BBC presenter sparks fury after calling for Donald Trump to be 'murdered' by Joe Biden
David Aaronovitch, who presents Radio 4's Briefing Room show, took to X/Twitter shortly after 5 pm and said: "If I was Biden I'd hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America's security #SCOTUS".
The hashtag suggests his wild opinion was sparked by the ruling from the Supreme Court today, which ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts.
The post from Mr Aaronovitch sparked instant backlash from those who saw it, with many pointing out an egregious breach of the corporation's rules around employee impartiality.
The hashtag suggests his wild opinion was sparked by the ruling from the Supreme Court today, which ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts.
The post from Mr Aaronovitch sparked instant backlash from those who saw it, with many pointing out an egregious breach of the corporation's rules around employee impartiality.
This is just one more BBC lapse from anything resembling professional standards. It doesn't even reach casual blogging standards, but past performance suggests there will be more lapses because it's a feature, not a lapse at all.
We seem to reached a point where the BBC has collectively decided it may as well stop pretending to know what employee impartiality means.
Fine - if there is a market for crude bias, go for it and get rid of the licence fee.
19 comments:
If it actually happened I'd hope this journo would be done for incitement.
Sackers - apparently removed now, but if it did happen it isn't as surprising as it should be.
Screen grabs of the tweet are flourishing all over the internet, and he's admitted to removing it. But he claims it was clearly "Satire", so that's alright then...
But there are only so many times an 'awkward phrasing' can be discounted, or challenging statements found to be within the BBC guidance for 'reasons'. After the first half dozen you realise that the original opinions reflect the true feelings of the people making them and the other people nodding them through.
Dave - yes, satire seems to be the explanation. Not very good satire, but surely not bad enough to remove so quickly. Makes it seem as if a panic button was pressed.
DJ - that's it, each one adds another touch of clarity to the culture behind them.
Isn't Aaronovitch the one who specialises in explaining legal news stories? If so ... hilarious.
From X:
"There’s now a far right pile on suggesting that my tweet about the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity is an incitement to violence when it’s plainly a satire. So I’m deleting it. If nothing else though it’s given me a map of some the daftest people on this site."
Sure. I doubt if anyone actually thought it was an incitement to violence. What they did think, though, was that if he writes satire, please can we see some satirising of the other side, as a guarantee of professional impartiality.
Not only it was stupid and threatening, but ungrammical.
Surely, everyone was taught at school that one cannot use 'was' in that sentence construction.
The correct introduction to such a statement is, "If I WERE...." not, "If I WAS...".
decnine - yes it is more hilarious than threatening. He's trying to rise above it with the satire claim, but hasn't improved the situation. He's a dolt forever now.
Sam - I agree, very few would have seen it as an incitement to violence. A supposed professional putting it on X was the daft part, it gave so much away. He should have known it wouldn't work but now we know he didn't, and why.
DAD - that's the BBC I suppose - sloppy.
@Sam Vega
'It's plainly satire' falls into the same set of excuses as 'it was only banter' - which has been roundly criticised as an excuse for misogyny in the workplace for years.
What goes around, comes around.
Satire is verboten in this wonderfully diverse asylum as someone somewhere will be offended on the part of someone else.
I am activating the asteroids homing beacon as it can't get here soon enough.
Old Holborn rip said "Never apologise."
A Wise man was he.
DJ - to my mind it's the written version which is the problem. The X post could have been spoken satirically, but not written as it was.
Bill - I believe "Never apologise" was a policy of Elizabeth II, but King Charles isn't so wise.
One of the problems with Twitter or other social media platforms is that they don't convey nuance very well. Apparently there are a range of emojii you can use to imply a satirical post - the favoured one being an upside down face or a winking face.
But would David Aaronovitch be happy to 'lower himself' to using common culture? Here's a 'winking face' but I have no idea if it will pass through the comment and display systems:
😉
DJ - good point, he could have used an emoji or two to make the point about satire. It does suggest the satire idea came afterwards, or it suddenly became much more important afterwards.
A Beeboid posts 'satire'. If a 'far right' supporter had posted the same thing would it have been satire too?
decnine - no it wouldn't have been satire, it would have created hysterical demands for a jail sentence though.
I guess the chief beeboid told him to take the statement down in their usual, 'well the damage has been done now' flippant way!
He's an idiot for even saying that, but like Jo Brand, he really thinks he can get away with it.
And Tim Davie lets him.
Scrobs - yes he'll probably get away with it. So many cats let out of the bag, it's surprising there are any left.
Post a Comment