´óÏó´«Ã½

The Queen and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ row

Comments

1. At 05:25 PM on 12 Jul 2007, billie wrote:

   Sorry I can't write at great length - the words "´óÏó´«Ã½" and "apology" in close proximity have made me come over quite faint.

2. At 05:29 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Paul Dawson wrote:

   Surprise, surprise. Well-known ´óÏó´«Ã½ hater Kelvin McKenzie calls for resignations over the Queen business. It's pretty rich to be lectured on the evils of spinning stories in a misleading way by an EX EDITOR OF THE SUN! As for the news itself, it's pathetic that this fluff is the lead story, and unbelievable that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and others are taking it seriously enough to warrant talk of resignations. If anyone is forced out of their job because of this nonsense, I for one will lose some respect for the ´óÏó´«Ã½. A simple apology would and should be enough for any reasonable person, so why not for the Queen?

3. At 05:40 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Markham Weavill wrote:

   So the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will not say wether the trailer was produced "in house". I think that tells us where it was produced. Why do the ´óÏó´«Ã½ not check these trailers before they are broadcast (even to the "feral beasts")? Surely the ´óÏó´«Ã½ producer in overall control should be more street wise than to allow commercial considerations take precedence.

4. At 07:23 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Charlie wrote:

   
   ...naughty, naughty ´óÏó´«Ã½

   And with the DG having to make cuts...

5. At 10:43 PM on 12 Jul 2007, richard woodcock wrote:

   I'm surprised it takes something like this before anyone questions the role of editing in producing "truth". All broadcast media routinely hide cuts in continuity by making them appear seamless - that's quite easy with audio, but a bit more tricky with video.

   In interviews, for instance, we see "noddy shots" where the interviewer appears to be nodding in acknowledgment of something the interviewee has said. What actually happens is that a shot of the interviewer nodding (nearly always shot after the interview is over) is superimposed over a join between two sections of the interview which would otherwise appear to "jump".

   Stuff like this suggests to me that it's important for young people to do some media studies - perhaps then we wouldn't be so surprised by the current business over Her Majesty's time and direction of travel!

6. At 10:50 PM on 12 Jul 2007, wrote:

   Unfortunately these things will happen now that everything is farmed out to production companies.

   However, it does surprise me that such an obvious mistake, involving such a high profile person could have occurred.

   Of course it brings trust into the scenario - the camera never lies! - however let us not forget PM, less than a year ago? - adding sound effects to news reporting - and on that occassion it was all planned !!
   

7. At 11:32 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Theresa Fallon wrote:

   I cannot believe the amount of news time given to the "story" about the Queen and the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Not only PM, but now Newsnight has given over lengthly time to this issue. Obviously a slow news day.

8. At 11:43 PM on 12 Jul 2007, Big Sister wrote:

   Having seen the clips in question on the 10 o clock News, I thought Brenda did sound pretty stroppy - not that I'm blaming her, mind, as she's a human forced to live in a goldfish bowl.

   I rather liked seeing her 'say it as it is'.

   Ma'm, your allowed to be human.

9. At 07:40 AM on 13 Jul 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

   Following up from Jonnie at (4), is there any chance that this farago (good word!) will convince the ´óÏó´«Ã½ bigwigs that outsourcing is a really bad idea?

   Why should the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have to apologise for RDF Media messing up? The only thing they have to apologise for is selling off the "crown jewels" of programme making to other companies.

10. At 08:45 AM on 13 Jul 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Didn't get a chance to comment yesterday, and Michael Grade has said it for me this morning. If we have a generation of programme makers who think that ratings are all that matter we will find it increasingly difficult to believe what we see. It is only because this 'mistake' involved the Queen that it has come to light.

    In this instance it is likely to do little harm other than irritate Her Majesty, in other cases it can do immense harm.

    Unfortunately, people still do believe most of what they see and so it is possible for example for Martin Durkin to present totally false information, such as graphs in which data ending in 1980's is continued to now, to support his hypothesis that climate change is a load of hype designed to keep the third world down. Protests from scientists used in that programme about how their contributions were edited have not received nearly as much coverage as did the programme itself.

    The truth does matter and we have a right to expect a high standards from all our programme makers.

11. At 09:10 AM on 13 Jul 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    Anne P -

    Have to agree with you, MG summed it up very well. Unfortunately Mr Chairman did not come off half so well; avoiding the point and seemed quite spineless and 'wriggly', very unimpressed. I also feel for Ms Leibovitz in all this, its also a slur on her character (the intimation being that she is arrogant,lacks any charm and is inept at handling 'challenging' subjects).

12. At 09:18 AM on 13 Jul 2007, Arthur Hutchins wrote:

    Eddie,

    Since you asked, I think the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a hot bed of museli-munching pinkos and subversives. It seems full of metrosexuals looking after their sodomite friends. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ yet again has been caught out trying to decieve the public, it's time for a few heads to roll and introduce a complete cull of the liberal lefties who've outlived their uselessness. Sack the management too, heavily fine the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the production company who tried there hardest to show our gracious Queen in a bad light. Lord Reith must be tuning like a lathe in his grave. Bring back Bill Cotton for a few months - he'd sort the lot of you out. Oh yes!!

13. At 10:55 AM on 13 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Crickey..HM has some very strange subjects...AH (12) springs to mind.

    BTW, sorry Queenie!!

14. At 11:20 AM on 13 Jul 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Arthur Hutchins a.k.a the Bishop of Carlisle??

    I thought his name was Graham Dow. Obviously trying to get away with a nom-de-plume......

    Si.

15. At 11:22 AM on 13 Jul 2007, wrote:

    I Still think it's a storm in a demitasse.

    I agree with SSC, though, that this illustrates the dangers inherent in out-sourcing and general sub-contracting, which like PFI, cannot actually be cheaper in the long run.

    Just look at where the money being poured into contractors in Iraq is ending up.

    There must be something more worthy of akll the media time wasted on this non-event.

    virago noun (viragoes or viragos) literary 1 a loudly fierce or abusive woman. 2 a heroic or masculine woman.
    ETYMOLOGY: 11c: Latin, meaning 'manlike woman'.

    xx
    ed
    

16. At 11:23 AM on 13 Jul 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Memo to self: I must not post late at night when my mental spellchecker is switched off.

17. At 11:52 AM on 13 Jul 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Arthur (12):

    Surely you mean "...tuning like a fork in his grave"?

18. At 12:21 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Belinda wrote:

    I agree with Arthur Hutchins. I think this is all due to the muesli.

    A low-grade tempest in a dull grey tea-pot resulting from a muesli/porridge-slow news day.

    ETA: I was only malicious towards the breakfast foods, no-one else... well, perhaps Arthur.

19. At 12:32 PM on 13 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Belinda (18)

    wot u on gal....wot you doin' apickin on Arthur muesli?

    ...where will it all end, perhaps with fisty cuffs with Kell*g Corn*lake.

    BTW....didn't HM look good all dolled up, makes one proud to a subject.....ttfn....init

20. At 12:35 PM on 13 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Ed I, Admin Annie, and Theresa,

    You cloth-eared buffoons! Don't you realise the enormity of the insult done to one? One felt like it was February 2nd all over again!

    Yours in absolute superiority

    EIIR

21. At 12:36 PM on 13 Jul 2007, tony ferney wrote:

    If someione is punished will the Queen issue a royal pardon?

    Answers on a postcard bearing the monarch's effigy.

22. At 12:42 PM on 13 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Mr Hutchins,

    Although one appreciates your support, one must note that an absence of muesli from one's diet can sometimes result in an anus horribilis!

    EIIR

    Even One is deemed malicious, it seems...

23. At 01:04 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Brenda, M'am, may I say how very gracious it is of you to deign to visit us mere froggers here and to provide us with your views on the matter first hand?

    Yours most humbly (etc.)

24. At 01:33 PM on 13 Jul 2007, tony ferney wrote:

    On reflexion (sic) I think the photographer should have plumped for Dame Helen Mirren instead. Far more photogenic and not in the least camera-shy.

    But perhaps she's in Hollywood.

25. At 02:26 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Rachel G wrote:

    "one must note that an absence of muesli from one's diet can sometimes result in an anus horribilis"

    - Your maj, I have to thank you for intoducing a note of hysterical laughter into my day. I herewith denouce my republican leanings and declare myself a fully fledged monarchist. Off with their heads!

26. At 02:42 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Keith Muir wrote:

    The PM Newsletter is always a joy, but today you really excelled yourself Eddie - very funny indeed. Keep up the good work! It makes the long haul through Friday afternoon just about tolerable...

27. At 03:04 PM on 13 Jul 2007, Ron Saunders wrote:

    Re the Queen & the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Surely this is simply a reflection of the slack attitudes and complete lack of diligence so common in today's world. Or was the production company also having a bit of a laugh at the expense of the ´óÏó´«Ã½?

28. At 03:47 PM on 13 Jul 2007, wrote:

    My Dear Brenda..

    ...why is it old girl, one doesn't let one have muesli for one's breakfast. I am fed up with C*coa pops.

    Yours Phillip

    
    PS. Just loved you in the Bat Cape.

    Comment Submission Error.....no it is not.

    One will find out when one is being abusive.

29. At 04:40 PM on 13 Jul 2007, wrote:

    Darling Phil,

    I didn't think you'd see my reference to you. ;-)

    xx
    B

    
    

30. At 01:53 PM on 15 Jul 2007, Electric Dragon wrote:

    Frankly I find it hard to get quite so worked up about this. People make mistakes, are careless, etc. etc. There are much worse things the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have done recently: the egregious Panorama on WiFi springs to mind. An entire edition of a flagship current affairs programme based on woo and flim-flam - someone should certainly have been sacked for that.