marshac Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 BBC employee criticised after PRs hand deliver Mormon documentary complaint | Media | guardian.co.ukThe member of staff is understood to have allowed two representatives from the PR and lobbying firm APCO Worldwide, which represents the Mormon church into the BBC Media Centre at White City. One of the PRs was said to be James Acheson-Gray, APCO's managing director.They approached Lucy Hetherington, the series editor of the BBC2 This World current affairs documentary strand, and took the unusual step of delivered a letter in person complaining about The Mormon Candidate, made by reporter John Sweeney, which is to be broadcast on Tuesday evening.So two people show up to delivery a complaint letter... which is then described thusly"I was flabbergasted that the PR operation for the Mormon church found it necessary to invade our office. Even Scientology didn't invade the offices of the BBC and people say they can walk through walls."A journalist should know better than to describe what happened as an invasion-in·vade/inˈvād/Verb: (of an armed force or its commander) Enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it: "Iraq's intention to invade Kuwait".Enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, esp. with intrusive effect.Yeah... sensationalism at its best. Clearly this guy has an ax to grind against the church- especially with his comparison to scientology. It's possible i'm missing something here (more facts perhaps?), but I just don't get it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miztrniceguy Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Yeah, they invaded, by being invited in when they knocked on the door. lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMGuy Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Describing a letter delivery as an invasion is kind of like describing an interview that you granted in your own office as an ambush. -RM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 The BBC did a rather scathing expose of Scientology some time ago. That particular group tends to defend itself rather enthusiastically. My guess is that the comparison had more to do with that recent history, than with any theological similarities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 The BBC did a rather scathing expose of Scientology some time ago. That particular group tends to defend itself rather enthusiastically. My guess is that the comparison had more to do with that recent history, than with any theological similarities.This is yellow journalism at its worst. The attempt is to draw a line of similarity between Scientology and the LDS Church. The very idea of delivering a letter of complaint constituting an "invasion" is so preposterous that it gives any fair-minded person insight into the true nature of what they are doing. Such people disgust me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 · Hidden Hidden Describing a letter delivery as an invasion is kind of like describing an interview that you granted in your own office as an ambush.Why? If you invite someone into your office for an interview and they proceed in a manner utterly unlike what they had represented beforehand, you don't think that might fairly be described as an "ambush"?Now, in what possible sense does delivering a letter to an office constitute an "invasion"?The two are not comparable. Link to comment
Tyler90AZ Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 This is yellow journalism at its worst. The attempt is to draw a line of similarity between Scientology and the LDS Church. The very idea of delivering a letter of complaint constituting an "invasion" is so preposterous that it gives any fair-minded person insight into the true nature of what they are doing. Such people disgust me.I'm boycotting BBC news unless they decide to issue an apology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Why? If you invite someone into your office for an interview and they proceed in a manner utterly unlike what they had represented beforehand, you don't think that might fairly be described as an "ambush"?Now, in what possible sense does delivering a letter to an office constitute an "invasion"?The two are not comparable.I've never considered Elder Holland a coward to tough or hard questions. If he described it as an ambush, I'm thinking some kind of misrepresentation happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 This is yellow journalism at its worst. The attempt is to draw a line of similarity between Scientology and the LDS Church. I'm not endorsing the BBC's reaction or tactics. On the other hand, the organization was not saying the two religions are similar. Rather, they were communicating their sense of de ja vu at once again being pressured for broadcasting a negative documentary about a religious group. Scientology has a reputation for pushing back hard--I'm guessing they did not expect any from LDS, and were surpised when they got some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahone Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) I'm boycotting BBC news unless they decide to issue an apology.I wouldn't bother. The BBC News section of the BBC website gets ~14,000,000 unique visitors each week, so unless it caused a global outcry (unlikely, seeing as only the guardian have published anything at all about this), it's not going to hurt them.Besides, this is the guardian we are talking about that pubished this. They are almost as bad as the daily mail (and well known for) when it comes to sensationalism, yet funnily enough, those are two of the most linked to British news websites from this forum. Edited March 28, 2012 by Mahone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler90AZ Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 I wouldn't bother. The BBC News section of the BBC website gets ~14,000,000 unique visitors each week, so unless it caused a global outcry (unlikely, seeing as only the guardian have published anything at all about this), it's not going to hurt them.Besides, this is the guardian we are talking about that pubished this. They are almost as bad as the daily mail (and well known for) when it comes to sensationalism, yet funnily enough, those are two of the most linked to British news websites from this forum.It is not that big of leap for me since I don't go to their site anyway. I don't think a global outcry would be necessary to cause damage, just a Latter-day Saint one. It won't happen but it would hurt them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 My only response, is that we Mormons should prepare for a bajillion gazillion more incidents just like this, happening everywhere, all the time. You might as well be civil and take the high road and not be offended, because otherwise you'll have to clone yourself a hundredfold just to have enough bandwidth to be properly outraged at every instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctitasDeo Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Alternatively, we could get the BYU Biology Department to work on cloning everyone. And maybe the ISYS Department could come up with a new kind of network with better bandwidth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.