I rarely listen to Farming Today on the radio even though I am almost always awake when it airs (before 6am). That’s for two reasons – it’s my most productive time of day so I am usually writing something and the programme is so irritating (although, since I rarely listen (except when someone tells me that they have been even more irritating than usual) they might have changed for the better) that it often spoils the best part of the day.
This week they are, I’m told, talking to lots of gamekeepers about issues such as grouse shooting. Farming Today contacted me to see whether I’d be available for interview and this is how I replied:
Thanks but I have had such a bad experience of unfair editing by Farming Today in the past that I promised myself that I would never do another interview with the programme – see here.
Also see here, here, here, here.
I just don’t trust Farming Today to do a fair job.
It’s a shame to miss out on an opportunity to put the case against grouse shooting (if that is what the opportunity would have been) but my relationship with Farming Today is like that with an acquaintance who has behaved badly to me, never apologised and still wants to behave as though they respect me. I’m afraid they are off my Christmas card list.
[registration_form]
Hi Mark
would love to know what response they gav to your reply. Whenever I have contacted them or the (even worse, see last saturday for example) Today programme, I usually get some sort of boring thanks and never any addressing of whatever poor reporting I have contacted them about.
Louise – I had a very polite response saying that it was a shame and that i was rather good as a spokesperson and they wished they could include my voice.
I am rather surprised that you might expect anything else from the BBC, given their role in this society. I found Tom Mills book “The BBC Myth of a Public Service” gave some good information on what that role might be as do the Daves over at Medialens with their many, many alerts on the BBC. See http://www.medialens.org/.
I fully agree with your position Mark. The editing by the BBC is often grossly unfair and misleading. There is absolutely no guarantee that what you say will be fairly reproduced and this is coupled with the fact that the interviewer is often either very biased or very ignorant of the issue.
Well said Mark. A lot of these so called debates are about as stage managed and choreographed as Saturday afternoon wrestling used to be. In other words the conclusion is decided in advance, and if anyone upsets the apple cart by too good a presentation, it’s edited to appear as if it were a draw. The idea is to maintain the status quo.
Keep the promise – they’ve others they can go to, to spread the burden/pain – and if one thing’s for certain, the bbc doesn’t admit its mistakes. Not to Cliff Richard and certainly not to you.
With a bit of luck, they’ll recalibrate over time as more people say ‘no thanks’…but they’ll never accept they’re wrong. Have a lie in – and wake up to Ken Bruce instead! Much better for the soul.