Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
There is no chance of the Australian Scientist having his claims aired on the BBC, unless there are half a dozen “concensus” scientists wheeled out to rubbish his findings.
Doesn’t fit in with the Polit Bureau message
BM | 15.11.07 – 4:22 pm |
Correct answer.
But if I’d said it first, I’d have been savaged by the pack.
The argument about Gaelic programming can only be seen as part of the bigger picture.
It is true there are arguably some small justifications of public service broadcasting.
1. I can see that Gaelic and Welsh as the other languages of the UK (after English of course) have some right to programming or even a channel. Note S4C (Welsh) manages this without being BBC, though it does take some BBC made programmes.
2. Emergency channel. We will only really know about this in the case of a major emergency, lets hope we dont find out at all.
3. Elected bodies. Currently Parliament channel, there is no special reason why this should be BBC.
4. Programming for specific disability groups. Actually this is shockingly poor, so much for public service broadcasting BBC.
5. Public information. You hardly see these any more, there are perhaps better media to use.
6. Charitable and not for profit items. Satellite does more for this than the BBC.
7. Ensuring certain events are covered to the whole nation without cost to the individual. Like royal funerals or the cup final, but no reason why commercial television cannot provide this service.
All of these functions can be covered for a tiny fraction of the licence fee and anyway could be funded from general taxation.
The provision of soap operas, home improvements, reality TV and the like should not be in the remit of public service broadcasting, it is providing nothing different to what is provided for by commercial television and cannot justify any public expenditure (it is after all our tax monies in the form of the licence fee that pays for it).
Therefore the inevitable conclusion is the need for the BBC as a public service broadcaster is negligable.
BM
I agree that Gaelic TV and Radio are a valuable resource but to state that the language is one without limits is stretching things. I know far more about Welsh and am very aware of its limitations, especially in relation to medical and scientific matters, indeed whole chunks of Welsh legislation are in English as there is no satisfactory translation. (And this is ignoring the jobs for the boyos issue).
This is why I am not sure that a Gaelic version of the website would be particularly useful and could be very cost inefficient.
“6. Charitable and not for profit items. Satellite does more for this than the BBC.”
Can I asked where (that’s a genuine question)?
“6. Charitable and not for profit items. Satellite does more for this than the BBC.”
Can I asked where (that’s a genuine question)?
Ben | 15.11.07 – 5:15 pm |”
There are several that do this in part but for a dedicated channel try 539 Community Channel.
The BBC started this week with some shockingly balanced articles on the issue of climate change. However, it didn’t take them long (Wednesday) to revert to their regular condascending viewpoint of “sceptics”.
Here’s a good one for you. The article basically explains how the “sceptic” is most certainly the minority viewpoint. OK, fair enough, whatever.
By Richard Black / Roger Harrabin:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/11/climate_sceptics.html
Then we have the following:
“We must also be more savvy about the way we treat outlying views – and we should make it clear to our audience when an interviewee holds a minority position.”
So let me get this straight, and let’s consider the BBC apply this policy consistently (miracles could happen.) Say the BBC interviewed a Liberal Democrat supporter, they are now going to start or end EVERY interview with “Here we have a Liberal Democrat, obviously a minority viewpoint….”
No, i didn’t think so.
David Gregory.
Go to the Devil’s Kitchen Blog:
http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2007/11/is-there-any-warming.html
and you will see a post that seems to indicate that ALL the warming has been adjusted in by the NOAA.
Seems pretty convinving to me sitting here in the snow in November, a first in 16 years.
I would also add that my ‘weather’ for the last 4 years has consisted of rainy, cold summers and snowy winters, this after 12 years of scorching summers and relatively mild winters
“It would consist of a dedicated digital television channel in Gaelic broadcasting for up to seven hours a day, BBC Radio nan Gaidheal and a significantly enhanced Gaelic content for users of bbc.co.uk.”
John Reith
Sorry for not coming back quickly – new baby grandson in the house!
SEVEN hours of Gaelic TV? Bloody hell – they toil to fill ONE hour every other day and even then they use cheap rip offs of other programmes. As I said before many moons ago, if the BBC are going to give such resources etc to a mere 60,000 then why do they not have 24 hour TV for the 1.8 UK Asians/the 500,000 odd Poles, the largest Turkish community outwith Turkey and so on.
I watch the Gaelic TV on BBC2 regularly and it is dire, dreary and dismal. Even Eastenders is more cheerful! There are more Doric/Scots speakers up here than Gaelic – I actually asked the local BBC laddie at a function in Inverness once about three years ago why Gaelic got the resources and TV time – ‘More influence in the Glasgow media crowd dinner party circuit’……
Damm those Lowland wishy washy media liberals who think Rob Roy and Braveheart were documentaries not fiction!
Can we not use the money on sending Jackie Bird to cover the Scotland match? Oh wait – she’ll probably miss all four goals…. (shows how confident I am). (Did I mention my great granddad was Italian by the way..!) Anyway must be nearly time to watch the shinty.
Gawd, thanks for that fnu snu.. way i see it, the BBC has been digging itself a big hole on AGW and has just started thinking about impartiality as a way out… HA!
I suspect it won’t be long before we see the “well we can’t take the chance because we don’t know either way” defence because the evidence for AGW, perhaps even basic GW, is just not there.
Right. So here are the rules for Science reporting. A good experiment with good analysis, preferrably in a strong journal. To quote my old supervisor “we must avoid cherry picking” results. Good words for a Science Correspondent live on TV in a flood to remember… and also for the Internet Warrior who disagrees with current climate science.
If people want to email me direct I’m happy to carry on the debate… but otherwise can I suggest a FAQ for familiar questions about Antarctic Sea Ice… Falling Arctic Sea Levels… Urban Heat Islands… The Mediaval Warm Period ect ect
If the globe was getting warmer for example would you expect increased precipitation? More snow leading to thicker ice? Just a thought. Science is full of stuff that challenges “common sense” that’s why we need it. Science tells us climate change is real and our fault*.
(*At least at the moment, red emeralds and all that.)
But if a piece of research came along that blew it all apart I’d report it. But do be aware that many of the pieces of science those who disagree with MMGW throw about are well known and well discussed. I’m not sure it benefits the board to go over them all again here. Google is your friend for more.
David gregory
you could start by reading Steve Mcintyer’s climateaudit blog (www.climateaudit.org) – there would seem to be some pretty poor practices underlying plaeoclimate research including the splicing of graphs from different data series , refusal to release raw data for indepedent analysis and so on.
in fact try this for starters..
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2371#comments
Al Durah etc
Has the BBC really squandered over £200,000 of license payer’s dosh to keep the Balen report quiet? Biased reporting re the middle east has gone on for so long and has such a lot to answer for. Jeremy Bowen personifies bias compounded with ignorance. Biased reporting has been both subtle and blatantly overt, but the lack of interest in the Al Durah scandal is typical. Not just the low key report on the court case, but absence of comment about both France 2’s journalistic integrity or the worldwide willingness to accept such inflammatory footage without checking its authenticity. (or apology from BBC for joining in.)
The tsunami of anti-semitism could be investigated by a competent documentary maker, hopefully an improvement on the well-meaning but shambolic effort we saw on channel 4 by R. Littlejohn.
Now extremist Islamism has finally caught your eye, perhaps someone at the BBC would have the courage to join the dots and connect the two. Multiculturalism and P.C. have so far managed to make this off limits. The gigantic nellie the elephant is getting even bigger than the room.
David Gregory:
You could also try taking a look at this journal article:
“Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058.
Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.”
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
A very interesting paper.
Could it be that the BBC is going to have to share its unique method of funding with other broadcasters when it comes to childrens and regional programmes?
Gret news for tht public, yet more bad news for the BBC. Slowly but surely it is on its way out.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1292932,00.html
Sharing the licence fee? Not sure its a good idea. It would make all the broadcasters more open to govt pressure.
David Gregory (BBC):
“Right. So here are the rules for Science reporting. A good experiment with good analysis, preferably in a strong journal. To quote my old supervisor “we must avoid cherry picking” results. Good words for a Science Correspondent.”
If only you would really follow that advice David, but all the time there are many papers in good journals like the one that woodentop highlighted, that never get reported by the BBC. If you did I for one would stop complaining.
Chris
Right. Good Journals, lets start with Nature, Phys Rev A and B… ect ect.
“Energy and Environment” is the journal Woodentop’s paper was printed in. I would politely say that is a second level journal below the big guys.
That’s being polite.
I will say the recent re-ordering of what was the actual hottest year in America is good example of strong science that many anti-mmgw seized on that wasn’t reported on the BBC.
Apart from the World Service, 5 Live and The Today programme. And that was just the bits I came across.
Once again I caution both sides about the problems of cherry picking however.
David: we then get into the issue of editorial policies on the “mainstream” journals.
Simply deciding that a journal is second rate because it doesn’t print what you like isn’t particularly scientific.
As Craig Loehle himself says on the ClimateAudit blog: “By the way, GRL (Geophysical Research Letters) sent it back unreviewed because they were tired of seeing reconstructions.”
The science is settled!
You are right David, Energy and Environment is not on the same level as Nature, but what does that prove? Nature publishes great science, but it also publishes science it thinks is ‘sexy’. A colleague tried to publish a paper in Nature with a very novel technique of examining extinction data. He based his study on Great Auk data and it was rejected. He re-wrote the paper with Dodo data and it went straight in. Look at the editorial board of Energy and Environment, seems pretty good to me, and all papers are peer reviewed.
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm
And as to the Ice sheets growing in the Antarctic, have a look at this story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7089290.stm
no mention here of the increase in total ice cover over recent years!
Now have a look at this paper nep referenced
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635. (pretty good journal wouldn’t you say)
They found from 1992-2003 “overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1.”. You would have thought this would merit a mention in the story wouldn’t you?? Especially as the sheet was found this year to be “at a record high”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high.html
If the sheet was shrinking, or was at a record low, you can be damn sure it would have been mentioned in the story. Could you please let me know why you think it wasn’t?
Newsnight tonight is leading on the “shock horror” story that the UK nuclear bombs were not under strong enough security from unauthorised launch. Do you think that we should be more worried by this story or Iran building nuclear weapons now? Of course the BBC have linked this to the US B52 carrying armed nuclear weapons across the US in the summer. The last point made is that the UK’s Trident fleet are externally password protected for launch. Now the BBC bring on an expert to discuss the matter and it is Kate Hudson from CND, don’t you just love the BBC. Some of Kirsty’s questions and the CND lady’s replies seemed rather rehearsed, such as the have there been any recent incidents question.
A particularly weak BBC story
PAL is an additional layer of security deemed unnecessary for the RAF and RN because it was another potential failure
And they try to deride the keys as bicycle lock keys
Did they ask how these keys were issued?Who they were issued to? How it was controlled? Where they were kept?
Funny old thing….
Same old agenda as the 1980s
JG: All good points. But Woodsman’s journal has a bit of a history. I’m not saying Nature is perfect, but I wouldn’t say it’s going to pick sexy over science any day! And the whole point about science is the truth will always out.
Now should a broadcaster go to the antarctic to talk about thickening of ice at the same time as going to the arctic to do the opening of the northwest passage? Actually that’s a bloody good question.
“Now should a broadcaster go to the antarctic to talk about thickening of ice at the same time as going to the arctic to do the opening of the northwest passage?”
YES, or course. Tell the whole picture!
“I wouldn’t say it’s going to pick sexy over science”
Well this just shows that you are not a working scientist. It is well known that you need to be ‘sexy’ to get in Nature. Now don’t get me wrong, probably some of the best science goes in there, but so does much ‘lesser sexy’ science. Another example. We tried to publish a paper in Nature using some amazing, long term data, with a very comprehensive and novel technique of analysis. It got rejected because (to paraphrase) ‘not everyone is interested in the species it was about’. Again, another colleague submitted a paper with some bog standard techniques and a very small data-set, but it was on Great White Sharks…..straight in.
Anyway, as I feel Mr Moderator hovering over this debate, I ask again, why is the record levels of ice in the Antarctic not being given the same coverage as the ice loss in the Arctic?
Here is a story from last year
Antarctic losing ice to oceans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4767296.stm
Can we expect another one this year saying the opposite? Or perhaps I shouldn’t hold my breath, not on message after all.
JG: Would you like to swap “rejected by Nature but my colleague got the cover” stories?
As for the Northwest Passage versus Antarctic thickening reports… I think you make a good point. Sadly I don’t get to go on those sort of trips, but I know a man that does! I’ll email him and ask about this.
The BBC, It’s hatred of the Police and really half a story.
Terror police ‘shot’ man in coma
A man who had gone into a diabetic coma on a bus in Leeds was shot twice with a Taser gun by police who feared he may have been a security threat. Nicholas Gaubert has described how the incident happened in July 2005, just a week before the fatal shooting of Brazilian man Jean Charles de Menezes. Mr Gaubert, 34, said he was suffering severe post-traumatic stress as a result of the shooting. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is investigating.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7096456.stm
So the BBC ups the anti on the British police. Notice how the BBC is blaring out how the Police shot somebody. Err actually BBC with a tazer you don’t get shot. You get tagged and then you get electrocuted. However I’m sure somebody will try to correct me with that one so here’s my second gripe. Why does the BBC inform the reader it was a week before Menezes was shot dead? I mean it was only 6 days after the bombings in London which murdered 52 people and 9 days before Menezes died.
So why does the BBC not inform the reader the real motive why Leeds police force tasered this guy. Suicide bomber anyone?
I mean the Guy himself says to the Yorkshire post;
“He said West Yorkshire Police told him that he had been blasted twice with the weapons because after the first shock he had fallen from his seat and lay face down with one hand underneath his body.”
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/I-went-into-a-diabetic.3489707.jp
So much for the BBC claim about him noticing the policeman who aimed a real gun at his head. I mean how could he, he was firstly in a coma, then secondly helped on his way to an induced one by two jolts of electricity. Pity the BBC leave out the police told him so.
But hey since when has telling the truth stopped the BBC from berating the police.
The BBC, It’s hatred of the Police and really half a story.
It appears that the BBC account for the leeds taser incident was cut and pasted from his lawyers press release.
http://www.irwinmitchell.com/PressOffice/PressReleases/Taser-Gun-Legal-Action.htm
(Don’t) have your say
Illegal workers row
(This have your say is closed)
Total comments 2,598
Published comments 1,507
Rejected Comments 174
What happened to the 917 “unaccounted” comments – did they fall down behind the radiator or something?
David Gregory ? BBC, you did not answer the question on cost.
If you had used true country people for the program you could have been the number one program.
Do the presenters keep their hat and gloves on indoors at home? Must be a soft lot.
More BBC junk science/if & but conjecture pretending to be science. Roger Harrabin reporting on the IPCC meeting, telling us Spain will become a desert soon because of ‘global warming’ and rising temperatures. This Harrabin character is big on waffle and spin but even with the help of a greenpeace activist he just made himself look stupid!
A perfect example of ‘gesture politics’ was the turning off of the buildings lights for a short while! well, whoopee doo!
This Roger Harrabin chap keeps popping up all over to do these AGW propaganda pieces and I wonder just what his scientific qualifications are?
Beeboid lead news story :
Dear Leader announces 7 squillion training places for British workers to increase tractor production.
Fanfare, uncritical acclaim from massed ranks of bbc pioneer news readers on today morning commedy spot.
david C
I have no idea how much Autumnwatch costs. I can email and ask them.
As for “true” country people… well I’m not sure what you mean? Do you imagine the cameraman and researchers live in some sort of strange urban bubble and only unwillingly creep out into the countryside when the BBC puts a gun to their heads and forces them to make the show?
There’s nothing “rose tinted” about Autumnwatch. Escepcially considering this is a show that also has a spin off on CBBC.
Want to go “ahhhh” at the seal pups… we show the pics. But when a storm sweeps most of them out to sea well they show that too.
If you would like to come out on an outside broadcast with me you’ll soon learn why you need hats and gloves. Bill and Kate are standing around in the cold and that “studio” is a barn. It’s bloody freezing out there. When I did Autumnwatch stuff this week I had gloves, scarves and thermals on. That may make me soft, I’d say it means I’m just not stupid.
Saudi Rape Victim sentanced to lashes and prison.
BBC version. No mention as to WHY she should be lashed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7096814.stm
Fox News. ER because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic Country. How come the BBC don’t feel the need to mention Islamic law in this case?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html
At least Fox News gives us the truth.
dave t 15.11.07 – 7:32 pm
new baby grandson in the house!
Congratulations!
Martin | 16.11.07 – 9:12 am
All broadcasters make assumptions about their audience’s knowledge level.
The BBC (rightly, in my view) judges that its audience already knows that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country.
If Fox make a different assumption about their viewers, no doubt they have their reasons.
David Gregory, satellite data shows that Antarctica has been cooling at a rate of -0.07 degrees per decade. Why is this never mentioned when reporting model based claims of warming there?
David Gregory, this is the data you are looking for by the way:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/uahncdc.lt
Awful, just awful:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081882.stm
David Gregory, don’t know what you were replying to, but its a shame about the selective spin, famously ,hedgehogs getting caught in discarded polystyrene cups (not a lot of those out here!), rather than being decimated by the effects of the badger numbers explosion !
Also no mention of oddie being a raving anti etc.
Anyone interested in decent countryside programmes, without the beeboid anti agenda, Hourse and Country channel on SKY, excellent stuff.
Yet more rubbish reporting by the BBC on the IPCC conference, the BBC reporter does not have a clue whats in the report because it hasnt been published yet, BUT she says its full of “dire warnings of dramatic consequences” She also tells us that “the scientists say that the deabate is over” and that “global warming IS happening”, Er the ‘debate’ is not over because scientific debate is never ‘over’. The reporter then asked a WWF spokesman for his opinion which was a predictable unscientific and ignorant ramble about the “real need” for a’kyoto 2′ and how global warming is “real and with us now” and “causing dramatic changes to peoples lives around the world”! Anyone with half a brain could see that this comedy duo were struggling to impart an air of impending disaster while trying to avoid providing ANY scientific evidence. The BBC ‘enviroment’ reporters need another BBC honesty course I think? Also it would be helpful if, when reporting on the IPCC conclusions to wait for the report to come out FIRST?
BaggieJonathan:
“6. Charitable and not for profit items. Satellite does more for this than the BBC.”
Can I asked where (that’s a genuine question)?
Ben | 15.11.07 – 5:15 pm |”
There are several that do this in part but for a dedicated channel try 539 Community Channel.
BaggieJonathan | 15.11.07 – 5:49 pm | #
Hardly extensive is it? The BBC does a huge amount for charity, especially fundraising – satellite doesn’t come anywhere close
backwoodsman: I really like you, you do know your stuff. As I remember it wasn’t plastic cups that was the problem, it was specifically the lids from McDonalds McFlurry cups! Perfect for killing hedgehogs apparently. Like plenty of journalists I checked it out but couldn’t find one example of this actually happening! I believe the only picture in existence was actually faked.
Love Horse & Country. Very nice people. Their outside broadcast at the Royal Show was four times the size of ours!
What utter rubbish. The woman was treated the way she was BECAUSE of ISLAMIC law.The BBC is very quick to point out Islam on a (rare) good news story.
Why is everybody having a bash at David Gregory?
At least give him the credit of ;
a) Admitting who he is
b) Trying to answer your questions.
The way some people communicate with him.
He’s a human being at least respect that.
Christ the way some of you folks shout down the net.
If somebody spoke or treated me that way in the street he’ll be picking his teeth off of the floor.
Cut the man some slack.
Nep Nederlander
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081882.stm
Awful, awful awful as you say.
Note the BBC get in a sociologist rather than an experimental scientist to denounce the heretics, presumably because “the scientists say the debate is over”.
Look Kari, global warming is making your teeth expand!!!!
This is where former BeeGee, and now witchfinder general and Beeboid pinup, Kari Marie Norgaard is coming from. Here is the abstract from her recent paper in that premier journal “Organisation and environment”
http://oae.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/347
“Global warming is the most serious environmental problem of our time and a major issue of environmental justice. Yet meager public response in the form of social movement activity, behavioral changes, or public pressure on governments is noteworthy in all Western nations. Existing research emphasizes lack of information as a limiting factor for failed public response. This explanation cannot account for the significant population who know about and express concern for global warming. Ethnographic and interview data from a rural Norwegian community indicate that nonresponse is at least partially a matter of socially organized denial. Because Norwegian economic prosperity is tied to oil production, collectively ignoring climate change maintains Norwegian economic interests. Most environmental justice research focuses on people facing disproportionate exposure to environmental problems. This project examines wealthy citizens who perpetuate global warming as they turn a blind eye. Environmental justice implications of socially organized denial are discussed for global warming and beyond.”
Amen. Now light the faggots and retire 10 yards.
“Ben:
BaggieJonathan:
“6. Charitable and not for profit items. Satellite does more for this than the BBC.”
Can I asked where (that’s a genuine question)?
Ben | 15.11.07 – 5:15 pm |”
There are several that do this in part but for a dedicated channel try 539 Community Channel.
BaggieJonathan | 15.11.07 – 5:49 pm | #
Hardly extensive is it? The BBC does a huge amount for charity, especially fundraising – satellite doesn’t come anywhere close
Ben | 16.11.07 – 11:07 am”
Fundraising is NOT the duty of a public service broadcaster.
If it was then how do you decide which charities should have funds raised and which should not?
I was referring to programmes about or made by charitable or not for profit organisations not fundraising.
Actually any BBC charitable fundraising is mostly lamentable.
It seems to concentrate on enormous catch-all charities like Children In Need or Comic Relief.
For these it is near impossible to be sure where your gifts are going to, whilst I may for example say that there are good causes covered by children in need there are also causes I do not agree with
I cannot be clear which cause would get my money.
In a famous example of this on one children in need night the ‘celebrities’ led by Terry Wogan ‘attacked’ an unsuspecting theatre audience.
In the audience was a Scandinavian gentlemen who was less than best pleased to have people he didn’t even recognise demanding money from him with cameras in his face.
He was being accosted by Mr Wogan himself.
“What is it for?” He reasonably asked.
“The children” was all Mr Wogan could come up with as a response to repeated questioning.
If Wogan doesn’t know and he’s on it all the time how are we meant to know?
BBC flooded with complaints over violent pub brawl in EastEnders
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494364&in_page_id=1770
EastEnders attracts 1,000 complaints
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/16/bbc.television1?gusrc=rss&feed=media
BBC defends Enders’ Hillsborough reference
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/a79844/bbc-defends-enders-hillsborough-reference.html
BBC apology for EastEnders episode
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jT5cV5GiLfaz7Fhmuc4FYyCy0CWQ
I’ve never understood why stuff like Eastenders can’t be flogged off to a commercial channel.
Obviously it’s considered reasonable entertainment by a large number of people and is consequently commercially viable – each to their own – but I can’t for the life of me see why it fulfills any sort of public service remit. It’s hardly a work of great cultural or educational value nor is its relentless misery particularly uplifting to the national mood. Flog it.
BBC showing gang violence before the watershed?
Standard.