The BBC and the Queen

First, watch the BBC advertisement and see what it portrays.

Now let's look at how the BBC gleefully reported the story on their website. Thankfully NewsSniffer track the changes on the BBC web site and you can follow the changes to this story starting here. Thanks to Biased-BBC for the heads up.

Version 0 (the original) - "Queen walks out of photo session" - Thu Jul 12 07:50:11 UTC 2007 - "The Queen is seen storming off after a run-in with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a BBC documentary. The Queen is seen storming off after a run-in with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a BBC documentary.
Leibovitz tells the Queen she thinks her shot will look better without her crown but the Queen says: "I'm not changing anything" and walks off. Leibovitz tells the Queen she thinks her shot will look better without her crown but the Queen says: "I'm not changing anything" and walks off."

Version 1 - "Queen walks out of photo session" - Thu Jul 12 08:30:27 UTC 2007 - "The Queen is seen storming off after a run-in with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a BBC documentary. Leibovitz tells the Queen she thinks her shot will look better without her crown but the Queen says: "I'm not changing anything" and walks off." "Tantrums and tiaras
The Queen is also shown telling Leibovitz: "I've had enough of dressing like this, thank you very much."
The Sun newspaper's royal photographer Arthur Edwards says the tale has revealed a "welcome" new side to the Queen.
He told BBC Radio Five Live that "it was great to see the Queen can get into a strop"." The article added ""Every photographer just asks for one more 'can we do this, can we do that?' but the Queen wasn't having it, and when she was asked to take off her tiara she threw a tantrum."

Version 5 - "Queen walks out of photo session" - Thu Jul 12 10:20:51 UTC 2007
This version added "The Queen took exception to being asked to remove her tiara"

Version 6 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 11:20:43 UTC 2007 (What a difference an hour makes!) - ""In this trailer there is a sequence that implies that the Queen left a sitting prematurely," the BBC said. "This was not the case and the actual sequence of events was mis-represented," the statement added." (Implied!, stated would be a more accurate word)
"The BBC would like to apologise to both the Queen and Annie Leibovitz for any upset this may have caused".

Version 7 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 11:30:26 UTC 2007
Adds "The BBC would like to apologise to both the Queen and Annie Leibovitz for any upset this may have caused", the corporation's statement continued.
Photographer Annie Leibovitz is seen in the trailer telling the Queen she will look better without her tiara because "the Garter robe is so..."
Before she can say "extraordinary", the Queen replies, pointing to what she is wearing: "Less dressy. What do you think this is?"
The clip then cut to the Queen walking through a Palace room immediately afterwards, implying she had stormed off from the portrait session."
This version still "implies".

Version 8 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 11:50:55 UTC 2007
Added amongst other text "The BBC said the clips for the trailer were "not intended to provide a full picture of what actually happened or of what will be shown in the final programme"."

Version 9 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 12:10:28 UTC 2007
Now "The BBC has apologised to the Queen for wrongly implying she walked out of a portrait session with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a documentary."

Version 10 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - "Thu Jul 12 12:30:47 UTC 2007"
Tries to shift the blame with a final question "Was Annie Leibovitz being disrespectful when she asked the Queen to take off her crown?" 20 minutes to try and find some way of blaming something other than the BBC, it's surprising they didn't try and blame Prince Phillip for driving past in a White Fiat Uno!

Version 11 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 12:42:28 UTC 2007
The BBC are still happy with that blame shifting and separate the question from the text in a change to the normal style.

Version 12 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 13:30:27 UTC 2007
The BBC add "The trailer was shown to journalists at a press launch of the BBC's autumn schedule." Maybe we can try the line that it wasn't a broadcast, as such? That was a hard 40+ minutes

Version 13 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 14:30:35 UTC 2007
An hour later and the end question has gone. I wonder if the replies were not as supportive as the BBC had hoped, or if Annie Leibovitz complained?

Version 14 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 15:20:35 UTC 2007
50 minutes later and the Blue Peter apology is added for context, with rather a weird placing.

Version 15 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 17:20:50 UTC 2007
Two hours later and "The BBC Trust has asked BBC director general Mark Thompson to explain the events which led to the apology." has been added before the explanation. The explanation that has been there for some hours now, thanks Mark Thompson.

Version 16 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 17:30:16 UTC 2007
The extra sentence "Stories describing what appeared to be the Queen walking out subsequently appeared widely, including on the BBC News website." is added. Not bad for 10 minutes work.

Version 17 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 18:40:20 UTC 2007
Over an hour later and the BBC try a little wriggle: "The BBC has apologised to the Queen for wrongly implying she walked out of a portrait session with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a documentary." becomes "The BBC has apologised to the Queen for mistakenly showing footage that wrongly implied she walked out of a portrait session during a documentary." "Wrongly" becomes "mistakenly". Also ""This was not the case and the actual sequence of events was misrepresented."" becomes "The footage, revealed to the press on Wednesday, was not intended to be seen and was shown in error, the BBC said." Hold on, "The footage , revealed to the press on Wednesday, was not intended to be seen and was shown in error". It wasn't meant to be shown to the press? Who on earth showed it by mistake, how could that happen, who is responsible?

That's the last version so far as I know and the blame seems to lie with whoever mistakenly decided to show the footage, presumably this is the man who made the presentation to journalists and strayed from his script to show this unauthorised video. That would be Peter Fincham, the Controller of BBC One. You can see his interview on Newsnight here and watch him try and wriggle out of responsibility by claiming it was an honest mistake and anyway it was never broadcast "it was a private meeting", never mind that the whole purpose was to publicise the programme and sex it up.

You can see one of the photos at the end of this piece and a jolly good photo (as I would expect from Annie Leibovitz) it is too...