paragraph break after ‘planet’.
Here is the link to the actual Susan Watts report. The edited speech is used right at the start.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7841946.stm
Shocking!
TonyN: Many thanks, I’ve added your link to the post.
Re #32, I quite like it too, especially as it allows one to ask the Beeb if they know what is being said about them on the ’stinkyjournalism’ website.. :-)
James
But its sad that belief in basic journalistic standard seem to be better appreciated on the other side of the Herring Pond.
Susan Watts didn’t shower herself with journalistic glory over the David Kelly story either.
[…] Here is a very interesting observation on the BBC’s Newsnight programme. It seems that their science correspondent did not think that Obama’s speech hit the right note on climate change, and so she cobbled together different bits from different parts of the speech to produce the effect she wanted. Now that’s… […]
Thank you for posting this! Peter Rippon (editor Newnight) has defended the decision on Susan Watt’s blog (comment 33):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/01/restoring_science_to_its_right.html#commentsanchor
A funny thing happened, someone posted a reply to the Peter Rippon response. It is now under moderation. He has to “Explain”. Here is the angry and IMO correct response:
34. At 4:52pm on 24 Jan 2009, toughNeilHyde wrote:
Re 33
What absolute twaddle , you have misrepresented a hitorical speech to suit your own ends . This is totally unacceptable and hopefully a full public apology and explanation of what you did will be aired on Newsnight.
Anything less and I ( and others I know ) will be making formal complaints.
Re 40,
Part from the fact that I can’t spell “historical” , I stand by that post. I am sick to death of the BBC bias re climate change. They seem incapable of doing there own research in to the science , and all they ever pump out are regurgitated press releases from the the AGW alarmists , despite the number of times the computer models have been exposed as fiction.
Richard Black who to be fair does try to do a good job , but even he on the “Antarctic” scare story , followed the press release , saying satellite data from 50 years was used to prove “warming” , the damn thing were only launched 30 years ago !!!
Rant over
…. and I promise, I can under nomal circumstances , type , and spell correctly. They have just annoyed me so much !!
Great Blog this, and thanks for highlighting this issue. I read the Peter Rippon response mentioned above, What he says seems quite meally mouthed, I hope as a new poster I am not breaking rules by pasting it here?
He says his aim was to give an ‘impression or montage’, this doesn’t seem a meaningful defence of anything. I didn’t ‘see’ any fades that could be picked up by most human audio/visual capabilities on the video or the audio linked to in this article, although maybe that could change? ;)
I suspect this ‘technicality’ will be the final defence if it ever gets awkward and picked up on something Google could see.
I have tried to post a comment for five hours on Susan Watts blog but can’t create a BBC membership because there is a ‘technical problem’ Is it just me?
tonyB
“impression or montage”
Oh yeah! And I’m sure they prefaced it with: “these aren’t actually the President’s words in the order he said them, it’s just an impression or montage”.
Curious that the editor had to reply on La Watts’s blog. Is she still hiding under the desk..?
@James P
Or maybe to paraphrase Eric Morecambe,
“These are the right words, but not in the right order, I’ll give you that sunshine!”
:)
Harold and Neil: Many thanks, being Saturday evening I hadn’t noticed. I’ll put up a post about this tomorrow morning.
TonyB: I manged to create one not long ago.
I wrote a post for Biased BBC concerning the manipulation of Obama’s words here and a follow-up concerning the response by Mr Rippon in Susan Watts’ blog here.
TonyN,
I will be registering an official complaint with the BBC , but is there any mileage in you Tony, hooking up with other sites where this has been reported to present a concerted effort?
This is symptomatic of the “Green” agenda of the BBC , where opposing views are ignored, if not blatantly suppressed , as I said on a BBC blog , reminiscent of 1984, Ingsoc, and the Ministry of Truth.
I must have calmed down , my typing and spelling have improved !!
Natalie
Many thanks. This story is now running on more blogs than I can count.
I have a formal complaint in with the BBC Trustees and I intend to pursue this until Peter Rippon has to explain Newsnight’s actions to them, not just in an anodyne and unconvincing blog comment. I’ve added B-BBC to my blog roll.
This is sooo wrong! Bad Bad BBC….
Do they think they can get away with this? It shows their absolute disrespect to their viewers.
BBC = Broadcasting Bullshit Communism style…..
TonyN: This is not a political blog Martijn. See blog rules.
[…] Now go and read this. Categories: BBC, Politics Posted By: Brennig Last Edit: 25 Jan 2009 @ 19:53 E-mail • Permalink Previous: Responses to this post » (None) Comments are open. Feel free to leave a comment below. Comment Meta: RSS Feed for comments TrackBack URI Leave A Comment … […]
Fill your boots !!
http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=49968796236#/group.php?gid=49968796236
Funny thing. This link no longer works…. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/01/restoring_science_to_its_right.html
It also drops IE, I assume as BBC sometimes has auto-refresh. Anyone care to comment…?
In case you’ve lost it….
TonyN: As Susan Watts’ blog has reappeared, I’ve deleted your copy here to save space. But it was a wise precaution; thanks.
I have 22-53 if you want me to add them.
Roger M
Thanks for copying the comments from Susan Watts blog here. It seems to be up and running again now and I am not sure that one should read too much into this; BBC blogs don’t have a big reputation for stability. If you have a backup of these I would like to delete them from your comment to save space. Please let me know.
Well done Tony for spotting this.
Watts took many liberties with the facts, not just Obama’s speech. It is hard to locate any truth in her presentation at all, and it doesn’t seem too harsh to say that it is a complete work of fiction. In other words, it says far more about Watt’s inability to make sense of the world than it says about the climate, Obama’s politics, and the relationship between science and public policy.
Which is a shame, because we expect journalists to be able to offer analysis that bears at least some scrutiny, even if it is occasionally ‘biased’. The problem isn’t that her work was polemic. The problem is that it lacks any relationship to the real world at all.
We go into more detail on this story’s lack of substance at the Climate Resistance blog.
A quick thought - I wonder if it’s a different issue entirely. Given the text of the complete paragraph, which concerns itself only with conflict, nation and the threat of terrorism, is it possible that the speechwriter actually meant “roll back the spectre of a WARRING planet”?
Though it does say ‘warming’ in the Independent’s full text…
“a WARRING planet”
You mean they’ve been changing the words as well..? :-)
“BBC blogs don’t have a big reputation for stability”
Even the Newsnight editor has trouble with them!
Please feel free to delete. Hope peeps won’t think I’ve been “black-balled though lol.
“Jonathan Castle says:
January 26th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
A quick thought - I wonder if it’s a different issue entirely. Given the text of the complete paragraph, which concerns itself only with conflict, nation and the threat of terrorism, is it possible that the speechwriter actually meant “roll back the spectre of a WARRING planet”?
Though it does say ‘warming’ in the Independent’s full text…”
I agree with Jonathan. Although having listened to Barak several times where he says “warming”,it sounds to me the context the speech writer meant WARRING planet. Warming simply doesn’t fit with the paragraph.
Hey ho….
Re: #58, Climate-Resistance
I have avoided dealing with other aspects of Susan Watts’ report, so I am very glad that you have covered them. There is now a link to your article on the most recent post here.
“Warming simply doesn’t fit with the paragraph.”
I’m sure Newsnight could correct it for us…
TonyN:
If you do not consider the BBC a threat to democracy then perhaps you don’t know who sits on the BBC’s board of directors? Perhaps you aren’t aware that the BBC is implicated in the cover-up of the real truth about the 9/11 attacks? If you aren’t aware of the furore which was caused by the BBC’s reporting of the collapse (and the reasons for the collapse) of WTC7 whilst it was still standing in the background behind the reporter talking about its collapse then I’d suggest a trawl of Youtube. The BBC claimed at the time that it had lost its tapes of that day; when myself and numerous other members of the public picked over the BBC’s data management policy it soon became clear it is totally impossible for the BBC to have lost ALL its footage from that day. Since then the BBC has refused to comment except for some b*llshit blog post by the BBC News Editor in chief Richard Porter which claimed that people were basically picking on the BBC for no reason.
Now whilst neither I nor anyone else claim that the BBC had any knowledge of the attacks themselves, it is beyond dispute that the BBC was told by someone to release a story saying WTC7 had collapsed, and even saying WHY it had collapsed - something no-one had been able to do until NIST recently came out with it’s ridiculous report claiming fire did it. So at the very least the BBC is guilty of not checking the facts in a story before it is released. But more realistically the BBC should be in a court of law and forced to divulge the name of the person who told them to tell us that WTC7 had collapsed. Because up until that point there had not been in the history of the world a single high-rise steel framed building that had ever collapsed solely because of the action of fire - and there was no reason to think that WTC7 was going to collapse either, seeing as it was hit by nothing except falling masonry.
The BBC (supposedly) has a duty to inform the public. Once again however they have deliberately misinformed the public. If you seriously believe the BBC is not a threat to democracy then I’m sorry to say you’re sadly deluded on two counts. 1. The BBC cares nothing about democracy - the fact that they’d consider pushing ANY agenda apart from the basic honest truth is all the proof you should ever need of that. And democracy doesn’t exist anyway! It never has and it never will - despite the fact that the UK is called a democracy. Again, you don’t need to look any further than the BBC to see that point illustrated; a publicly funded organisation using its position to deceive the public to push forward an agenda. And of course, back to my very first point; look at the board of directors. The BBC is pushing an agenda, the point of which is to generate more tax revenue. And those pushing this agenda? Bankers… ;-)
Independent my arse…
TonyN: These are not the kind of matters that I want to be discussed here. See blog rules.
I’m sorry, which of the “blog rules” did I break? You’re talking about the BBC deceiving the public; I’m talking about the BBC deceiving the public.
TonyN: The discussion is about a sound bite used in a particular report. See rule on ad hominem attacks. This is not a forum for general BBC bashing.
Re comments by Jonathan Castle and Roger M concerning the “warming”/”warring” puzzle, firstly I agree - Obama is talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, the nuclear threat, defending the American way of life and not giving in to terrorists. “Warring” makes sense in this context, “warming” doesn’t.
Secondly, someone at Associated Press appears to have thought similarly; see this article on Yahoo News.
I’m beginning to wonder now what it actually says on the official script.
“roll back the specter of a warring planet.”
What a find, Alex! That would pull the rug from under Newsnight…
I had not read the whole speech before as Obama reminded me too much of Blair in his oratory. However it is clear on any objective ‘first time’ reading that this whole section was in the context of ‘warring’. He continued as follows;
” We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”
There are nine references here which make complete sense if the word was warring, otherwise the follow on paragraph is completely out of context. Obama-like Blair- tended to give clear linear speeches.
TonyB
I still say “warring”, BUT….
“Obama aims for oil independence”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7851038.stm
Barak’s speech writer is becoming sloppy IMHO.
B.H.O. seems to have difficulty reading his stuff, and it hardly flows exactly. It seems to me almost as though “warming planet” has been popped in to clear abiguity in the main speech.
Any thoughts?
“tonyb says:
January 26th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I had not read the whole speech before as Obama reminded me too much of Blair in his oratory. However it is clear on any objective ‘first time’ reading that this whole section was in the context of ‘warring’. He continued as follows;
” We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”
There are nine references here which make complete sense if the word was warring, otherwise the follow on paragraph is completely out of context. Obama-like Blair- tended to give clear linear speeches.”
Yep, very Blair. Spooky.
Interesting that AP quotes it as ‘warring.
IMHO, looking at the video, he is clearly saying ‘warming’ I had a rummage around on the Whitehouse site and couldnt find an official POTUS transcript.
I dunno though. maybe he misread He is human after all :)
I listened very carefully to the speech - especially to find out what he might say about climate change. And, as I’ve said elsewhere, I was surprised at the lack of any real substance on that issue. But I thought he said “warming”.
I wonder what it will say in the Library of Congress..?
Telling the truth is an ad hominem attack? Setting precedent for a particular pattern of behaviour is “general BBC bashing”? Perhaps you really aren’t aware of this:
[snip]
TonyN: Sorry Mayer, as I said before, I want this discussion to be focused on what happened on Newsnight, not 9/11.
I listened again to the recording and yes, he definitely says “warming”; but find the possibility intriguing that he was originally meant to say “warring” but fluffed it. Which would have been understandable, given the circumstances; after all, he stumbled and had to repeat the oath of office - not an easy performance for him (or anyone), given that the eyes of the world were upon him.
But, if true, it would add another layer of irony to Newsnight’s assertion that “President Obama couldn’t have been clearer…”
Alex
I wonder if the official version of the speech is based on the final draft, or on a transcription that was made when it was delivered? And I also wonder how one might find out?
I would say when ever you talk of a modern politician’s speech you are always in a strange post modern realm nowadays. Forget Winston Churchills clarity. We are all aware of Obamas speech today. But I tell you this, I would have never been impressed by George Bush ever, but if you dig out the videos of his old inauguration speeches they are quite well written and he delivers them well. It’s just that nobody ever saw them. Maybe I’m old but, Obama is not in any particular league better in my mind yet. Less than a month if you remember.
Richard Dawkins, Peter Medawar and George Orwell. These are people who can write about things in clear unambiguous sentences. We need to keep an eye out for people who can do this and have something to say and keep encouraging that clarity, otherwise, we could be stuck in moments where, as discussed above, the difference between ‘warring’ and ‘warming’ in a sentence can be quite reasonably argued over, in fact it is a quite interesting fact that AP reported it that way if you think about it.
And no one really cares about the ambiguiity
.
Since we can argue over it, and since it can be manipulated so easily to suit anybody’s ears we could end up be in a realm of some kind of post modern nightmare where nothing is accountable. That is why I am interested in the response to TonyN from the BBC. At best I would hope they may say yes we shouldn’t have done this, and we could have done better, I think that would be acceptable.
I would agree that the media should be careful to ‘get it right’. I’m not sure why the BBC would want to play up or play down anything that was said in any politician’s speech. It doesn’t make any difference in the end.
We’ll see in the coming weeks just how words will translate into actions.
You guys don’t mention the other Uk news channels much. ITN, Sky ? How did they report the Obama speech? Is their reporting of the AGW issue, in general, any more to your liking?
Good point Peter.
Tony N,
Question: Are the other news outlets in the UK (ITN, Sky), subsidized/propped-up by the taxpayers as the BBC?
That’s relatively easy. Maxwell is in there somewhere along with many commercial/media/journalistic interests not renouned for impartiality. Humans kinda have views about stuff, don’t we lol…
“You guys don’t mention the other Uk news channels much. ITN, Sky ?”
Not sure I would expect them to behave anyway! The problem here is that the BBC are not expected (or allowed!) to massage the news.
Peter:
You say:
But if you really think that ‘it doesn’t make any difference in the end’, then why do you agree ‘that the media should be careful to ‘get it right”‘
How do you think that ABC would react to a complaint about an incident similar to the one that I described above?
Brute:
In order to use a TV in the UK you must buy a license from the BBC, whether you watch their programmes or not. The funds raised are used entirely to run the BBC.
Channel 4 is also a public service broadcaster, but although it is publicly owned, it is funded commercially. I am not an expert on this.
The matter of the license fee and BBC funding is very much in the news over here at the moment, but this is only relevant to the current discussion in that the BBC is publicly accountable in a way that other news providers are not.
Thank you for this important post. We at StinkyJournalism dot org have written a report. The US journalism ethics community has also weighed in and has supported you as well. Keep up the good work and keep up the pressure by contacting BBC. We will continue to work this case as well. BBC needs to correct and apologize.
TonyN,
Yes of course all journalists should make every effort to present the news as accurately as possible. And it shouldn’t be any different if they are working for the BBC, Sky, CNN or Al Jazeera.
In this case I can’t see that there can any ulterior motive for deliberately distorting the news. There can be, of course, during war time, when there is a big industrial dispute or when you guys are rioting about poll taxes or whatever . The real truth often dribbles out years later. But Obama’s speech? I can’t really see it.
There is a more interesting discussion going on at the moment about the BBC refusing to allow air time for an appeal for the Gazan refugees, Is that something you would have expected from the lefties in charge of the BBC?
From the BBC ‘editorial guidelines’, under ‘Accuracy’:
Digital manipulation
The ability to digitally create, manipulate and copy audio-visual material, including still photographs, video and documents poses ethical dilemmas and creates the potential for hoaxing.
We should ensure that any digital manipulation, including the use of CGI or other production techniques to create scenes or characters, does not distort the meaning of events, alter the impact of genuine material or otherwise seriously mislead our audiences.
I rest my case.
Rhonda
Many thanks for the support. I did try to leave a comment on your site saying how much I liked the piece that you and Danielle did - particularly because it dwelt on the basic ethical issue of not tampering with quotes - but for some reason it wouldn’t take.
It’s particularly sad that this row is centred on the BBC because, although they get plenty of criticism, I suspect that most people still love and value Auntie for the standards that they have come to expect. This is probably why we get so upset when things go wrong, and also why I think that it is very important that awkard problems within the corporation are addressed and put right, however uncomfortable the process.
The amount of shocked coverage that the ’splicegate’ story has had on your side of the Atlantic is evidence that the BBC still has a reputation that is very well worth protecting by publicly putting right what has gone wrong. I would suggest that Peter Rippon’s response is not the best way to go about this.
Update: When I wrote this, I hadn’t seen the updates on your site, including the opinions from experts. I’ll post about this later, but in the meantime I strongly recommend everyone to have a look for themselves here.
I entered the following complaint on the BBC website.
I have removed my full name from the end.
“I did not watch the aforementioned program, titled “Obama’s first 100 days: Environment”, but heard about the opening words attributed to President Obama.
I had not seen this in the transcript and went to watch the video clip on your website.
I can only hope that it was not intended to deceive but given the opening statement of Susan Watts, “President Obama couldn’t have been clearer today”, I find this difficult to believe.
I hope you publish a public apology for this obvious and biased corruption of reporting.”
DaveE
The real speech, combined with explicit mentions of the digital electrical grid in his technology agenda, sound like an endorsement of the Pickens plan.
By the way, you’ll note that the words carbon, warming and climate do not appear in the plan and you’ll struggle to find them on the pickens plan website.
This Guardian have picked this up here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/jan/27/bbc-tvnews
James P, #87: An interesting find.
Dave E, #89: At some point I intend to ask the BBC how many complaints they have received.
Simon Gibbs, #90: Listening to Obama’s announcement on job creation, saving the economy, and energy security on Monday night I was surprised just how little focus there was on climate change. All the measures that he mentioned applied equally to the other problems. I suspect that he has recognised that there is little public enthusiasm for a crusade against global warming.
Am I being thick again but I can’t seem to add a comment to Ms Watt’s blog?
I wanted to add this http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/jan/27/bbc-tvnews as they haven’t had it yet…
This is fun (although possibly not for La Watts):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
[…] I know that the blog that originally reported the Newsnight splicing isn’t well inclined towards green energy and that the Telegraph isn’t a big fan of the […]
[…] journalism should not be mistaken for bad research. For example, via Brennig comes an instance of the BBC casually and cavalierly cutting and pasting from the inaugural speech. This is pretty low, but hardly a surprise. It’s certainly no lower than the levels to which […]
TonyN: Pingbacks don’t usually lead to much, but in this case there is quite an interesting discussion at the other end. Click on the link in the comment header.
[…] several scentences of Obama’s inaugural speech, apparently to accentuate a green agenda. TonyN describes the fallacy in detail with sound files […]
[…] I have received the following message from BBC Information in response to my complaint about a ‘sound bite’ compiled from president Obama’s inaugural speech. This was used in a Newsnight report by Susan Watts: […]
[…] said - or did not say - about science in his inaugural speech. For anyone new to this topic see: BBC Newsnight - Warming up President Obama’s inaugural speech?Here’s what happened in the […]
[…] in February I posted about BBC Newsnight - Warming up President Obama’s inaugural speech? Aunty’s flagship current affairs magazine programme had taken three isolated phrases out of […]
Harmless Sky is powered by WordPress | Using Tiga theme with a bit of Ozh + WP 2.2 / 2.3 Tiga Upgrade