Has BBC lost any credibility with the participants of A2K?

Well, setanta, hope springs eternal. perception has become one of those studies in which you wait to see how stupid he can get. And he doesn't disappoint.

His little slogan sort of says it all: totally meaningless and fraught with narciccism.

"You will always have war until you knock the human nature out of the human race. ...Perception"

Lather was thirty years old today,
They took away all of his toys.
His mother sent newspaper clippings to him,
About his old friends who'd stopped being boys.
There was Harwitz E. Green, just turned thirty-three,
His leather chair waits at the bank.
And Seargent Dow Jones, twenty-seven years old,
Commanding his very own tank.
But Lather still finds it a nice thing to do,
To lie about nude in the sand,
Drawing pictures of mountains that look like bumps,
And thrashing the air with his hands.

Not stupid, sick.

SetantaWrote:

God you're tedious, Perception . . . why don't you spend about 20 or 30 years reading, learning rhetorical technique, and learning how to judge the value of a source--then it might be interesting to debate you. Over the last month, all you've offered is contentious clap-trap, and then you wanna start play-ground arguments with those who show up. What a waste of time you've become--and i actually used to think you couldn't get any worse.

Well done----those are biting words----I didn't mind odds of 5 or 6 to one but when the odds jump to 20 to one, then it is time to retire and get a life. Bye for now--can't say that I will miss all you lovely friendly tollerant people. Now you can to being a back slapping support group-----from the treatment you have given me anyone even thinking about a dissenting opinion will think again and just leave. It's marvelous how you howl about your right to express your views no matter how insulting to the target, but you can not tollerate my dissent. Just another example of the lefties talking with forked tongue.

Now, why's ever'body allus pickin' on perc? When it comes ta slings and arrows, a certain group around here seems ta do most of the flingin'. I ain't saying some ain't deservin' of a poke or two, but some does a bunch more pokin' than others. Ain't much sense in bein' tolerant if yer only tolerant of folks ya agree with.

Timber, at the risk of repeating myself . . .





Take a look at the threads Perception has started of late, consider the exegesis . . . the purpose is obviously to stir the turd--you might apply your standards of tolerance to Perception as well as anyone else here . . .

BBC lost a wee bit of credibility for me during the Iraq war as their willingness to editorizalize became more apparant to me.

This is not to say I think them any worse than other news outlets, just that I don't think them much better anymore.

In any case, it matters little to me because editorializing is obvious and I've long ignored it.

I would broach the subject of the personal insults, but that would be hypocritical of me at this point. Instead, I will stay on topic and say that I read the BBC online every day and find it to be a good source of news. Not like "The Gaurdian" which holds about the same credibility as the "National Enquirer" with me...

Timber: I think there's a problem when you intervene but are non-specific. Why don't you follow up swiftly when you believe a poster is out of line? Directly to that poster? A kind of aw-gee broad brush approach tends to cloud rather than clear the air. Instead, a specific comment, letting us know which words and phrases have crossed the line, would be very helpful.

Well, Tartarin, I figure the broad brush approach is often more appropriate. Nobody needs to be told what is or is not acceptable ... but some folks need a little reminder once in a while to remain civil and to avoid playing flame games ... neither one side nor the other more often is guilt free ... just a "Hey there". And ya gotta admit, perc gets picked on a lot (though he often sets himself up for it).
Now, re The BBC ... heck, any news source has its own editorial agenda; that's what sells advertising. I run both the Reuters and the BBC tickers on my big monitor just about all the time, along with a financial ticker, and I have a few information alert services which pop up with notices. I subscribe to several information gathering and analysis sites, of varying political bent, and frequent the websites of many others. No one news source is to be relied upon, IMO. A measure of the worth of a news article often is how broadly it is covered, and how rapidly it is picked up by, and whether or not it is expanded on by other services. An awful lot of "News" never makes "The News" ... ya gotta hunt it down.

Perception. I don't know how much you use the BBC and it's various outputs but I live with it every day. Like anything else the BBC is not perfect, but it does a very good job in many fields.



The BBC does not have a monoply of tv news in the UK.
BBC TV ch1 a general mixed programing channel has its News Progs
BBC 24 News is a rolling news channel
ITN is another 24 hour rolling news channel & also provides news progs for ITV, the premier general programming channel with adverts, plus Ch 4 & CH 5, both mixed prog channels.
Sky TV also runs a 24 hour rolling news channel
All of these are UK broadcasters

Then we have CNN 24 hours of news, but it's so fragmented I got fed up with it.

The BBC has---------------
at least 6 national TV networks
7 national radio networks
regional opt outs
god knows how many local radio stations.
It has probably the largest web site in the world.
It is entertainer, educationalist, newsmonger, sports reporter, publisher and so on and so forth

As to its finances, each householder in the UK with a color tv pays the bbc about $160 a year for its services. No commercials to plague us or demand what goes into tv /radio progs. Having worked for the BBC and other UK broadcasters, I'm pretty aware to what goes on
,

Oldandknew wrote:

Perception. I don't know how much you use the BBC and it's various outputs but I live with it every day. Like anything else the BBC is not perfect, but it does a very good job in many fields.

Thanks for your response--there was a time(many years actually ---bout 40 I guess) when I thought the BBC news hour was the best possible news reporting and wished that ours was half as good----it was factual in the most elegant cultured way and totally unbiased----but then along came the public debate about the 2nd gulf war and since the UK was deeply involved I started listening to the BBC again. Something was very wrong----most of the reporting was biased against the war and they had now set themselves up as the opposition against Blair. Then the war started---same thing only worse. So bad in fact that one of their own reporters blasted them publicly much same way as their own Susan Watts did when they pressured her to corroborate Gilligans Story. The BBC hour on NPR today reported much the same thing and when they asked their own guest--Stoddard I think his name was---this guy said that BBC would be embarrassed and that Blair would probably come out of it OK---this is after the inquiry is over---of course everybody is holding their breath because they don't know how far Lord Hutton will go and whether it be a whitewash or nuclear bomb.

My question to you is: don't you get a bit queasy when the News Voice of the UK accuses the PM of murder which all agree is exactly what it did. Should any news organization be allowed to become the prosecutor, judge and executioner?

The family of Dr Kelly have told the world that Gilligan betrayed his trust because he couldn't even recognize what he had said.

BTW I think you made a slip on the money charged per year for each color tv set. Isn't it 160 lbs--which is about $250. Most people here could buy a new TV for that money so to me it is outrageous to pay that much for damaged(biased news editorial)goods.

I agree that their news hour is still factual but it seems to have lost the cultured voice in some instances.

So, the press should not question elected officials?
Still waiting for your explanation of how Ashcroft is enacting "democracy at its finest."

Perception. 1st the tv licence is £104 per annum.
29pence a day, about $160 a year. http://www.ciao.co.uk/British_Broadcasting_TV_licence__Review_5010974 Sure I can buy 2 tv sets for that money, but so what.
We brits pay it cos it's the way we do it. Remember who pays for the tv commmercials that pay for nbc or cbs or the other channels. How many cents go on the priceof a box of Kellogs cerial so that they can buy time on the networks
My daily newspaper costs 50pence. I don't now what the NY Times or the Washington Post costs
There is no such thing as free lunch.

The BBC does the job it does. If it offends some people that's life. But at least it does not bow down to goverment or commerce about how it does it job. It reports news and events, plays back comments from those that know. If politician #1 says ABC & then politician #2 says XYZ, both opinions are broadcast. It's called equality of opinion
People in this country voiced opposition to the war in Iraq, as did many Americans, are you saying those opinions should not enter the public domain ?
We are a democracy & we are allowed to disagree with one another.

Oldandknew Wrote:

But at least it does not bow down to goverment or commerce about how it does it job.

I was going to ask a question but you just answered it with the above sentence. You believe Mr. Davies (Chairman of the BBC governors) did the right thing when he risked the wonderful reputation that BBC has acquired by backing Gilligan without checking his story.

Hobit

I'll attempt engaging you in a civil discussion one time.


So, the press should not question elected officials?

Of course the press should ask the toughest questions possible but then they should just report what that official has said verbatim. They should not add their interpretation in order to influence the reader or listener.

This is my opinion of how journalism should work----editorial comment is something entirely different from news reporting.

I just Googled the Dem debates which must be just over. ABC had the first coverage -- it was brief, apparently covered the bases,and seemed to have that suggestive style, that hot pant that accompanies most TV news, suggesting drama where there was none. When I look at other US sources at that time (about 15 minutes ago) they were writing from the same copy.

I check BBCNews and found a more literate, cooler, better organized and fuller report but much the same in other ways. The thoroughness of the BBC report was really because it was writing for a different audience which perhaps was less familiar with the territory...

Switched back to see if anything new had come into Google and found a Washington Post report which was much longer and seems much more thorough, interesting.

Indeed, although Faux doesn't seem to operate this way, neither does CNN. Now, if the reporter believes the elected official is lying, is he not correct in digging further? In addition, if the elected official has given an answer that contradicts answers given by others, is the reporter not remiss in not letting the public know that the elected official has been contradicted by other sources?
Still waiting on an answer to the Ashcroft question.

I don't think anyone would disagree that editorializing and reporting should be kept separate. But we seem to have gotten out of the habit in this country. Getting away from the media and talking about ourselves, I've noticed that when people are asked poll questions they seem to answer with what they think "should be" rather than what they think "is."

Of course the main problem with the media now is that most of them are not news sources but entertainment sources using "news" banners. Certainly Fox and CNN and the Boring Three fall into that category.

It would be interesting to know the extent to which journalism schools deal with this issue -- and how.