while trying to keep politics out of the discussion, was it ethical to run the live feed form a radio mike once Brown's car had closed the door?
I try to be very open with people wearing radio mics and ask if they need to visit the bathroom before rigging them up. I remind them that although the mic's not necessarily always being recorded, it's best to treat it as live the whole time and avoid "private" discussions.
I realise that news crews have to get a story but this could end up with politicians of any party saying that they'd rather not wear a radio and we'd be back to the 70's.
I can live with overheard stuff like Prince Charles at the skiing photo-op,there were mics in front of him. Likewise the "yo! Blair" between Bush and Blair as they were at a conference table studded with mics.
any thoughts?
I think that it will now backfire on the tv crews.
All politicians will start the ''only official interviews'' routine , there have been so many gaffs.
Either that or they may start carrying some of these http://www.endoacustica.com/jammers_en.htm
That's a very good point from the honorable gentleman and one that deserves an answer.
(Thinking 'Yikes difficult question, better placate and play for time to think of convincing answer').
Other than the words and ripples of responses I haven't heard how he came to be wearing the radio mike in the car.
My first thought was that the sound engineer had forgotten to remove it - as would be the case at event recording.
The sound guy was presumably part of the entourage as I gather this was an unplanned stop, so his brief is not just one fixed location as is often the case.
On the wider topic I'd say:
Who is the client - who is paying for the sound engineer.
What is your agreement, if any, with the subject.
To divulge something heard in confidence is of course ethically wrong.
Not to divulge something heard in confidence which is criminal in nature or adversely affects others is also wrong.
IMO only personal experience, judgement and conscience can determine the ethically correct action, which obviously ain't easy as the two are mutually exclusive.
At the polars I'd say -
Unethical to reveal:
GB was client (directly or indirectly).
Ethical to reveal:
GB agreed to 'free' coverage (to raise his PR) and agreed for you to record the days procedings and edit them as your saw fit, without of course deliberately misleading viewers/listeners. GB isn't a newbie with understanding when he's being recorded.
I think you could judge by the mantra - "was it in the public interest to know". It clearly was - Brown was obnoxious, and speaking without any foundation whatsoever. It is a perfect example of the view held by Labour that anyone who dares to differ from their view should be classified as a racist, or a bigot. What next - try and smear the lady? I would not put it past the scumbags.
Brown was found out, and his grovelling apology totally lacked sincerity. He ONLY apologised because he was found out - to try and save his career. All the hogwash about misunderstanding her - total crap. He is a coward, who takes the electorate for fools.
I am not a Tort supporter, nor affiliated to any party, but after what the Labour gvt has done to this country, there is no way they would get my vote.
Even after he was confronted by the radio presenter who played the tape, he was still saying "If"!!! Unbelievable!
Brown was found out, and his grovelling apology totally lacked sincerity. He ONLY apologised because he was found out - to try and save his career. All the hogwash about misunderstanding her - total crap. He is a coward, who takes the electorate for fools
You can see that it's all staged & GB is a complete actor! From holding his head down complaining about the interview to all smiley & heads up full of the joys of spring! He's such a bullsh1t artist & people believe in him!
I think you could judge by the mantra - "was it in the public interest to know". It clearly was - Brown was obnoxious, and speaking without any foundation whatsoever.
Apart, of course, from the fact that the woman's comment clearly was bigoted.
I have no particular affiliation with Labour but people's closed-minded views of political parties are highly in evidence in this whole business - the media didn't half milk it last night.
Who can honestly put their hand on their heart and say that they haven'd done something similar, perhaps when someone has left the room or after a telephone conversation when the phone has been hung up?
Brown was very unlucky that he forgot he was still wearing a radio mic and the only reason most other people get away with things like this is because people don't wear mics most of the time.
If I had been the sound guy, I think I might have been more worried about GB, (or anyone else!) wandering off with several hundred pounds worth of my kit still attached!
Or are broadcast radio mics considered disposable items in these circumstances? :eek:
Apart, of course, from the fact that the woman's comment clearly was bigoted.I have no particular affiliation with Labour but people's closed-minded views of political parties are highly in evidence in this whole business - the media didn't half milk it last night.
Who can honestly put their hand on their heart and say that they haven'd done something similar, perhaps when someone has left the room or after a telephone conversation when the phone has been hung up?
Brown was very unlucky that he forgot he was still wearing a radio mic and the only reason most other people get away with things like this is because people don't wear mics most of the time.
That is not the point at all. It showed him up to be a two-faced liar. Also, I do not agree with you, the lady's comments were not bigoted - she expressed concerns that are perfectly legitimate, in a calm and rational way. Just because you don't like what she said, you call her a bigot. Exactly the same as GB - who I think actually now looks more like the bigot!
Your reply has backed up my point. You don't like Labour (fair enough - I'm no great fan either) but this is preventing you from seeing how minor this whole incident is.
The woman was criticising people from other countries taking up jobs in this country. If that's not the definition of a bigot, I'm not sure what is.
while trying to keep politics out of the discussion, was it ethical to run the live feed form a radio mike once Brown's car had closed the door?I try to be very open with people wearing radio mics ...........
any thoughts?
Firstly, it's quite likely there was no such thing as a "sound recordist" there. It's highly likely that technically the mic was received direct at the camera, then automatically got redirected on the camera radio link. It's wrong to consider that a conscious decision was made to record that source as such - the camera was looking at the car driving away, the radio mic got recorded by default.
As far as ethics go, the very fact he was wearing the mic would indicate he had explicitly given permission for his words to be a matter of public record. It's totally different to a situation where someone is secretly recorded. One can only assume he believed that his words to voters being broadcast would be in his own interests. It seems he rushed back to his car before the broadcasters (was it Sky?) had the chance to realise what was going on - the implication from the footage being that he was rattled by a "real" voter encounter. He's far more used to heavily stage managed events.
Under those circumstances, I don't think he can call foul. He'd given explicit permission that his words were public record, and (because of being rattled) never cancelled that. That makes him fair game. And the real, deep damage to him is not just that he was caught making an unfortunate remark - the whole episode shows a deep streak of hypocrisy in his personality. It gives substance to all the earlier bullying rumours.
That was bad enough - but it was his sickly grin after he emerged from "apologising" to thee poor lady that appalled me. His words said how sorry he was for offending her - his body language said how sorry he was that he'd been made to look a fool.
None of what is said above should be taken as party political - rather about one individual politician, who unfortunately happens to lead one of the main parties. There are many labour voters who would agree that they could do with a change of leader.
But the real question is "does it matter"? Stuart621 says "this is preventing you from seeing how minor this whole incident is". My feeling is that whilst offending an elderly lady in Rochdale may not have global consequences - can he be trusted to handle important negotiations that do? Is he the right person to be ultimately in charge of the nations economy? A lot of people from all political parties (including Labour) are coming to the conclusion that he's now damaged goods.
There are a whole lot of people being very self-righteous about the whole affair. As I said before, what he did has probably been done by almost every living person on the planet.
I'm not entirely sure how he was being hypocritical - he disagreed with the woman while she was speaking to him and then backed up his views on her when he got in the car.
I'm not particularly trying to stick up for him but I'm amazed that people are being 'holier than thou' about it. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that! :)
I'm amazed that people are being 'holier than thou' about it. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that! :)
I certainly can't claim to be without sin - but the big, big difference is that I'm not putting myself forward to lead the country. That's the issue here - it's not the remark per se that is so bad - it's that he comes out of it with "HYPOCRITE" writ large across him. That was the issue during the John Major time - a public proclamation for decency and the family way ("Back to Basics"), affairs and toe sucking in private. (Until caught.) It wasn't the infidelity that public hated - it was the hypocrisy. Which led to lack of trust.
Look at it another way. If you saw a pop star staggering drunk out of a late-night club, would it really be a shocking thing? Most people would probably say no - but what if it was a senior clergyman? Acceptable behaviour for some people is unacceptable for others. Hypocrisy is unacceptable for anybody. You can either be a clergyman or go on binges - but you can't do both.
Still not convinced he was bring hypocritical. I think those who are criticising him are the hypocrites, really unless they have never, ever done something like this.
A bit chinese whispers, but I was told that the decision to mic him up was done to stop the boom mics of many broadcasters being in shot looking ugly, so they shared the feed - so there were many people listening in. On the kit front, he's apparently quite good at walking off with the packs and they usually get returned in the post, and the extra hire fee days get paid.
A bit chinese whispers, but I was told that the decision to mic him up was done to stop the boom mics of many broadcasters being in shot looking ugly, so they shared the feed - so there were many people listening in. On the kit front, he's apparently quite good at walking off with the packs and they usually get returned in the post, and the extra hire fee days get paid.
Paid no doubt by us, the taxpayers!
How can it be bigoted to question whether jobs should go to non nationals in a time of economic crisis?
I'm not saying I agree, but the question is clearly legitimate.
Your reply has backed up my point. You don't like Labour (fair enough - I'm no great fan either) but this is preventing you from seeing how minor this whole incident is.The woman was criticising people from other countries taking up jobs in this country. If that's not the definition of a bigot, I'm not sure what is.
Actually, the incident is not minor - and it has nothing to do with my like or dislike of any Party. I told you, I don't really like the majority of them - they are lying, cheating and self-serving in my opinion. I have filmed quite a few, and seen some thoroughly unpleasant individuals off-camera suddenly become very personable as the camera rolled.
I can remember one event for one party where the crew were not allowed a cuppa on the premises "because it would lower the tone"
Anyway, the point i, it shows up GB as completely false, and unworthy to be our country's leader.
A friend of mine attached his radio mic to GB the other day during a press conference. Guest what......... GB walked off with it!!!
Surprised that this was heard though as my friend commented that when GB was off stage the radio mic signal was muted by his team. They obviously messed up this time round. Or maybe it's a case of death by a thousand cuts. Let's face it. Support amongst his own party isn't exactly piled high.
What's the point in calling him a liar. We've all heard about their expenses claims. We know the cloth they're cut from. That's something to consider next week at the voting booth. Do you really want the same idiots from the same political parties running the country? I only wish there was a "None of the above" box to tick.
As for "what Labour has done to this country." Get real. It's peaks and troughs. Always has been. Or have you forgotten what the Tories did to this country.
It'll be the same again in 13 years who ever gets in. Just you wait and see.
It does add a certain spark to the whole campaign though. Who knows maybe it'll get young people of their backsides and interested in voting..........actually that's a long shot!!!!
I think this is a major gaff on the broadcasters part.
They chose to record and air a private conversaton after the car door was closed, which is officially the end of any interview.
Obviously some 'bigoted' staff member was hoping for a slip like this to claim their own corporate 2 minutes of fame and bore their grandkids to death with some day.
It will do long term damage to any trust that is left in all broadcaster's integrity.
Agreed. I think you and Alan have hit the nail on the head.
I think you're missing the point. This was a communal feed. Every broadcaster involved had access to it.
The actual 'transgression' is petty and irrelevant. Everyone says things like that 'off mike'. Gordon's real mistake was dignifying it by making such a big deal out of apologising, thus giving it crediblity and 'legs'.
I`m just glad to be drawing my pensions! I weep for you younger guys, I really do! And who was responsible for decimating what was once the finest pension schemes in the world? I leave you to ponder that one!
Save your pity Barry, you may need it! - No-one's safe . . . No matter who goes in to bat next :)
This has been discussed in depth on a professional broadcast forum I am on.
1) the radio mic. was at the request of GB's entourage to make sure everyone would hear him.
2) The signal went to the SIS truck (Sky were the host broadcaster on the day, I am told) and the signal sent out to everyone.
3) Probably no "sound recordist" in the understood meaning.
The consensus of professional opinion is that it was very wrong and unprofessional to transmit such a recording and old BBC contracts prohibited such things. Same as conversations picked up in the toilet, etc..
It will now make things much more difficult for sound recordists as people will no longer trust them like they did in the past and I have already heard stories that people are now getting more reluctant to wear a radio and are getting very wary.
Unprofessional and bad all round.
Though I suspect a journalist was the culprit and they have no morals at all ;)
that was my point.
I did try to avoid any political "bias" in the question.
as professionals,there's a duty of care (ok so a term used in other professions) to the client/mic wearer that the "rules" are followed in order to make every body's job better every time.
Politico gets heard and no booms in the way, nice clear audio, less bustle around the walkabout but firm understandings that there's a "public and a private" moment while rigged up.
It's not as if he got into the car and quietly hiss .."Keeeelll Herr....."
Hang on a sec.
The radio mic was at the request of GB's entourage?
Sorry, chum, the broadcasters were then simply following the government's own policy of allowing an ostensible 'change for the better' to be used in an deceitful way, as in:
Allowing 'international arrest warrants' intended for major terrorists to be used by foreign countries with flawed justice systems to prosecute UK citizens for minor offences.
Installing speed cameras for road safety then using them to raise revenue.
etc, etc
No sympathy at all.
"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword"
Ray
Not surprised to hear that, John. Clearly it was wrong for the recording to be released in the first place. I think the words you used - unprofessional and unethical - sum it up nicely. Unfortunately there are a lot of people like that around.
I think the words you used - unprofessional and unethical - sum it up nicely. Unfortunately there are a lot of people like that around.
You don't say? Look no further than MPs expenses, and "Lord" mandelson....how many times did he resign, and get reinstated (though not elected) into some form of office? Of course, not only Labour MPS have their snouts in the trough, but I think it is a bit much asking for people to behave in an "ethical way" around MPs. You could put the argument that the journalist /producer/director was being very professional, releasing information into the public domain. Brown and his team were using the opportunity to promote themselves, and it backfired. Even ignoring the use of word "bigot", he was critical of the woman's opportunity to question him - this proving that all he wanted was a carefully stage-managed photoshoot - NOT to genuinely make himself available to answer genuine concerns. Bear in mind that she was also a life-long Labour supporter!
I don't think the Labour Party have actually questioned the release of the recording though, have they? I guess they dare not...
Was Brown not unprofessional and unethical himself - especially after apologising, trying to turn it into a "victory" for him by having the lady involved paraded for a photoshoot. She was right to turn it down - she would just have been used even more.
I think If Gordon Brown was popular and in a good position to retain his post then we wouldn't have heard the recording but as he is more likely to be on the way out, they were all probably thinking that it was worth it, as they (the media ) probably won't lose out after the election as we'll have a new PM wanting to keep the media on his side
There's no denying that many MPs are unprofessional and unethical but two wrongs don't make a right.
Read all this with interest.
Met GB at a stage managed event 14 months ago. All I will say is it was fascinating and even more so when the camera was off. You can draw your own conclusions from that ... and you would probably be right!
Here we see and hear the results of the evolving law of "The soft target". This law has now become ever more influential. The same law is used to Criminalise Moderate mostly law abiding people.
The BBC are trying to follow Cameron around a market in Woodstock as I write this. The boom ops are struggling - looks like a jousting contest!
Please gentlemen lets stick to what we know best. Who gives a monkeys uncle?. Nice bit of Candid Camera but sound wise. Excellent.
Who gives a monkeys uncle?
Can i assume from that , you would use any clients audio elsewhere if it was thought newsworthy ? or worth money to a broadcaster ?
That's why some of us care / give a monkey's uncle.
In any debate when people are in front off the media, specially MPs they will tell you or promise you one think or say. Then we had the good fortune of a true statement. Thanks to video technology. I dont believe or give a monkey's what he say in front of camera. Unless you are a labour person. That is my opinion like we all have.
Thanks for bringing this up again as today is the big day for them. My opinion is i hope they dont get in again.
The offending audio clip appears on the computers of the news editors for the BBC, ITN, Sky and probably more - which is what happened. Now - let's speculate that perhaps the BBC news editor, spotting the importance of the gaffe, decides to pass it up the line to his superiors, appreciating that this is a hot potato. The BBC would be worried ITN or SKY News would lead with it, leaving the BBC out - while the very same conversation would be happening at the other broadcasters too. In the end, they all just decided to go with it, being clearly in the public interest. We're not talking about random material collected, spy fashion - we're talking about content DIRECTLY related to what had just been shot. I now believe that it was their duty to broadcast this. I'm totally in favour of the usual privacy procedures that journalists and broadcasters have honoured over the years, but clearly the politician were using the media to promote their parties in every way they could think of, and this just backfired on them.
I'm reminded of the old saying - Those that live by the sword, die by the sword. If politicians want to use the media for their own ends and present false false pictures to the public who vote for them, then they should be very careful it doesn't go pear shaped. It should be in the public interest to find out what they actually think of us.
Why restrict that philosophy to politicians? Surely the same would apply to bosses and employees; businesses and their customers; neighbours, family members etc? It's easier to adopt a 'holier than thou' attitude but there are few people who can say they are 100% honest and open with everybody they meet all the time.
Well said Stuart. Many times I've been in the situation of trying to explain things to people, but having to simplify things beyond reason in order to get the message through, albeit garbled. The temptation to yell out 'but it's blindingly obvious, you cretin' can get horribly strong. Fortunately, I've never succumbed, but the temptation is always there. :)
OK, so now GB is (probably) about to leave No. 10, all those who blame him for everything that has gone wrong in their lives since he came to power can wallow in self-righteousness and wait for DC's miracle solutions.
As has been said earlier in this thread, in 13 years time, (maybe a lot less) nothing will have changed. Most people now have different opinions on Tony Blair compared to how they felt in 1997, and even those who have always seen Thatcher as their dominatrix should recognise that her 'changes' may be the root causes on many of today's problems.
How long will it be before something that matters to many here on DVDoctor is under discussion, i.e. when the Conservative Party starts its promised decimation of the BBC as payment to Murdoch for political support?
Steve
I must admit I've been disappointed in Labour and I suspect many of their loyal supporters will see the Blair and Brown years as a wasted opportunity.
My worry is that the Tories will be worse. Certainly Murdoch will want (and probably get) something in return for his support - and if the Tories are happy to do a deal with him, what else will they be happy to do.
Fascinating to see the determination of the right wing press to rubbish Nick Clegg - The Daily Mail headline of "Clegg in Nazi Slur on Britain" was desparate stuff.
The real shame for all governments is that any noble/just/sensible plan can and is blocked by senior civil servants dragging their feet/refusing to cooperate. The same blinkered attitude runs riot through the NHS. If the senior management don't want something to work properly, they refuse to let it happen.
A hung parliament could be the best thing that's happened in this country if all the great minds got together and made sure all the sensible proposals work properly down through the local councils too.
Will it happen - course not, there'll always be a them and us mentality and petty bickering that will stop any positive moves to prosperity.
I give up on all politicians! they really couldn't care less once the patronising electioneering is over.
The real shame for all governments is that any noble/just/sensible plan can and is blocked by senior civil servants dragging their feet/refusing to cooperate.
We should be grateful for that, - one man's "noble/just/sensible plan" is frequently another man's avaricious/unfair/stupid scheme, that a defenceless sector of society has been saved from. Sometimes it takes deliberate dragging of feet to curb the excesses of zealous politicians.
Steve