reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 argues that the BBC should not offer more than the apology already indicated by Samir Shah, who apologized for the error of joining two separate parts of an interview to look like one. He notes Donald Trump called the BBC corrupt and dishonest, which he finds outrageous. He believes Trump has a weak case and that the BBC’s error was editorial, similar to how written journalism uses ellipses; the program balance was not complained about at the time. He says the BBC should have corrected and apologized earlier, and that the BBC’s thoroughness can slow public relations. Speaker 1 asks whether Trump has a strong case. Speaker 0 responds that Trump does not; it was an editorial error, and the BBC should have used a visual cue to indicate the quote’s continuation. He suggests the error was serious and should have been corrected earlier, though he acknowledges the BBC makes errors as do all broadcasters. Speaker 1 asks if the two high-profile resignations were due to pressure from the American administration. Speaker 0 says no, expressing shock at Tim Davie’s resignation, praising Davie as the best person to navigate the BBC through charter renewal and public broadcasting challenges, and emphasizing the BBC’s commitment to impartiality. He contrasts this with populist right voices that interpret impartiality as broadcasting their views, noting the BBC makes errors but remains committed to impartiality. He maintains that the BBC is not institutionally biased and disputes the idea that the BBC is metropolitan, citing its Salford base and national reach. Speaker 1 asks if there is a BBC board coup or significant political interference. Speaker 0 is cautious about calling it a coup, citing examples of powerful figures like Robbie Gibb but avoiding naming individuals. He notes that non-executive directors were appointed under previous administrations and mentions involvement by a former Conservative Party leader who denounced the BBC and supported Robbie Gibb. He doubts that the intent is to destroy the BBC, but suspects some people want the BBC weakened and may hold strong views on license fees and the charter. He does not label it a coup. Speaker 1 asks how the BBC should move on, aside from Trump’s potential lawsuit. Speaker 0 says the BBC must apologize more promptly and publicly when wrong, especially in a fractured society where impartiality is crucial. He suggests the BBC should be on the front foot with apologies and even-handed treatment when treated unfairly. He questions who could lead the BBC in the coming months and stresses the need for balance and restored impartiality in judgment about the BBC’s performance and future.

Speaker 2 questions whether everyone in the room will follow the cabinet rules, while Speaker 1 mentions a minister who issued directions to state-owned broadcasters. Speaker 1 brings up Mr. Peters' comments about the media and the $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund. Speaker 3 criticizes Winston Peters for making baseless allegations about the media being bought off. Speaker 0 defends the government's funding of news organizations and calls it bribery. Speaker 4 explains that the fund was established to support media during the COVID-19 crisis and combat misinformation. The transcript ends with Speaker 0 reiterating the claim of bribery.

A man states he was fired because he supports President Trump. He says his boss, Bob, terminated him due to his political beliefs. He believes it is disgraceful and violates his freedom of speech to be fired for his personal political views, as long as he doesn't express them at work or endanger anyone. He asks for help and expresses frustration that his support for Trump led to his job loss. He warns other Trump supporters that they could face similar consequences if their employers disagree with their political views. He maintains that his beliefs shouldn't affect his job and declares he will find another job, saying "Fuck these people."

The speaker greets each other and asks if they have received any letters. One letter from a viewer named Louise Carpenter asks about the absence of the Jimmy Savile World Cup comment slot, which her 8-year-old daughter enjoyed. The speaker makes a comment about young girls liking Jimmy Savile. They mention that the daughter loves the slot and then abruptly end the conversation.

There are big programming changes happening. Joy Reid's show is ending and she is leaving the network altogether, which is hard to accept because I have immense respect and affection for her. I think it’s a mistake to let her go. It's also concerning that two non-white hosts in primetime are losing their shows, along with Katie Fang. While the new anchors will be great, the behind-the-scenes staff are facing layoffs and being asked to reapply for their jobs, which is creating anxiety and disruption. The press is under attack, and while changes happen, it’s most painful to see what happens to our coworkers, who we deeply respect and depend on. We need to treat people well, find good colleagues, do good work with them, and support them. We can do much better.

Apple has removed the Glenn Beck Program from Apple Podcasts due to an issue that needs to be resolved. The link provided for more details only states that the show has been removed. The speaker expresses disbelief and questions the basis for the removal, as there have been no strikes or problematic content. They urge listeners to retweet and campaign for Apple to reinstate the podcast, emphasizing it as a matter of freedom of speech. The speaker suggests that it may just be a glitch that needs to be brought to Apple's attention before the podcast is restored.

The speaker confronts the interviewer about their bias towards Donald Trump and attacks on colleagues. They express a desire to discuss Joe Biden and Trump impartially. The interviewer is asked to stop the interview if the attacks continue. The speaker is then cut off and the interview ends abruptly.

The speaker reflects on being fired and acknowledges that there were many factors at play. They mention that being a high-rated host doesn't guarantee job security and that there are complex dynamics within big companies. They express that they weren't shocked by the firing and understood that they couldn't defy everyone and expect to keep their job. The speaker also discusses the influence of advertisers on news coverage, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. They state that while they personally never faced pressure to shape their views, they were always clear that they would speak their truth. The speaker acknowledges that their positions on certain issues were unpopular within their company but appreciates that they were allowed to express them. They also discuss the lack of communication and explanation from the company regarding their firing. The second speaker finds it strange that a top performer would be fired without any feedback and believes it to be self-destructive from a business standpoint. The first speaker agrees and emphasizes the importance of explaining disagreements and delivering uncomfortable news. They mention that they weren't too upset about being fired as they were aware of the harsh realities of the industry.

A man states he was fired for being a Trump supporter. He says his boss, Bob, terminated him because of his political beliefs. He believes it is disgraceful and violates his freedom of speech to be fired for his personal political views, as long as he doesn't express them at work or endanger anyone. He asks for help and says this should not affect his job. He says he'll find another job and says, "Fuck these people."

The speaker reflects on being fired from their show and acknowledges that there were many factors at play. They mention having unpopular opinions and speculate that this may have influenced the decision. They also discuss how being a top-rated host doesn't guarantee job security and that there are complex dynamics within big companies. The speaker admits to not being shocked by the firing and expresses no hard feelings. They mention the influence of advertisers on news coverage, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. The speaker states that they were never explicitly told what to say, but they were always clear that they would speak their mind. They believe their willingness to express unpopular views may have contributed to their dismissal. The speaker also comments on the lack of communication and explanation from the company regarding their firing. They conclude by acknowledging the harsh realities of the industry and accepting the consequences.

NPR and PBS heads testified before Congress this week, facing accusations of liberal bias. The question is whether the government should continue funding public broadcasters. Republicans have long sought to eliminate PBS. The speaker believes NPR is far left and that government subsidies are no longer necessary. These outlets became popular when political polarization was lower. Now that Republicans and Democrats are at odds, such organizations are no longer viable as public entities and should be private.

Speaker 1 discusses government interference in news coverage at CBS, citing pressure from political officials to shape stories. They mention feeling pressure from employers to withhold stories due to calls from officials, even if the content was accurate. Speaker 1 suggests a policy where officials must submit objections in writing rather than through phone calls. They express concern about intelligence agencies violating rights without sufficient oversight. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their input. Translation: Speaker 1 talks about government influence on news coverage at CBS, highlighting pressure from political officials to manipulate stories. They mention feeling pressured by employers to hold back stories due to calls from officials, even if the content was accurate. Speaker 1 proposes a policy where officials must submit objections in writing instead of through phone calls. They express worry about intelligence agencies violating rights without proper oversight. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their insights.

The speakers discuss the characters and plot of a TV series. They mention the names of the main characters and the setting. There is a mention of positive actions and the administration. The conversation also touches on receiving something and a minister.

The speaker claims the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) uses taxpayer money to suppress truth and diverse viewpoints, and to produce outlandish content. They state that private businesses operate without government funding. As a result of these claims, they will call for the complete defunding and dismantling of the CPB. They believe people should be able to disagree with them without taxpayer funding of CPB.

The speakers express frustration over the cancellation of a Christian revival meeting in a publicly funded community hall. They argue that the cancellation is discriminatory and a result of "cancel culture." They criticize the mayor or CEO of the township for allowing LGBT events but not the Christian event. The speakers also mention a fear of political interference and claim that free speech is being suppressed. They question the lack of democracy and suggest that the situation is moving towards communism.

The speakers discuss the rights of farmers to protest and the government's response. The first speaker, the Minister of the Interior, acknowledges that farmers suffer and have the right to protest. However, they also mention that the police will intervene if public buildings or officials are targeted. The second speaker raises the issue of double standards in the government's response to protests. The Minister denies any double standards and emphasizes the need for compassion and understanding towards farmers. They also mention that the Prime Minister will make announcements to address the farmers' concerns.

A speaker addresses Senator Klobuchar, saying they won't discuss personnel decisions, but highlighting a personnel issue. The speaker states that all of their agents and all of their lawyers are working. They claim that their agents are on the street working without a paycheck, attributing this to the shutdown caused by the other party. The speaker asserts, "My agents are on the street working without a paycheck because your party voted to shut down the federal government." This emphasizes perceived consequences of the government shutdown on federal operations and compensation. The message conveys frustration that personnel are continuing to work without pay due to political actions.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss hate speech and content moderation on Twitter, as well as COVID misinformation policies and broader editorial questions. - Speaker 0 says they have spoken with people who were sacked and with people recently involved in moderation, and they claim there is not enough staff to police hate speech in the company. - Speaker 1 asks if there is a rise in hate speech on Twitter and prompts for personal experience. - Speaker 0 says, personally, they see more hateful content in their feed, but they do not use the For You feed for the rest of Twitter. They describe the content as something that solicits a reaction and may include something slightly racist or slightly sexist. - Speaker 1 asks for a concrete example of hateful content. Speaker 0 says they cannot name a single example, explaining they have not used the For You feed for the last three or four weeks and have been using Twitter since the takeover for the last six months. When pressed again, Speaker 0 says they cannot identify a specific example but that many organizations say such information is on the rise. Speaker 1 again pushes for a single example, and Speaker 0 repeats they cannot provide one. - Speaker 1 points out the inconsistency, noting that Speaker 0 claimed more hateful content but cannot name a single tweet as an example. Speaker 0 responds that they have not looked at that feed recently, and that the last few weeks they saw it but cannot provide an exact example. - The discussion moves to COVID misinformation: Speaker 1 asks about changes to COVID misinformation rules and labels. Speaker 0 clarifies that the BBC does not set the rules on Twitter and asks about changes to the labels for COVID misinformation, noting there used to be a policy that disappeared. - Speaker 1 questions why the labels disappeared and asks whether COVID is no longer an issue, and whether the BBC bears responsibility for misinformation regarding masking, vaccination side effects, and not reporting on that, as well as whether the BBC was pressured by the British government to change editorial policy. Speaker 0 states that this interview is not about the BBC and emphasizes that they are not a representative of the BBC’s editorial policy, and tries to shift to another topic. - Speaker 1 continues pushing, and Speaker 0 indicates the interview is moving to another topic. Speaker 1 remarks that Speaker 0 wasn’t expecting that, and Speaker 0 suggests discussing something else.