Do you remember hearing about a BBC documentary about Queen Elizabeth II this summer? During filming, Her Majesty walked out of the room in a huff when photographer Annie Leibovitz asked her to remove her crown for a photo. This is the stuff tabloid dreams are made of, and they had a field day with this tasty tidbit. But apparently it never happened: selective editing of the film footage in the trailer, which was shown to journalists, made it seem as though it did.
Back in July, when the controversy erupted, Peter Fincham, the controller for BBC One apologized for the "mistake," but said he wouldn't resign.
What a difference a few months can make:
Fincham resigned on Friday after a BBC report found that although the broadcaster did not intend to deceive, it had not done enough to ensure that its presentation was truthful.
"A vital relationship -- that between the BBC and the Royal Household -- had been, at the very least, placed under strain, and the reputation of the BBC, already having sustained recent damage over the issue of trust, was further tarnished," the report found.
Those scandals include the unfounded BBC report that former PM Tony Blair "sexed up" a pre-war dossier of about Iraq's WMDs; faking the results of a phone-in contest on a children's television show; and an internal report that found the publicly-funded "corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion."
All in all, not a good year for the BBC.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
And pointedly for international standards...
October 5, 2007 - 11:34 ET by c5thenA documentary that edits footage to make an event appear to have taken place when in fact it really didn't, is not a documentary at all but a fictional story.
This might help create a new genre. The "Apparent Documentary". Michael Moore is the pioneer of this.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
Another "false but accurate"
October 5, 2007 - 11:41 ET by sublight68Another "false but accurate" news story.
You're right.
October 5, 2007 - 11:42 ET by sarcasmoWe're literally watching a word, "documentary," as it becomes NewSpeak. (This must be how English-freaks like me felt about the evolving meaning of the word "liberal" in the early 1950s!)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Documentary: A
October 5, 2007 - 11:48 ET by sublight68Documentary: A representation of what the filmaker believes to be or wishes was true, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. Usually entails selective editing, misrepresentation and gross distortion of facts to achieve a pre-determined outcome.
For all its bias BBC seems
October 5, 2007 - 13:49 ET by Dan The Man 2For all its bias BBC seems to have done the right thing, or is it just a sacrifice to the god of retribution? I look at the BBC and the seemingly one sided slant to the GOVERNMENT funded media in the UK and cringe when people say "Fairness Doctrine". The intersting thing is taht the BBC is funded with a tax on TV's, you pay taxes for each TV you have no matter what. I am fuzzy on the particulars but there are hefty fines for those with unregistered TV's.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Blimey!
October 5, 2007 - 15:01 ET by mattmBBC = Biased British Crap
Moore won an Oscar doing the same thing
October 5, 2007 - 15:30 ET by LighthouseJDidn't Michael Moore do the same thing and won an Oscar? Another movie was made to identify all the mistakes and phony points Moore attempted to make, it was called Fahrenhype 9/11.
"Boats are safe in the harbor, but that's not what they're made for." -- Maritime quote
Too bad we can't have a few
October 5, 2007 - 15:35 ET by bigtimerToo bad we can't have a few liars here on our networks have to resign...
Starting with Olbermann....David Shuster....Matthews.....Amanpour....Cafferty...
We could go on and on and on.....
Did not deceive
October 6, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Dr_LibertyI love how these people talk.
"...the broadcaster did not intend to deceive, it had not done enough to ensure that its presentation was truthful."
Was Orwell right, or what?
<insert witty signature here>