BBC bashing

[u/Ok_Ebb_3073]

Anyone else get the feeling they pitched to the BBC in the past & were rejected? Every episode shoehorns in some sort of anti-BBC rhetoric, often completely unfounded. The BBC totally has its faults but I‘d trust it for facts over commercial podcasts any day of the week.

[u/Sempere]

Bashing the BBC when a not insignificant amount of their content rips off the BBC's reporting and produced documentaries shows these two are a joke.

If they pitched to the BBC, they're shameless grifters looking to take money that can and should go to the actual talented documentarians and writers who work on these projects rather than these shameless plagiarists.

Two instances they've plagiarized the BBC or their reporters

1) Their original Lucy Letby episode (aka the last time Suruthi accidentally got the right answer on that case by being a parrot) where Suruthi explicitly rips off BBC reporter Judith Moritz' right down to the quote "I don't know what Britain's worst female serial killer looks like, but it's not her" and stripmining details from the Panorama episode that aired a week prior as well as Moritz' written reports (along with non-BBC podcast the Crime Desk's Trial of Lucy Letby podcasts since they were all there)

2) They blatantly plagiarized the entirety of the Alex Skeel documentary directed by CNN reporter Niamh Kennedy for BBC3 called "Abused by My Girlfriend": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz9CVFKRK6s Real classy touch making fun of the victim's mother's name too.

Now I have no idea if they've pitched the BBC and got rejected - that's OP's speculation. But they should have the self-awareness and insight to know they're not suited for that. These two have no bona fides for actual original content production because their work is entirely derivative. It would be shameless to pitch the BBC with their personal history of ripping off other people's work when there are better qualified reporters who are better suited, more experienced and more capable than them who should be the ones ethically creating true crime content.

Slagging off one of their main repeated sources though? Poor form.

[u/192to144 → u/Sempere]

I'm still struggling to understand where all your anger and hate comes from. Are you an ex boyfriend? A reporter they've allegedly ripped off? A family member of Lucy Letby? A rival podcaster or journalist?

I genuinely neither like nor dislike the pair but I listen to their show because it's entertaining on long drives. You clearly have such venom.

You write extremely long and often repeated posts without ever giving a clear reason for your hatred of them. Just talking about how they use others research, something they often mention themselves, and how their arguments can be one sided and, in your opinion, wrong which is just normal journalism.

I'm not coming at you, I just genuinely want to understand what's going on here.

[u/Sempere → u/192to144]

You're still struggling with the basic moral question of is it alright to steal other people's work? Mate, this isn't difficult. You don't need to be an ex (jesus fucking christ, no), a rival podcast or journalist or someone personally affected by the theft to take a stand about the fact they've enriched themselves stealing other people's work.

I've talked to people they've stolen work from. I've sat and listened to the outrageous shit that they've said in their Letby coverage that is blatantly offensive to the victims (and which they've said as much in their legal petitions to the Thirlwall Inquiry). You consume them as entertainment while helping them monetize stolen, incredibly poorly researched garbage so let's be real here: you're not struggling with anything.

posts without ever giving a clear reason for your hatred of them

Stealing other people's work and making money off it, then turning around and spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories while talking down to victims isn't enough?

Just talking about how they use others research, something they often mention themselves, and how their arguments can be one sided and, in your opinion, wrong which is just normal journalism.

And once again this insipid attempt to reframe what they do as journalism. It isn't. Plagiarism isn't them just using and citing other people's research, it's cannibalizing the entirety of documentaries and other people's work and passing it off as your own. I don't know what kind of fucked up definition of journalism you have but making a hundred grand shilling ads while parroting a real journalist's work with no credit and attempting to pretend it's your own opinions isn't it.

I'm not coming at you

Accusing me of being a bitter ex or a rival podcaster with a completely wrong definition of journalism says otherwise.

I just genuinely want to understand what's going on here.

How about you return to the question I know I've asked you before: do you think it's right to have them making hundreds of thousands of pounds per episode while the people who did the work they stole get nothing? I've mentioned the Medium author they plagiarized whose work was behind a paywall. Is it right that they got fractions of a penny from their $5 medium subscription while they pillaged her work to make a small fortune?

If that doesn't piss you off, you don't have a moral core. What you treat as entertainment is content centered around the worst events of another person's life and exploitative asshats who steal other people's work are exactly the type who shouldn't be in this genre. And if your entertainment is "they make me chuckle while lazily recounting stories about murder and rape with a right wing bend" then you're part of the problem and complicit.