You judged first though, didn't you?
Fair enough, I got the phrasing wrong. I assume she means putting a putting a potentially defamatory statement into a legal context, that is - talking about the source of the allegation, that it hadn't been denied, and that "friends of his" (ie Johnson) had said it did happen, ie providing a possible defence on the basis the allegation was true.The alternative was not to broadcast the item at all.
The problem is he never has, as far as I know. But if he has, of course that is what should have been said.
Oh give over. I've already talked earlier on this thread about this. It was an error, at worst. She's already stepped down from the charity which was the right thing to do, when someone says she should also quit Question Time over it - you know, end her career over it?! That's what I am objecting to. Clearly it was an error and I am arguing for the error to be treated proportionally.
In that role, in that moment, she was a journalist first and foremost. The ambassador to a domestic violence charity bit surely can't apply at that moment - if we are being 100% rigorous about BBC journalists being impartial in the shows they are presenting (which doesn't apply to Lineker). The point about hearsay is a fair one, but I assume that is because it is the only statement from Johnson's side that is available.
She’s a veteran journalist and ambassador to a domestic violence charity and something like “this is incredibly poor taste, why are you asking me to minimise domestic abuse with hearsay?” didn’t once cross her mind?
If she had any integrity she would have pushed back on it. It’s disgusting and she’s failed the victims she represents.
Johnson forfeited his right to reply. She said as much in the statement. Why should she be obliged to say the hearsay line at his request?
Yup, she just isn't very good at it. I can't imagine David Dimbelby coming out with that, legal context or not.
So she says... we need more detail than a PR statement. "Legally contextualise" is also open to many interpretations and actual scenarios.
Eye rolls, but no answer. Not even to my original question.
Surely all she had to say was he hadn't been legally found culpable, not put forward his defence?
The difference between Lineker and Bruce, is Lineker made his comments outside of MOTD, as a private citizen and not bound by BBC guidelines. Which he's entitled to do. (Also he's not a news journalist and different standards apply). Bruce made hers in her show, in her professional capacity, and that platform prevents her from just saying what she likes.
Why did you bring Lineker into the discussion?
In what world is saying he only broke her nose the once, a "defence"? Let's not miss the wood for the trees here! Once is damning enough.
Because you asked.
People are criticising her as a journalist primarily. Providing an anonymous rebuttal to accusations of domestic abuse is just a weird decision. A poor one.
I just don't find your points very interesting and I couldn't find a yawning emoji
I think that is fair which is why I think it was a just a mistake - she tried to give the balancing side of the story, which I think she probably professionally had to, but it wasn't done well. (Although "friends of Johnson" could be code for Johnson himself saying it off the record rather than literally being his friends, it often is when that phrase is used).
Ha, fair play.
(this works on two levels, I am so smart)
Well, why mention that it only happened once according to his friends, if not to somehow lessen its seriousness? How is that a requirement for the legal context? She didn't have to say any of that. So either she got flustered, or she intended what her statement implied.
I feel they did they due diligence with offering him a right of reply. Their responsibility to his side of the story pretty much ended at that point beyond throwing an few alledged disclaimers around. So yes mistake.
You can't find an emoji that exists, you also can't quote.
Yep.
I don't buy that.
This is you saying things you don't believe.
They must have stacks of spare rooms between them and can house loads of refugees if they team up.
They clearly didn't offer Johnson right of reply before Question Time. It's an old story, so journos run a disclaimer to cover their arses legally. The friends' comment implies the allegations are true and I guess is designed to provide balance, although the 'one-off' line obviously sounds awful.
"On Monday, friends of Ms Bruce told The Telegraph she had been “hung out to dry” as BBC producers had provided her with lines to defend the corporation from potentially defamatory allegations should the topic of domestic violence come up on the show."
I understand that, but I don't think that is what her intent was at all, and in order to understand her intent, you need to understand her professional obligation at that moment. It is possible to believe domestic abuse is terrible (it is), Fiona Bruce made at worst a small error (she did) and people calling for her to lose her QT job are nuts (they are).
She was in no way legally obligated to say those things, that's ridicilous, she being told that she was doesn't change that.
Well that's convenient for your argument but not apparently true.
I agree with that. But the problem is instead of apologising properly and trying to explain that, she's blamed it on "legality" which doesn't take a lot to figure out that isn't correct. She had a choice of what to say, she chose those words. Don't you agree that she could have simply not said the "only once" bit? After all, that's not an official denial, it's heresay so she really wasn't under any legal obligation to say it.
Yes, it is.
To be fair, there's a lot of discourse around what actually is legally true.
The 'my bosses made me do it' excuse is pretty pathetic tbh for someone so senior and experienced, who also happens to be a patron of a domestic abuse charity. Perhaps occasionally she can do an Emily Maitlis and stand up for what she believes in.
