Brown sticks his foot in his mouth

lostinrates

Wheezy wrote: »

Sure, I'm not defending Brown here...his reaction was poor, to say the least.
My point is more that this country DOES need a grown-up discussion about immigration, but I'm not sure if starting out with a 'daily mail' view of the issues is the right way to go.

agreed, but we have to remember that a large part of the population do hold a daily mail view. democracy means what they think also deserves hearing.

abaxas

lostinrates wrote: »

agreed, but we have to remember that a large part of the population do hold a daily mail view. democracy means what they think also deserves hearing.

Exactly.

Any stifling of discussion on a topic is bad, you cannot censor people. Or we'd be like China or Iran.

JasonLVC

ninky wrote: »

read your own link. undercover filming has to be pre-approved and for a clear public interest reason.





The following rules apply to any proposal to secretly record, whether for news, factual or comedy and entertainment purposes.

• All proposals to record secretly must be approved in advance by the relevant senior editorial figure in each Division or for Independents by the commissioning editor who may consult Editorial Policy. Each Division is responsible for maintaining these records to enable the BBC to monitor and review the use of such techniques across its output.
• A signed record must be kept of the approval process, even if the request is turned down, and secretly recorded material must be logged. This record is required even if the material gathered isn't broadcast.
• The gathering and broadcast of secretly recorded material is always a two stage process. The decision to gather is always taken separately from the decision to transmit.
• Any deception required for the purposes of obtaining material and secret recording should be the minimum necessary and proportionate to the subject matter and must be referred to the relevant senior editorial figure or for Independents to the commissioning editor.
• The re-use of secretly recorded material must be referred to a senior editorial figure or for Independents to the commissioning editor before transmission and a record kept of the decision.

non of the above was done for this recording. this obviously was not a pre-approved case or in the public interest to deliberately record a feed from a press conference microphone which was not designed to be monitored or recorded at this moment. if it was in the public interest to constantly secretly record would be leaders then lets bug their homes, tap their phones etc etc!!

Nice try Ninky, I did read the link, but there comes a point when one has to accept that Brown has messed up and it is all his own doing and stop hiding behind excuses and blaming others.

1. It was NOT a secret recording, it was a microphone Brown had attached to him which he knew was there. It didn't need prior approval as it was already approved. My link was to the BBC's code of conduct remember (more strict as a result of the Ross/Brand episode), not official OfCom guidance.

2. How can you say this is not in the public interest? Not in the interest of die-hard Labour fanatics for sure, but the public has a right to know of the personal views and opinions of the man leading the country - after all, that is the caring/sharing image Brown and Cameron portray isn't it?.

3. You said this recording was a breach of the media codes of conduct. How about a link to this code Ninky as I'm struggling to find anything which suggests Sky has broken the law here.

In the meantime, here's another published guide from OfCom on secret recordings :-

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/privacy/

Can't find anything in there either about throwing a fit when being caught out on live TV in the middle of a press conference. We've got a guy, on a live broadcast muttering under his breath. Perhaps if there was a breach of code I am sure the Labour party would be issuing a complaint - oh, but they haven't as yet.

JasonLVC

Wheezy wrote: »

Sure, I'm not defending Brown here...his reaction was poor, to say the least.
My point is more that this country DOES need a grown-up discussion about immigration, but I'm not sure if starting out with a 'daily mail' view of the issues is the right way to go.

You're previous post suggested support for Brown's attempt to vilify another persons opinion or did I misunderstand?

The country does need to debate about a lot of things, immigration being one of them. However, if everytime you attempt to talk about the subject you are accused of being a bigot (or even a racist) then how can the debate move forwards?

Brown has stated today that immigration is not off limits and the Daily Mail route is exactly the correct place to start. The place to start is to debunk the bile and myths bandied about by the press and present alternatives and facts for the voters to decide themselves.

Unfortunatley, as recently as last month, Brown was censured for mis-truthing immigration statistics to make a bad picture look good :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8597530.stm

Is it any wonder why people may be mis-guided on the subject?

JasonLVC

ninky wrote: »

the carol thatcher comment was not secretly recorded and broadcast - it was merely a report of a conversation which had occurred.

I correctly stated that Carol Thatcher's conversation was leaked, not recorded, but this was still a private conversation between two people which was overheard by others and then used to attack her.

Exactly the same as has happened to Brown. So what was fair game for Carol is fair game for Gordon.

Perhaps the BBC should have guidance on minding their own bl00dy business with regards what guests say, all they need to focus on is what is being broadcast, not what people talk about behind the cameras/scenes.

ninky_2

JasonLVC wrote: »

3. You said this recording was a breach of the media codes of conduct. How about a link to this code Ninky as I'm struggling to find anything which suggests Sky has broken the law here.

.

ofcom regulations here. not the same as the law exactly but they can decide to fine a broadcaster if they deem them to be in breach. i have had to edit part out of shows when it hasn't been clear if a contributor was aware they were being filmed or not. contributors should always be made aware of the fact you are filming them. it certainly would not be okay to include a conversation that was had off camera and then use it.

i do know one production company that has done this before. the same one that made the queengate mistake.

http://www.independentproducerhandbook.co.uk/10/6a-factual-and-current-affairs-programming/ofcom-broadcasting-code.html

Secret Filming

• Individuals must not normally be filmed or recorded secretly for inclusion in a programme unless approved by the broadcaster in advance.
• Programme-makers must set out in writing their justification for covert filming/recording. It must satisfy the provisions of Section 8.13 of the Code.
• Before any secret filming is undertaken, there are detailed guidelines you must follow. See Channel 4's and Five's internal compliance procedures and rules contained within the Channel 4 Appendices and Five Appedices .
• See Chapter 4D, Privacy - 'Surreptitious or Secret Filming'
• See Channel 4's Secret Filming Rules at Appendices 7C and Five's Secret Filming Rules 8C

Really2

ninky wrote: »

read your own link. undercover filming has to be pre-approved and for a clear public interest reason.

The following rules apply to any proposal to secretly record, whether for news, factual or comedy and entertainment purposes.

• All proposals to record secretly must be approved in advance by the relevant senior editorial figure in each Division or for Independents by the commissioning editor who may consult Editorial Policy. Each Division is responsible for maintaining these records to enable the BBC to monitor and review the use of such techniques across its output.
• A signed record must be kept of the approval process, even if the request is turned down, and secretly recorded material must be logged. This record is required even if the material gathered isn't broadcast.
• The gathering and broadcast of secretly recorded material is always a two stage process. The decision to gather is always taken separately from the decision to transmit.
• Any deception required for the purposes of obtaining material and secret recording should be the minimum necessary and proportionate to the subject matter and must be referred to the relevant senior editorial figure or for Independents to the commissioning editor.
• The re-use of secretly recorded material must be referred to a senior editorial figure or for Independents to the commissioning editor before transmission and a record kept of the decision.

non of the above was done for this recording. this obviously was not a pre-approved case or in the public interest to deliberately record a feed from a press conference microphone which was not designed to be monitored or recorded at this moment. if it was in the public interest to constantly secretly record would be leaders then lets bug their homes, tap their phones etc etc!!

the carol thatcher comment was not secretly recorded and broadcast - it was merely a report of a conversation which had occurred.

tbh i don't think this is going to make a difference to how people vote. those who don't like gb or labour will gleefully rub their hands whilst those who support labour will continue to do so.

It was a live mic which was failed to be removed by an adviser you can tell it is not a "secret recoding" on the live video.

If any codes had been broken I am sure labour would have taken issue and formed a conspiracy like you.

ninky_2

more from ofcom

All secret filming and recording (including recording telephone conversations and also where a subject does not realise that a visible camera is actually recording) must comply with section 8.13 of the Code and be warranted, unless it is for entertainment purposes, in which case see 'Secret Filming for Entertainment Purposes' below.

The term "secret filming" will be used for ease of reference but it is intended to cover all covert or surreptitious filming or recording.

What constitutes secret filming?

• Secret filming includes the following:
• filming or recording material through the use of hidden cameras and microphones;
• filming or recording material through cameras and/or microphones of which the subject is unaware e.g. using long lenses, small cameras, radio microphones, filming from across the street.
• continuing to film or record when the subject of filming believes the camera/microphone is switched off or not going to be used for broadcast.
• recording telephone conversations for broadcast without consent

ninky_2

JasonLVC wrote: »

I correctly stated that Carol Thatcher's conversation was leaked, not recorded, but this was still a private conversation between two people which was overheard by others and then used to attack her.

Exactly the same as has happened to Brown. So what was fair game for Carol is fair game for Gordon.

Perhaps the BBC should have guidance on minding their own bl00dy business with regards what guests say, all they need to focus on is what is being broadcast, not what people talk about behind the cameras/scenes.

no it is absolutely different. in this case none of the people privy to the conversation wished it to be shared. it was only shared because someone was secretly recording it against broadcast code of conduct regulations.

lostinrates

this secret filming stuff: its allowed if its a dodgy builder or car salesman, whole series are based on secret filming....the PM imapcts on all of us...more than one salesman/cowboy builder.