Sigh – Now mostly I find B-BBC and such a bunch of nutters, but they’re allowed their opinion all the same. Though it’s hard to take seriously the thoughts of someone who uses words like ‘raghead’ Anyway this blog post… bangs on about the repeated use of a quote from ‘Nikki’ of Warwickshire. Here’s how (I think) this happened. Often news journalists ‘clone’ a story, as in adapt an all ready published one as new information comes in. Now the first journo picked the quote out, no doubt, and then subsequent additions and revisions have happened, and they’ve just not updated the quote.. It’s not like a journo has searched through every post and STILL come up with that one as the best one. They (should) have no other agenda other than to report the facts. Should they have refreshed the quote…. probably.
News sometimes do the same for images, as in advance the story on, but use images from the pervious version. Hence this. The information coming from the ground might update 10-15 times in 24 hours. The news wires might get a dribble of jpegs in that time. The BBC must be clear on its image attribution, so we don’t end up with one crying old lady symbolising destruction many different towns.
And ‘Rottypup’, wtf is that all about? It’s laughable that someone so pro Israel would align themselves with the most Germanic of hounds, a.k.a the butcher’s dog. And as it’s war, Churchill crops up.. What’s not to like, American Mother, defeated Hitler, coined ‘Iron Curtain’, admired by Dubya, on record as pro-Israel. Off record as a lot of other things.
I’d be interested to know why you describe Biased BBC as a “bunch of nutters”. Any evidence to support that assertion?
None apart from perhaps this definition: ‘A Nutter (or nut) is a person obsessed with a particular item/sport/concept to the point of knowing a maddening amount about the said topic’. This is what I was alluding to. (from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutter#Obsessives)
But clearly you’re is not alone in thinking the BBC’s coverage biased towards one side as a lot of the comments from regular usershere show. I think someone from the BBBC or a similar organisation came into see how News Online was run for a day sometime last year. They left still believing that the BBC has an agenda, but at least there’d been some dialogue and explanation. As people’s opinions of the BBC’s (and other MSM) coverage rise during times of conflict perhaps they should look doing something like this again?
Another Disclaimer: I don’t work for BBC News.
Just looking around the various BBC blogs, there’s endless tirades of criticism directed at the BBC. Virtually every post of the editors blog is full of people bitching about things. I don’t believe the BBC has an agenda, I just think they’re in an impossible situation, and occasionally make mistakes. BBC News’s images that are used for “generic” news items could do with a lot of work – For example I’m fed up of seeing this stupid image (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41783000/jpg/_41783934_computerone203.jpg) used over and over again almost every time an article about hackers, viruses or similar is written…
I find it highly disturbing that you are more offended by the word “raghead” than by images of people being murdered by jihadists.
I’m sorry that you suck but it’s not my fault. The RAGHEADS MURDERED INNOCENT CHILDREN. Have you heard, out of that purported 1.5 billion, even ONE who deplored the death of these children? You choose to make an issue of the perjorative term instead of the murdered children. You’re as bad as them.
You really do suck.
Rastaman
http://www.islamanazi.com
He is discussing the B-BBC people, not the murder of children. Surely the way the B-BBC people present themselves is important. If they want to be taken remotely seriously, using emotive adjectives and stupid pictures of dogs is not the way to go about it. Looking at the BBC objectively, without allowing personal views of issues get in the way is the way to go about it.
Rastaman, how can he be as bad as ‘them’ (assuming ‘them’ are the people who MURDERED INNOCENT CHILDREN) – you’re equating murder with writing an opinion on a blog about how the anti-BBC groups presents themselves.
Ed
‘Name’, I said “it’s hard to take seriously…” as in view his posts with any degree of objectivity, (though you may feel the same about mine). Where did I say I was offended? I just think it’s a poor
choice of words. But hey, he’s angry, it’s his blog, so at the end of the he can say what he likes, as can I.
What I am interested in is trying to understand people’s views of the BBC News’ coverage of the current situation. From my experience UK viewers (who pay for the BBC so are its customers) calls to the BBC
during the Iraq war were split almost equally in saying we’re either too pro-western or too pro-iraqi. I’ll wager it’ll be something similar during this conflict – again, a guess.
I think it’s critcal that BBC News has the highest journalistic standards but also that it comes out from behind the black gates of Television Centre and actually explains to people what it’s doing and
try to enter into some sort of a dialogue. This http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4650000/newsid_4653400/ 4653464.stm and this http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/ are an attempt at that. Even though I work in a non news part of the Corporation I still have an opinion of it’s processes and products.