Its been said before but its truly amazing that the BBC has got this way, its something I only really noticed around the ramp-up to the Brexit vote and when they started giving UKIP a platform. It must have been happening before then but it really has started to become more clickbaity (as has news in general) and its pretty depressing considering its supposed to be respected media giant.
Since they edited the headline I'll post a nearly-full version of the screenshot I took (just cropped the notification and navigation bars from my phone). Resized so as not to over-huge-image the forum.
Its been said before but its truly amazing that the BBC has got this way, its something I only really noticed around the ramp-up to the Brexit vote and when they started giving UKIP a platform. It must have been happening before then but it really has started to become more clickbaity (as has news in general) and its pretty depressing considering its supposed to be respected media giant.
Cameron started the changes to the board in 2011(?) and 2014 and it's been trickling down into the gutter ever since.
Its been said before but its truly amazing that the BBC has got this way, its something I only really noticed around the ramp-up to the Brexit vote and when they started giving UKIP a platform. It must have been happening before then but it really has started to become more clickbaity (as has news in general) and its pretty depressing considering its supposed to be respected media giant.
Cameron started the changes to the board in 2011(?) and 2014 and it's been trickling down into the gutter ever since.
I'd say it was more 2008-2009 when you started to see a real shift with the BBC News organisation and the quality of its reporting degrading. From basic writing errors, to creating publishing platforms to extreme political right wing beliefs but then trying to mask it by having weird fluff piece diversity articles that would read like an outright parody from the Onion or Private Eye.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I guess people like his work enough to brush the murder at least a little bit to the side.
Swedish public television talked for 3-4 minutes about the music career and then said something like he had a dark side and then 20 seconds of domestic abuse history and the murder.
Its been said before but its truly amazing that the BBC has got this way, its something I only really noticed around the ramp-up to the Brexit vote and when they started giving UKIP a platform. It must have been happening before then but it really has started to become more clickbaity (as has news in general) and its pretty depressing considering its supposed to be respected media giant.
Cameron started the changes to the board in 2011(?) and 2014 and it's been trickling down into the gutter ever since.
I'd say it was more 2008-2009 when you started to see a real shift with the BBC News organisation and the quality of its reporting degrading. From basic writing errors, to creating publishing platforms to extreme political right wing beliefs but then trying to mask it by having weird fluff piece diversity articles that would read like an outright parody from the Onion or Private Eye.
Its been said before but its truly amazing that the BBC has got this way, its something I only really noticed around the ramp-up to the Brexit vote and when they started giving UKIP a platform. It must have been happening before then but it really has started to become more clickbaity (as has news in general) and its pretty depressing considering its supposed to be respected media giant.
Cameron started the changes to the board in 2011(?) and 2014 and it's been trickling down into the gutter ever since.
I'd say it was more 2008-2009 when you started to see a real shift with the BBC News organisation and the quality of its reporting degrading. From basic writing errors, to creating publishing platforms to extreme political right wing beliefs but then trying to mask it by having weird fluff piece diversity articles that would read like an outright parody from the Onion or Private Eye.
In January 2016, the team behind the BBC's Daily Politics show co-ordinated the on-air resignation of Labour politician Stephen Doughty shortly before the start of Prime Minister's Questions. The show's output editor Andrew Alexander wrote a (later deleted) blog post for the BBC website explaining how this had come about. Alexander wrote: "We knew his resignation just before PMQs would be a dramatic moment with big political impact". The timing of the announcement ensured Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was caught off guard. BBC News political editor Laura Kuenssberg "sealed the deal" with Doughty before filming, even though it appeared to viewers that the resignation had been unplanned. A camera crew even filmed Doughty and Kuenssberg arriving at the studio together in advance of the announcement, this to televise later on news bulletins
just off the top of my head, I'll try to find more specific to what I was saying once I've finished work.
It would have helped those of us heathens not in the UK/EU to understand if the following context had been uncluded:
Leave EU's website has been suspended after the EU registry behind the domain address blocked a move from the Brexiteers to switch its registration to Ireland to avoid losing the .eu suffix.
Kuenssberg is pretty dreadful and very much a Tory mouthpiece, which isn't unusual for BBC political editors but is still frustrating
The BBC tends to have its political news team become a mouth piece for the ruling Government party.
However, what The BBC has historically done isn't direct slander or open bias to an agenda, what they like to do is devalue particular articles or stories so that regardless of content or interest they look insignificant compared to other stories.
Take most interesting articles on the idea of race or gender, they present the headline of the article as a quote the idea being to make it seem more relatable. However, what it does is subconsciously separates the article as not being "as important" as the general headline news.
In addition when there is an article that has a group, union or protest that goes against the government, usually The BBC will put a comments section that ends up being littered with general extremist views or very pro conservative ideals.
The one thing the entire BBC comments section can agree on is the clear and unconscionable bias displayed by the BBC for and against every single issue and/or party.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+16
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
[hollow screaming intensifies]
The comment section of every website ought to be thrown into the sun.
The comments sections on every news site are a cesspit. I dunno how much to blame the BBC can be for what people who don’t work there say.
You could certainly argue that they should get rid of comments sections.
I dont blame the BBC for the comments of idiots. However, I do blame the BBC for deliberately putting a comments section on selected articles like its designed to torpedo the issue
The breaking news story on Phil Spector’s death was published with a headline that did not meet our editorial standards. This was changed within minutes and we also deleted a tweet that had gone out automatically with the original headline. We apologise for this error.
Our coverage of the story across BBC News has been clear that Phil Spector was convicted of the murder of Lana Clarkson and had a long history of violence and abuse.
To be fair the second part of that is correct and well over half the report on the 6 o clock news was about his crimes and terrible reputation. Even the musical legacy half put a heavy weight on the acts rather than the production.
But honestly how didn't the editor on the day see that coming or did someone just hit publish without checking first? It's hardly red hot news that you've got to beat sky to the punch on.
I think before I’d believe that the BBC was deliberately torpedoing issues by including comments sections on only certain articles I’d have to see some sort of statistical evidence.
I’m not saying they aren’t, but it’s the sort of thing that needs evidence for me. Regardless, I don’t think it’s that important, as the only people who read, let alone write in, comments sections are not to be trusted with sharp objects. It’s a much smaller issue than the general bias of visible political reporters in the news organisation.
I don’t need to be shown statistical evidence to know that government ministers have been getting relatively easy rides in interviews, as I can see the way Marr handles, say, Sturgeon and Johnson in the same same show, and can see him be more deferential to the latter.
I think before I’d believe that the BBC was deliberately torpedoing issues by including comments sections on only certain articles I’d have to see some sort of statistical evidence.
I’m not saying they aren’t, but it’s the sort of thing that needs evidence for me. Regardless, I don’t think it’s that important, as the only people who read, let alone write in, comments sections are not to be trusted with sharp objects. It’s a much smaller issue than the general bias of visible political reporters in the news organisation.
I don’t need to be shown statistical evidence to know that government ministers have been getting relatively easy rides in interviews, as I can see the way Marr handles, say, Sturgeon and Johnson in the same same show, and can see him be more deferential to the latter.
The bolded is true but it's still a piece of the current struggle - comments sections help reinforce fringe elements by allowing them to see their particular crazy being repeated ad nauseum
Posts
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
W1A INTENSIFIES
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Steam | XBL
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Steam | XBL
Steam | XBL
Steam | XBL
His list of failures goes far beyond TV shows.
Cameron started the changes to the board in 2011(?) and 2014 and it's been trickling down into the gutter ever since.
I'd say it was more 2008-2009 when you started to see a real shift with the BBC News organisation and the quality of its reporting degrading. From basic writing errors, to creating publishing platforms to extreme political right wing beliefs but then trying to mask it by having weird fluff piece diversity articles that would read like an outright parody from the Onion or Private Eye.
Swedish public television talked for 3-4 minutes about the music career and then said something like he had a dark side and then 20 seconds of domestic abuse history and the murder.
Two time popular vote looser Donald Trump?
I was more thinking of the huge string of failed businesses but yeah sure that counts too.
just off the top of my head, I'll try to find more specific to what I was saying once I've finished work.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Either wanting Irexit to happen so Britain can have it's own blackjack and hookers, or grift.
Or both.
The BBC tends to have its political news team become a mouth piece for the ruling Government party.
However, what The BBC has historically done isn't direct slander or open bias to an agenda, what they like to do is devalue particular articles or stories so that regardless of content or interest they look insignificant compared to other stories.
Take most interesting articles on the idea of race or gender, they present the headline of the article as a quote the idea being to make it seem more relatable. However, what it does is subconsciously separates the article as not being "as important" as the general headline news.
In addition when there is an article that has a group, union or protest that goes against the government, usually The BBC will put a comments section that ends up being littered with general extremist views or very pro conservative ideals.
You could certainly argue that they should get rid of comments sections.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I dont blame the BBC for the comments of idiots. However, I do blame the BBC for deliberately putting a comments section on selected articles like its designed to torpedo the issue
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaint/philspector
To be fair the second part of that is correct and well over half the report on the 6 o clock news was about his crimes and terrible reputation. Even the musical legacy half put a heavy weight on the acts rather than the production.
But honestly how didn't the editor on the day see that coming or did someone just hit publish without checking first? It's hardly red hot news that you've got to beat sky to the punch on.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
I’m not saying they aren’t, but it’s the sort of thing that needs evidence for me. Regardless, I don’t think it’s that important, as the only people who read, let alone write in, comments sections are not to be trusted with sharp objects. It’s a much smaller issue than the general bias of visible political reporters in the news organisation.
I don’t need to be shown statistical evidence to know that government ministers have been getting relatively easy rides in interviews, as I can see the way Marr handles, say, Sturgeon and Johnson in the same same show, and can see him be more deferential to the latter.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
The bolded is true but it's still a piece of the current struggle - comments sections help reinforce fringe elements by allowing them to see their particular crazy being repeated ad nauseum