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. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated!
General BBC-related comment thread:
Bookmark the permalink.
Yes, John, but the why you raised the matter was not true! The rest of the BBC often does the same thing, often because their reporters are barely literate (as can be judged by the number of glaring grammatical errors and number of cases of mistaken usage heard and seen).
random | 20.02.08 – 1:26 pm
Yes, okay…. I’ve already accepted the distinction you make. No need to labour the point.
“Assuming Stiletto pays his television tax then you do work for him.
Reith: You’re wrong about that, as it happens.”
Why?
random:
I think you have your definitions of independent crossed. Just because they are independent businesses does nothing to suggest that they have editorial independence.
Apologies: When Stiletto asked for news and current affairs programmes made by other private programme makers, I was (foolishly) taking him at face value.
How long do you think they would last if they treated the BNP on the same basis as communist organisations and environmental or animal-rights extremists?
I hadn’t previously been aware that the BNP wanted parity with an organisation whose members have been jailed for fire-bombing, blackmail and making terrorist threats. In that case, the BBC should buck its ideas up pronto.
Good to see that you advocate the abandonment of the BBC editorial code which tediously insists on independent producers providing a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output…take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy.
Biased BBC: The Dark. Is For Stabbing In.
.
random | 20.02.08 – 1:28 pm
Yes, John, but the why you raised the matter …
What does this mean?
Might it be one of those ‘glaring grammatical errors’?
Live in a glass house, do you?
I may not agree with other posters but they manage to maintain their dignity and engage in the issue.
BaggieJonathan | 20.02.08 – 12:56 pm | #
“Any chance you wankers at the BBC..”
Martin | 19.02.08 – 11:26 pm | #
“The BBC is just full of thick retards..”
Martin | 18.02.08 – 11:07 pm | #
“The BBC are scum.”
Ritter | 18.02.08 – 6:03 pm | #
Quite..
.
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 1:31 pm
I hadn’t previously been aware that the BNP wanted parity with an organisation whose members have been jailed for fire-bombing, blackmail and making terrorist threats.
Nice… but a bit subtle for today’s house, I think.
Hugh | 20.02.08 – 1:30 pm
I’ve been over this so many times before and can’t be arsed to go over it again.
Now that we know the BBC pays north of three hundred grand for bottled water per annum, does that make bottled water manufacturers ‘public employees’? Discuss.
I’m slightly perplexed by the fact that nobody has commented on the Kosovo/Serbia situation, surely the most interesting and important geopolitical issue of the day (and an excuse for the usual suspects to stop banging on about Israel).
Is this because the coverage has been exemplary or because nobody understands the issues or because B-BBC’s Russian/Serbian readership needs a marketing drive. Personally I think that the lack of historical and cultural context given in the reporting has been pretty poor.
Cockney | 20.02.08 – 1:42 pm
You could do worse than start here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/3524092.stm
Ben, don’t be such a stiff. We’re not all Oxford educated toffs playing by queensbury rules.
Just because some people use awful “cuss words” doesn’t mean their comments are any less valid than your own.
The beauty of the internet means that you can say what you want and pretty much get away with it. Truth be told, if you were standing in a room with me and started churning out your Islam worshipping gobshite, I’d just smack you in the mouth.
So, let’s not pretend we should treat you and the other Beeboids like best friends, and let people express themselves however they see fit.
After all, the BBC have wound quite a few people up to the point of boiling point, so for you and the rest of them to expect to be handled with kid gloves is totally unrealistic.
@ John Reith | 20.02.08 – 1:00 pm
You are entitled to your opinion, but you should be aware that it is an unusual one.
“Unusual” what sort of a response is that? It was “unusual” opinion in the 1960s and 1970s to suggest that over-mighty Trade Union barons should be made subject to the law and be fined for breaches of the law. But it did not stop it being right and it was done. I don’t see that the BBC’s NuLab friends have undone that. BBC News is now become over-mighty.
The BBC’s news programmes attract vast audiences and are by any measure the nation’s clear favourites. They are also perceived as more accurate, trustworthy and impartial than other news sources, particularly newspapers and.. .
This is truly hilarious.
1. You may get lots of trade if you are the only pub in town. No real CHOICE. I know what political opinion I will be getting when I buy the Guardian or the Mail or any newspaper. But you say you are impartial (you sort of ought to be by law, you know) but you are NOT. You are not supposed to have an agenda, but you do – albeit a hidden agenda – which is even more insidious. In practice there is no serious choice in radio news.
2. You are experts in presentation and film editing and you control who is allowed to speak and what they say. Too much power in a modern democracy concentrated into too few hands.
3. If you are so confident that you are the nation’s “clear favourites” then you need not fear any competition.
Right then, with that weak response from John, we can all now get on opening up the broadcast “airwaves” to lots more CHOICE.
All these news channels will be available by way of on-screen menu and we can CHOOSE. We will no longer just have to take what the BBC gives us. Hurrah!!
.
Reith: “I’ve been over this so many times before and can’t be arsed to go over it again.”
I’m sorry I missed it. Are you a freelancer then? If you’re staff, I’m not clear what the argument against you being a public employee could be.
Here’s a story I didn’t see the BBC report on:
BNP’s site ‘the most popular in politics’
The British National Party has the UK’s most visited political website, a study shows.
The far-Right group received 51 per cent of all hits to party sites last year – seven times more than the online pages run by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
It was also twice as popular as the Conservatives’ main website.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=515440&in_page_id=1770
BBC News 24 has two internet related programmes on during the weekend, “Click” and “Your News”. It will be interesting to see if Your News will be reporting on Britains most popular political website, as it often reports on popular things on the internet.
Something tells me that they won’t be reporting on it. But you can bet that if it was the Lib Dems site that was the most popular, they would be shouting it from the rooftops.
Hugh:
“I’m sorry I missed it. Are you a freelancer then? If you’re staff, I’m not clear what the argument against you being a public employee could be.”
Don’t be fooled by Reith’s smoke screening. He’s a full time Beeboid if ever there was one on a £100K a year plus, sitting up in high management.
Of course you pay his wages. He’s just too much of a snob to ever accept the fact that worthless peons such as the general public OWN him.
The beauty of the internet means that you can say what you want and pretty much get away with it. Truth be told, if you were standing in a room with me and started churning out your Islam worshipping gobshite, I’d just smack you in the mouth.
The People’s Front of Judea | 20.02.08 – 1:54 pm | #
This kind of internet hardman big talk being a perfect example.
“This kind of internet hardman big talk being a perfect example.”
LOL. Posted by anon. The richness of the irony.
“It was announced during the first week of February 2008 that the foremost Sunni cleric, Sheikh Yousef AL-QARADHAWI has been barred from the UK” (See MEMRI reports below.)
The Labour government had, naively, made
this decision difficult for itself because of earlier advise given to it by its Islamic Affairs advisor, MOCKBUL ALI, who had certain
sympathies:-
(from MEMRI report):-
“U.K. government documents leaked to the media showed that Mockbul Ali, Islamic Affairs advisor to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had written a report urging the government to allow Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi to enter the U.K., and stressing that all the material against Sheikh Al-Qaradawi was produced by MEMRI and should therefore be disregarded. The government dismissed his recommendation and rejected Al-Qaradhawi’s visa request.”
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=Announcement6308
Of course, an earlier BBC dhimmi account of Al-Qaradhawi’s activities was presented in this ‘multiculturalist manner by the BBC’s Magdi Abdelhadi, ‘BBC Arab
Affairs Analyst’:
“Controversial preacher with ‘star status'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3874893.stm
Sorry anon above was me – my cookies have got deleted.
Dont worry PFOJ I can handle myself blah blah blah yawn yawn yawn
Cockney.
Re- Kosovo/Serbia,
I gave references on previous thread, dated ‘Thursday, 14 February’, at:
19.02.08 3:40 pm.
Stiletto:
This is truly hilarious.
1. You may get lots of trade if you are the only pub in town. No real CHOICE.
I agree. Completely fed up with the BBC Arms and its watered down liberal lager. What this town needs is more CHOICE…
Oh, hang about. That looks inviting – The Sky Arms. A quick shandy in there, followed by a pint at the ITN & Anchor. Then it’s shorts at the Channel 4 News & Duck, followed by a glass of bubbly at the Five News Inn. Bit unsteady on my feet now, but isn’t that the Al Jazeera English Arms? Soft drinks only? Clear the head, then on to the CNN & Bucket.
Biased BBC: The Pub With No Beer.
Or Brains
On the “MP pelted after confronting gang” story.
The story was indeed stealth edited, the only change being to add the words “a Conservative MP”. This was done after the original comment above.
The beeboids do read this blog. They were rumbled and changed the story.
Check out Newssniffer
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/98555/diff/0/1
Stiletto | 20.02.08 – 1:56 pm
It was “unusual” opinion in the 1960s and 1970s to suggest that over-mighty Trade Union barons should be made subject to the law…
No it wasn’t. It was an extremely widely held opinion, shared by millions of people and at various points the view of the official Opposition and the Government.
You may get lots of trade if you are the only pub in town. No real CHOICE.
But the BBC sure ain’t ‘the only pub in town’.
People can choose to take their news from ITN, Channel4, More 4, Channel 5 with La Kaplinsky, or when in need of a sharpener • Sky News, which is on all the time.
Fact is, the BBC is more popular than any of these.
{the BBC} control who is allowed to speak and what they say.
Wrong again. Most people in the news give interviews to more than one outlet. If the BBC were to distort what they say by editing, then you’d be sure to notice if you watched a number of different outlets.
If you are so confident that you are the nation’s “clear favourites” then you need not fear any competition.
I’m sure I’ve heard successive DGs say they welcomed more competition.
All these news channels will be available by way of on-screen menu and we can CHOOSE.
But you can aleady! Normal people do it every day.
You are not supposed to have an agenda, but you do – albeit a hidden agenda
If there’s a hidden agenda, how come you found it? You can’t even find ITV on your remote.
hillhunt, a lot of people dont have sky or cable and rely on Al beeb for the news, so your argument is fundamentally flawed, and sarcasim is the lowest form of wit. try harder
kind regards
Hillhunt and Reith
There might be many pubs in town, but why should I pay for beer in the King’s Arms while I drink in the Jolly farmer? People have no choice but to buy the BBC’s output or watch no television at all.
“If the BBC were to distort what they say by editing, then you’d be sure to notice if you watched a number of different outlets.”
Exactly, as is often pointed out here we do notice. The BBC edits out the awkward bits, or fails to ask the important question.
John Reith
I make grammatical errors. However I am not a journalist, and I correct them where it is important and part of my job. You will not find any in the writing I do in my work, because I get paid to be careful.
The BBC has no such standards, and lets lies slip through due to poor understanding of the English language, the main tool of the journalists’ jobs. If I used the tools of my job so badly then people would die, quite literally and directly.
Mr Anon:
a lot of people dont have sky or cable and rely on Al beeb for the news, so your argument is fundamentally flawed
Indeed. And then there are half-wits who don’t know how to use a channel-changer. Otherwise they’d find Channel 4 News, ITN, and Five News on their analogue tellies. Then there are TalkSport and all those other independent stations for advertiser-funded radio news…
Oh, and there are the many other services streamed on the net (and free at your local library if you don’t have a web connection).
sarcasim is the lowest form of wit. try harder
Sarcasim? Went hill-walking there once. Very nice it was, too…
.
John Reith
“And, on the offchance there were any literal-minded dimwits lurking, I added a bloody great smiley, just so there’d be no doubt about it.”
Is this what you mean by civil debate?
“Fact is, the BBC is more popular than any of these.”
I’m sure we’ve been through this before, but does a £3.5 billion subsidy not help?
“Most people in the news give interviews to more than one outlet. If the BBC were to distort what they say by editing, then you’d be sure to notice if you watched a number of different outlets.”
I thought you pointed out a while ago that something like 80% of people rely solely on the BBC for their news.
“I’m sure I’ve heard successive DGs say they welcomed more competition.”
There’s not much in the way of evidence here, though. Certainly they don’t seem keen on sharing the license fee revenue.
go to a library? errr yes ok, most people are too busy earning a living to go to one when they’re open
random:
There might be many pubs in town, but why should I pay for beer in the King’s Arms while I drink in the Jolly farmer?
Humble apologies.
When you wrote earlier that You may get lots of trade if you are the only pub in town. No real CHOICE, I unreasonably assumed that this was your line of argument.
Silly me.
.
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 1:16 pm
The BBC trolls on this site seem to hunt in packs. There seems to be more trolls sometimes than genuine posters. Their bosses really must want to stifle what we say here!!
Question Time is made by an independent production company….so are chunks of the One Show… and episodes of Panorama, This World, the Money Programme… and inserts into shows like Newsnight.
In your rush of blood to attack with your faux humour and merry sarcastic badinage, Hillhunt, you have completely missed the point. Now, pay attention. BBC commissioned programmes ARE just BBC programmes.
No, no – what we are talking about is something quite different from that. I am quite sure you know exactly what I am meaning, but let me spell it out: when the BBC schedules a news or current affairs programme (made in house or commissioned) it is required by law to broadcast SIMULANEOUSLY (you know, at the same time as) other news channels with news and current affairs programmes made by other private broadcast companies (all of which must comply with new written standards). All these news channels will be available by way of on-screen menu and we can CHOOSE who supplies our news!
The monolithic BBC news department is really a rather strange relict from a former non-digital age. Old fashioned. It would benefit from having the tonic of real competition.
You know, the BBC does not have a monopoly of wisdom on every conceivable subject. We are grown up now and you must not feel the need to educate us into the right enlightened opinion on everything.
We want alternative NEWS CHANNELS and your digital broadcasting infrastructure (paid for out of OUR money) must be opened up to carry these extra news channels.
We want more CHOICE – now.
.
Mr Anon:
go to a library? errr yes ok, most people are too busy earning a living to go to one when they’re open
Y-e-e-e-s. Must be an illusion that most libraries stay open till evening these days. When did you last visit one?
And the channel-changer point?
.
Hillhunt
It was you that mentioned independent, and production companies dependent on the BBC and staffed by ex-BBC employees are not editorially independent of the BBC.
“I hadn’t previously been aware that the BNP wanted parity with an organisation whose members have been jailed for fire-bombing, blackmail and making terrorist threats. In that case, the BBC should buck its ideas up pronto.”
You have BBC disease, of turning a point away by appearing to misinterpret it (appearance of poor language skills, as I mentioned to Mr Reith). I didn’t suggest the BNP wanted parity with other extremists. I suggested that the BBC don’t give it but should. They make it obvious that the BNP is beyond acceptable discussion every time it is mentioned, yet give animal rights, environmental and left-wing extremists (not all of whom have any terrorist connections) a far easier time. That is because these groups all claim to be left wing, despite being every bit as unpleasant as the BNP.
Note that I didn’t say that the BNP should be treated better, just that there should be equivalence. Treating the BNP more reasonably or treating left-wing extremists with more scorn are both debatable positions. Favouring left over right is not.
The BBC does not hold to those editorial codes. I was suggesting that they should. That is my exact point, just in case you are still struggling to understand!
Stiletto:
All these news channels will be available by way of on-screen menu and we can CHOOSE who supplies our news!
Sorry to ask, but when did you last use a TV set? Mine does this already…
Biased BBC: Reasonable demands, reasonably made
.
Stiletto
“The BBC trolls on this site seem to hunt in packs. There seems to be more trolls sometimes than genuine posters. Their bosses really must want to stifle what we say here!! ”
That hasn’t gone unnoticed by me either. If, as these Beeb trolls claim, our arguments are so weak, and the BBC is so wonderful and omniscient ad nauseum, then why do they keep coming back. Why not let us whinge in peace?
The only logical conclusion is that Beeb bigwigs are genuinely upset by what they read here.
P.S. I could add racist Islamicist organisations to the left-wing extremists tolerated and even given positive publicity by the BBC.
I have no time for thee BNP because they are ‘Old Labour’ with racist overtones. However, I think it is a bit rich for the BBC to constantly invite the likes of the Green party or that obnoxious lunatic Venessa Redgrave onto Question Time, but studiously ignore the BNP. The BBC should either:
1) Only allow political parties that have received over 10% of the vote in nationwide elections or that particular borough.
2) Allow all fringe parties to have their say.
Which is it to be BBC?
It is clear to anybody with half a brain, that the BBC wants us to come to the ‘enlightened’ political position, by only allowing ‘enlightened’ view to be expressed.
Hillhunt
I get the feeling either that you are doing a BBC again, deliberately misunderstanding, or you really are not very bright. What Stiletto is describing (fairly clearly and simply, I have no problem understanding what he means) can’t be done on TV at present, so one or the other must be true.
Thanks Grimer. That is what I was trying to say, but obviously went a little over Hillhunt’s head, either because he is short or because he ducked!
random:
What Stiletto is describing (fairly clearly and simply, I have no problem understanding what he means) can’t be done on TV at present
Apologies again. I had stupidly assumed that when he called for news services independent of the BBC, that he had forgotten about the existence of C4N, ITN, Five, Sky, Al Jaz, CNN and so on.
I now realise he wants the BBC to spend more of its licence fee on inviting yet more news suppliers to share its frequencies… In direct competition to the privately-funded channels who already provide alternative services.
This would doubtlessly be appreciated by the shareholders and staff of the existing independent news services whose audiences (and revenue) would suffer from further taxpayer-funded competition.
Brilliant!
.
Hugh the kind of thing JR is thinking of goes like this:
“Having said all that, a weak ITV is not in the BBC’s interest; it is not in the interests of the British broadcasting industry as a whole; and, above all, it is not in the interests of the people who matter most, the viewers.
A healthy broadcasting market in the UK needs a third gorilla alongside the BBC and Sky – and that third gorilla should be an advertiser funded, free to air television group with ITV at its heart.
That way, you get a proper balance of influence; that way, no one player can call too many of the shots; that way, no one player is too powerful.
Now, if we want to turn ITV into this third gorilla, some things will have to change.”
Grimer – is too much 1) at the moment, needs to be more 2) this is what Horrocks means by “radical impartiality” however he is still a bit too much “It is clear to anybody with half a brain, that the BBC wants us to come to the ‘enlightened’ political position, by only allowing ‘enlightened’ view to be expressed.”. Either 2) will come or the Beeb will have to go.
In large part this is because of the convergence of the 3 main political parties on a social democratic consensus. Westminster is not the beginning and end of it, as I am sure most people here realised a long time ago. But the MSM is taking it’s time coming round to it.
John Reith:
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 1:31 pm
I hadn’t previously been aware that the BNP wanted parity with an organisation whose members have been jailed for fire-bombing, blackmail and making terrorist threats.
Nice… but a bit subtle for today’s house, I think.
John Reith | 20.02.08 – 1:35 pm |
Miss! Miss! Please, Miss. I understand it. Do I get a gold star or a certificate of honorary Beeboidhood? Am I worthy of that great intellectual company, of a Just in Webb? Such depth and powers of analysis, such penetrating insight …oh, it is wondrous. I am awed by the presence of such brilliance and superiority among us. Thankee. Thankee….
I’m slightly perplexed by the fact that nobody has commented on the Kosovo/Serbia situation, surely the most interesting and important geopolitical issue of the day (and an excuse for the usual suspects to stop banging on about Israel).
Cockney | 20.02.08 – 1:42 pm
Why, has the BBC suddenly begun to report on Israel in a fair and balanced manner?
“Telecom Express published a survey some time back that rated blogs below MSM of all kinds for being trustworthy.
You can start your search here:
http://www.telecomexpress.co.uk/main.php
John Reith | 20.02.08 – 1:11 pm”
Television as a whole was trusted by 66% in 2006.
But in 2007 we find from no less than the guardian’s poll
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jul/28/broadcasting.bbc
that television has plummeted in that trust and the BBC in particular.
And of course since then the BBC fakery issues and scandals have caused that trust to slump lower.
Search was effective, just not the way you expected JR.
Sarah Jane: “that way, no one player is too powerful.”
80% relying on just the BBC for news isn’t too powerful? Shall we wait until it’s 100%.
“A healthy broadcasting market in the UK needs a third gorilla alongside the BBC and Sky…”
I’ve heard all this, but seen little evidence in practice. Whenever the BBC has a chance to undermine ITV – by organising scheduling clashes for instance it seems to take it. Perhaps you can show me what the BBC has actually done to promote competition, rather than what it’s said.
@ John Reith | 20.02.08 – 2:35 pm
I do not know how old the BBC troll currently using the handle of “John Reith” really is – but you do not seem to be very well informed. Or perhaps you are being deliberately disingenuous and seeking to confuse. You cannot confuse me as I lived through it all. It WAS “unusual” opinion in the 1960s and 1970s to suggest that over-mighty Trade Union barons should be made subject to the law. Any one suggesting it however was ridiculed. As a solution to a dreadful problem it was attacked by reactionary and self-interested people.
A bit like this really. You are the problem now – we do not trust you any more. You are the reactionary and self-interested people fighting to keep your power over us. We, however, are now sick to death of your distorted news presentations.
We are wanting alternate NEWS CHANNELS broadcast simultaneously with scheduled BBC news and current affairs programmes, because we no longer trust you to tell the truth without distortion and filtering. And you are trying your best to ridicule the idea – but then you would, wouldn’t you!
I’m sure I’ve heard successive DGs say they welcomed more competition
Excellent, when therefore does the BBC digital broadcasting infrastructure (which WE have paid for) get opened up to simultaneously broadcast competing NEWS CHANNELS? Can you give a date when the DG’s wishes will be granted?
When a scheduled BBC news or current affairs programme is broadcast an on-screen menu appears giving details of all the many alternative and competing NEWS CHANNELS which are THEN available from the BBC’s infrastructure.
It is called OPENNESS and competition. It was done with the BT infrastructure, and it is even more important with you because information in an Information Age is priceless. To control it is to control the people – and we no longer trust you to control it.
.
Hugh | 20.02.08 – 2:51 pm
does a £3.5 billion subsidy not help?
Not really.
Sky has revenue of close to £5 billion.
Sky doesn’t have to pay for any national radio networks or local radio out of that and has minimal online expenses.
Yet its TV audience (and its news audience) is still lower than the BBC’s • so money can’t be the only factor worth considering.
Stilleto:
when therefore does the BBC digital broadcasting infrastructure (which WE have paid for) get opened up to simultaneously broadcast competing NEWS CHANNELS? Can you give a date when the DG’s wishes will be granted?
Can’t be certain about dates, but here’s a cut-out and keep guide:
1. Turn on your digital TV
2. Select the programme guide.
3. Look for names like Sky News, Channel 4 News, ITN etc.
4. Watch these, secure in the knowledge that they’re not the BBC
By the way, your on-screen menu idea is terrific…
But be prepared for uninformed criticism from people who complain that they can check the programme guides themselves, thanks very much, so why is the BBC cluttering up its service with redundant menus?
Otherwise, you’re on to a winner.
And no mistake….
.
Reith
“Sky doesn’t have to pay for any national radio networks or local radio”
Big f***in deal!