of the launch of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 Halo 3 game on Tuesday by showing gameplay from arch competitor Sony’s PS3 Killzone 2 game instead, helpfully labelled on screen as ‘Halo 3’. I suppose that’s one way of being balanced. Next up, news about Apple’s new Vista operating system…
Biased BBC reader Supermario spotted this Youtube clip showing the BBC’s latest stupidity, and a comment thread at Computer & Video Games magazine. As Supermario says, “BBC, all your base are belong to us!”.
Update (Thursday): Mark Popescu, editor of daytime news at the BBC, writing on the BBC Editors Blog, Digital Games, quotes Rory Cellan-Jones explanation for the Halo 3/Killzone 2 cock-up:
This, I’ll admit, was a bad mistake. Naturally I’m usually an enthusiast for digital technology, but this time it’s really caught me out…
…Result – disaster, and one replicated in the Ten O’Clock version of the story.
What was impressive to me was the speed with which bloggers spotted the mistake. So the latest technology can lead you down the wrong path – but it can also bring any foul-ups under the spotlight of the eagle-eyed web generation.
Sorry – we’ll try to be more careful in future.
Read the rest for Rory’s full explanation of events.
Thank you to Nick Reynolds of the BBC for the Editors Blog link.
This is the same BBC which dismissed Nintendo as a “toy company”.
The BBC, btw, has been accused by some gamers of having a less than subtle bias towards Sony.
I would like to point out an error in your post; Nintendo are Microsoft’s arch rival.
The Playstation 3 has been a collossal flop, as has Blue-Ray).
The Wii is the biggest selling console by a massive margin.
Now the BBC is losing its credibility among younger audiences as well. Nice.
I just don`t think that the BBC are getting the best people.
Simple as that.
This is nothing new from the Beeb:
http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2006/01/04/the-real-story-behind-nintendo/
The comments by gamers are scathing.
BBC Three’s wildly innaccurate documentary about Nintendo is a pretty damn disguting piece of journalism, especially when you contrast it with their gushing over Sony.
Describing Shigeru Miyamoto as a “childlike genius” is pretty damn disrespectful and pig ignorant.
While I accept that the BBC got it wrong here. Is this story worthy of a BBC bias tag?
I’m with Pounce. This isn’t the kind of information that I expect to find here. It seems petty and carping; perhaps you could start a spin-off site in which minor BBC errors are logged.
I understand you’re trying to work in the Sony angle to tie it back to some sort of bias, but that seems pretty weak. This is the kind of story the moderators might well delete from the comments thread for having nothing to do with BBC Bias.
gharqad tree | 27.09.07 – 8:50 am |
i agree with you about the bias angle,
but this story was never about bias,it was about shitty reporting..
as i originally commented
if the bbc can get something as simple and trivial as this wrong,makes me wonder what they actually get right…
| 26.09.07 – 10:39 am |
Well you know Supermario, one bald space-marine based fps shooter looks much like another to some people!
Pounce, Gharqad Tree: As I said on the end of the previous comment thread (about Reid & Prescott):
We might be called Biased BBC, but we’re happy to cover anything of interest – including BBC bias, omissions, stupidity, waste and so on, and, just occasionally, some of the good things the BBC does too.
That’s all a bit long for a blog name. Perhaps we need a sub-heading too just to make it obvious that we do a bit more than just bias – a bit like Carphone Warehouse or even the prodiguous Helen & Richard at EU Referendum, whose excellent blog’s name is only occasionally applicable to their subject matter.
Anyone who disagrees is of course entitled to a full refund of their subscription…
David Gregory (BBC) | 27.09.07 – 10:19 am |
Well you know Supermario, one bald space-marine based fps shooter looks much like another to some people!
maybe those some people need to find another job.
With the gaming industry worth over €30bn worldwide and growing,you could be forgiven for thinking the bbc would actually employ some people who
knew their stuff david….
oh and thanks andrew for running with
this story
Weeeell, it’s easily done. I’ve seen adverts for racing games on the PS3 use stills from PGR and they’re put together by people in the industry!
It’s a stupid mistake, but like I said looking at it I can see how it wasn’t spotted. That guy in the helmet even looks a bit like Master Chief in the KZ clip!
More than that I think Rory did a nice job trying to go beyond the Halo Hype and ask if the Nintendo Wii has changed what the video game market is actaully all about.
It’s a stupid mistake, but like I said looking at it I can see how it wasn’t spotted.
give it up david..your honestly telling me with all the money the bbc have at their disposal they cant employ someone with a bit of knowledge
on the subject,ever heard of edge?
they seem to manage month in month out….honestly if its not ingmar bergman or harold pinter its just not worth the effort.
Andrew and supermario: you make fair points. What worries me is that when we start posting comments about how the BBC make errors despite receiving £3bn of public money, we risk giving those who would dismiss us as cranks and ignore serious issues about political and cultural bias the ammunition they might seek.
(But hey, I expect I have my personal axe to grind just like anyone else. I can’t afford anything beyond a second-hand PS2 in any case, and I still think that the original PS1 game of Driver is better than anything released for PS2, PS3, Wii, or X-Box…)
This was a simple cock-up. See this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/09/digital_games_1.html
Supermario,
Heard of Edge? They gave me my first job interview! I know my stuff, but I thnk even I can see its a mistake that might be hard to spot in the heat of an edit.
Not to excuse it of course.
“A simple cock-up” Nick? Or perhaps “a bad mistake” and “Result – disaster, and one replicated in the Ten O’Clock version of the story”, to quote Rory in the blog post you helpfully point out.
I’ll update our article with the link – and try to resist the temptation to thank you as “Biased BBC reader Nick Reynolds”!
Admittedly this is an error, and not indicative of the usual type of bias featured on these pages. However, it does seem to be indicative of the mindset of many BBC employees, and the hiring practices that put them in the position to make these errors.
David Gregory is correct to point out that the reporter himself did a reasonable job. But while the Wii is Microsoft’s main competition in the console market, the games in question here are themselves rivals. This is independent of the Wii/Xbox rivalry for console sales. Killzone was supposed to be Sony’s attempt at a Halo-killer. It’s not like they showed World of Warcraft or something. This was footage of the direct competitor of the game on which they were doing a feature.
Just like the movie and recording industry, game makers provide footage for the media to play in their reviews and reporting. Sure, this particular bit of erroneous footage was shown on an outdoor screen, and the BBC had no control over the content being shown there. But how difficult would it have been for the cameraman to label things properly? Presumably the basic reading and writing skills of BBC camermen haven’t changed too much since the days of video tape (insert joke about NuLab’s effect on the school system here).
A cock-up, yes. But why do these things keep happening?
This is just more evidence of a detachment from the general public. There are not enough people at the BBC who are genuinely in touch with them. I mean, just from reading the Editor’s Excuse Blog, it’s pretty clear they didn’t have anyone in the editing process who knew anything about the subject at hand.
Full disclosure: I actually had some dealings with certain departments of the BBC some years ago, and it was quite typical for reasonably competent people to be doing something in one room, and never ever communicating any of it to the people in the next room. Even if the job at hand was supposed to combine the effort of the folks in both rooms. It never occurred to anyone to ask somebody in another area who might be able to make an important contribution.
Well I do read biased bbc so it’s not an inaccurate statement…
David Preiser; There’s a great new game for the Wii where you use the controller as a virtual shovel. It’s called “Mountains out of Molehills” 😉
Like I said, I know my stuff and I can see why this shot crept through. Read the Editor’s blog for an explanation of why it happened.
But detached from the public? Since I spotted the mistake does that mean in fact the BBC is only semi-detached?
“your honestly telling me with all the money the bbc have at their disposal they cant employ someone with a bit of knowledge”
That also applies to defence and security matters…about time the BBC employed one of the thousands of retired soldiers who would make a better job of reporting than the amateurs they employ at present who get even the simplest things wrong when reporting defence matters.
Dave T; You mean like Ollie North on Fox?
I think the BBC, like most of the mainstream media, made fools of themselves writing off Nintendo as they did before the Wii came out.
Nintendo have made the market analysts look like idiots. All the media and analysts got it wrong.
Sony’s fall has long been predicted and hoped for by gamers tired of Sony’s shovelware.
BTW CNN Made a similar gaff a few years back when they credited Shenmue as a PS2 game.
David Gregory,
“Like I said, I know my stuff and I can see why this shot crept through. Read the Editor’s blog for an explanation of why it happened.
But detached from the public? Since I spotted the mistake does that mean in fact the BBC is only semi-detached?”
Maybe you didn’t read my full post at 3:39. Here are the bits that are relevant to your comments:
“This is just more evidence of a detachment from the general public. There are not enough people at the BBC who are genuinely in touch with them. I mean, just from reading the Editor’s Excuse Blog, it’s pretty clear they didn’t have anyone in the editing process who knew anything about the subject at hand.
Full disclosure: I actually had some dealings with certain departments of the BBC some years ago, and it was quite typical for reasonably competent people to be doing something in one room, and never ever communicating any of it to the people in the next room. Even if the job at hand was supposed to combine the effort of the folks in both rooms. It never occurred to anyone to ask somebody in another area who might be able to make an important contribution.”
As I said, I have read the Editor’s Excuse Blog. That’s where I got the idea that maybe the writing skills of BBC cameramen were suboptimal. I understand the logistics of how the error occurred. But I’m not sure blaming a file name is the full answer.
I know how these spots are edited in non-BBC studios, so it’s no surprise to me that these things happen when they’re not labeled correctly, and the people working on it are not familiar with the material. Editors usually aren’t. That’s why you have time codes and log sheets. Obviously Rory and the editor looked at the whole file (it sure sounds like he was in the studio and chose the shot in question), which included all the footage the guy shot of that large screen. Evidently Rory didn’t know what he was looking at, even though he did the report. They chose what they thought was the sexiest bit, and used that. Too bad Rory didn’t retain any of what he had learned while doing the report.
I could go on about the reasons why he chose a scene of soldiers without helmets, and how the insignia and bare faces made them look more American than the non-denominational visage of Master Chief, and thus nastier and more war-like, clearly making that the most desirable scene. But you’ve already chided me for making a mountain out of this molehill, so I won’t.
Maybe they should have called you in to have a look (long train ride, I know). Seriously, though, how many people in your department would know the difference versus how many people in the department that put this together? Don’t they ever check with other departments who might be able to do a little proofing on particular subjects? Wasn’t there an intern nearby or something who would know better than the reporter himself?
I hate to bring this up, but this is not so different from CBBC Newsround not bothering to show their articles to the real BBC news department. If they had, perhaps things would have been different. In my experience, it was very common for people in a BBC office to just go ahead with things without properly coordinating with other areas, then clean it up afterwards. There was very much a sense of “This is how it is. It’s no use asking.”
David; You make interesting points, and I think we’ll have to agree to disagree (as is so often the case on B-BBC)
But I would put a final word in for what I think is one of the strengths of the BBC. Chances are someone, somewhere will be able to answer any question you have, from astronomy to sport. That’s one of the best things about working here (although obviously you have to have the time and the inclination to ask in the first place!)
Lurker in a Burqua | 27.09.07 – 1:43 am |
Maybe if they chose their staff without reference to their personal political ideals they would have a wider pool of talent to choose from.
“Chances are someone, somewhere will be able to answer any question you have, from astronomy to sport.”
Hmm Patrick Moore or Sue Barker…?
David: Olly North is a retired Colonel with current links to the Armed Forces who can get an inside tip of the wink etc if required to add context to a story.
You note that Fox actually have TWO retired Colonels who tend to give differing views on some aspects of the Iraq campaign for example. (The other is Colonel Hunt who some days seems to be a screaming leftie, others a mad right winger!)
Funny that little fact slipped by you. Fox at least try to give the facts for us to decide and have a semblance of giving both sides of a story or just reporting straightforward news without opinion within the news story, leaving that side of things to their various columnists whom people can choose to read or ignore as they wish. We get so much opinion disguised as news or comedy shows from the BBC – no wonder Fox is so popular now!
The Fat Contractor: No one ever asked me about my political views at any job interview for the BBC.
Dave T: I love Fox, I’m not sure Ollie is a nature performer but I really like Bill O Reilly. I’m not sure any facts “slipped” by me when I’m watching it.
DG: I would have thought that mentioning Olli would have lead to you also mentioning Hunt and thus the fact that Fox do try and provide two sides since their reports/opinions pieces are normally side by side on the website.
However since you are obviously a well educated and sensible chap who HAS seen the light and watches Fox without spitting at the screen welcome to the world outside the BBC! 😎
David Gregory: “No one ever asked me about my political views at any job interview for the BBC”
Maybe it was your Che Guevara t-shirt that made the difference David… 🙂
More seriously though, did you find your berth at the BBC via The Guardian like so many of your colleagues have?
Andrew
Oh dear, mate. That really is a straw man. Yes it was indeed advertised in Media Guardian. But then when I was starting in this business so was every other job I went for. Including one at The Telegraph.
I don’t read The Guardian personally, but everyone knows if you want any job in the media it will be in the Guardian on Monday.
I’m always slight puzzled by this argument though. The Guardian doesn’t vet or control what jobs the BBC advertises, it just takes the cash. They saw the media industries were expanding and developed what remains the best weekly round-up of what’s going on. Obviously they did that to sell advertising and it worked.
It’s the market in action. Should the BBC spend even more money advertising in the Indy or one of the other short lived attempts to copy the Grauniad?
Increasingly these days more and more jobs appear for nothing on bbc.co.uk/jobs
Advertising with the Guardian isn’t an endorsement of it’s views, it’s a recognition it’s the place you’ll reach the most people for the least money.
PS And I wore a suit to my interview.
Chances are someone, somewhere will be able to answer any question you have, from astronomy to sport.
Oh, yea? This is a pretty scathing indictment.
lack of appetite for intelligent debate, What really aggrieved me was the triviality of the seven-minute report, and the lack of any obvious desire to explore the complexities of the issue.
You’ve got to wonder why they bothered except to stir it.