This is very odd.
Following on from our earlier post about Sarah Montague's interview with Labour's Caroline Flint where the Today presenter said,
OK, let's discuss why we...why you lost the election this time around in a minute...
I spotted a comment at Biased-BBC:
@1700hrs BBC today programme is not available. Are they gettting rid of the “We”?
I thought I'd better check that out, just to be sure, and found, at 18.00, that Today is available. So I tutted.
But, to be even more on the safe side, I then forwarded through to 51:37 mark to make absolutely sure that everything was exactly the same, and found Sarah Montague asking:
OK, let's discuss why we...why you lost the election this time around in a minute...
Now, as you can see, that's slightly different to my earlier transcription of what Sarah said, in that "why we lost the election...why you lost the election" becomes "why we...why you lost the election" - i.e. something much quicker, much more like a mere 'slip of the tongue'.
All I can say is that when I first transcribed what Sarah Montague said, I listened four times to make sure I'd transcribed it precisely, given how juicy it was!
Yet now, it doesn't say exactly what I transcribed.
Yet now, it doesn't say exactly what I transcribed.
Yes, it hasn't got rid of "we" but it now says something slightly less embarrassing.
Listening to that bit of Today now, you will not hear any obvious editing. Everything sounds as natural as if you were hearing it live.
But I am certain, absolutely certain, that what I transcribed a few hours ago is exactly what Sarah Montague said, and that what's on the i-Player now is a slightly-but-crucially edited version of that.
But I am certain, absolutely certain, that what I transcribed a few hours ago is exactly what Sarah Montague said, and that what's on the i-Player now is a slightly-but-crucially edited version of that.
Very sneaky of the BBC, eh?
Update: Then again, and despite all my checking, what I heard as "let's discuss" was almost certainly actually something semi-decipherable containing the word "just". So maybe the blog should be renamed 'Is my hearing as good as I think it is?'
I remain certain though that Today was stealth-edited here, and the surely-Wikipedia-bound Sarah Montague's "we" remains intact.
Further update: As TrueToo pointed out in a comment at Biased BBC though, why would the BBC go to the trouble of editing this bit but not delete the bit featuring "we"?
Did I really transcribe what I heard so badly, despite repeatedly checking, as to imagine a "lost the election" where there was no "lost the election"?
Well, it's possible, what with confirmation bias, and all that.
I'm now officially nonplussed, and full of self-doubt. Has my 'gotcha' rebounded on me?
Still, the point of the original post, the 'slip of the tongue' over "we", remains, so Sarah's Wikipedia page is still due an update. Jim Naughtie would feel hard-done-by otherwise!
Update: Then again, and despite all my checking, what I heard as "let's discuss" was almost certainly actually something semi-decipherable containing the word "just". So maybe the blog should be renamed 'Is my hearing as good as I think it is?'
I remain certain though that Today was stealth-edited here, and the surely-Wikipedia-bound Sarah Montague's "we" remains intact.
Further update: As TrueToo pointed out in a comment at Biased BBC though, why would the BBC go to the trouble of editing this bit but not delete the bit featuring "we"?
Did I really transcribe what I heard so badly, despite repeatedly checking, as to imagine a "lost the election" where there was no "lost the election"?
Well, it's possible, what with confirmation bias, and all that.
I'm now officially nonplussed, and full of self-doubt. Has my 'gotcha' rebounded on me?
Still, the point of the original post, the 'slip of the tongue' over "we", remains, so Sarah's Wikipedia page is still due an update. Jim Naughtie would feel hard-done-by otherwise!
