Reply to: The Bbc

[Peoplesoft bloke]

oh and
Murdoch can get knotted - Sky is awful imho.
Everyone thinks the BBC is biased but often in different directions which makes me think that while they aren't perfect they aren't too bad.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

There was quite a long item on BBC radio news about this last week before it took place. A guy from the English Moron League was interviewed and put his very weak case for holding an event desgned to provoke trouble. The reporter was trying to investigate claims that much of the membership of the English Morons was the same as some orgaised football hooligans - when he sought a contact for the footie thugs he waa given the same name and number as the one for the EDL

[minestrone]

SKY is an national broadcaster, the BBC an international one. Do you really want the world to know everytime there is a bit of a scuffle with 2 bus loads of the English Defence League?

[bobhope]

Shame, as a child, I used to think that the BBC was great: independent, high quality stuff being produced.

That was a long time ago.

[PRC1964]

In the 90s when the OJ Simpson trial was at an end and the jury were coming back - even in this country everyone wanted to know if he would be sent down or get away...

The verdict was due at exactly 6pm UK time. After the credits for the six o'clock news ran, the newsreader said something like... "And straight away, we are now going to take you live to.... the labour party conference."

I kid you not. They went live to the conference to show a recorded, I repeat, recorded speech by leader of the opposition Tony Blair earlier that day. It wasn't even a live speech. I think they mentioned OJ's acquital in passing on the 3rd news item.

It was like they went out of their way not to report on something that was clearly newsworthy to a lot of viewers. A secondary factor was that at the time (mid 90s), the BBC were seen as very, very friendly with the labour party. The labour spin doctors (in opposition remember) had been pestering the TV news channels to ignore the OJ verdict, but the BBC were the only one's that obliged.

Linky link http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96jun/blair/blair.htm

American who played a game we don't or leader of the UK opposition (and future PM)?

I'm with the British Broadcasting Corporation on this one.

[Gonzo]

Seems fair enough to me. What possible interest is there in the inevitable confirmation of how corrupt the septic legal system is? Two non-stories, so they went with the british one.

The BBC is politically biased I agree, but in this case I would have done the same thing. In fact, I wouldn't have bothered covering the OJ "trial" at all.

I have to agree.

The OJ Simpson trial may have been interesting in a tabloid voyeuristic sense but had no impact on the life of people in Britain and so I would question why it would be an item in the main news in the UK.

As for this story I am not sure that a couple of hundred nutcases getting a bit vocal one afternoon is a national story. I like this bit

The BBC's Dominic Casciani said police filled two double-decker buses with protesters from the English Defence League and transported them to Lancaster Circus.

"Both buses were filled with right wing protesters," he said.

"Police made them hold their protest in an underpass at Lancaster Circus, where no-one could see them."

Not that I am saying the BBC is perfect. Charlotte Green was interviewing a Conservative spokesman about some spending proposals on the Today programme last week and all she was interested in was getting the line out

"So your proposals would mean job-cuts?"

That's all she was interested in.

But having said that, try living somewhere where there is no equivalent to the BBC and you will really start to appreciate it.

[dang65]

so why when there are race riots on the streets of Birmingham does the BBC fail to report on them

You might want to check the definition of "race riots" there. As far as I can tell, it was a little group of those "extreme right wing" retards (i.e. the right wing types who like to dress up all hard and embarass the rest of us by claiming that they are English) being confronted by a number of middle class people who are really most put out by the whole thing and have nothing better to do.

Why anyone would want to give publicity to either of them is beyond me.

[PM-Junkie]

In the 90s when the OJ Simpson trial was at an end and the jury were coming back - even in this country everyone wanted to know if he would be sent down or get away...

The verdict was due at exactly 6pm UK time. After the credits for the six o'clock news ran, the newsreader said something like... "And straight away, we are now going to take you live to.... the labour party conference."

I kid you not. They went live to the conference to show a recorded, I repeat, recorded speech by leader of the opposition Tony Blair earlier that day. It wasn't even a live speech. I think they mentioned OJ's acquital in passing on the 3rd news item.

It was like they went out of their way not to report on something that was clearly newsworthy to a lot of viewers. A secondary factor was that at the time (mid 90s), the BBC were seen as very, very friendly with the labour party. The labour spin doctors (in opposition remember) had been pestering the TV news channels to ignore the OJ verdict, but the BBC were the only one's that obliged.

Linky link http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96jun/blair/blair.htm

Seems fair enough to me. What possible interest is there in the inevitable confirmation of how corrupt the septic legal system is? Two non-stories, so they went with the british one.

The BBC is politically biased I agree, but in this case I would have done the same thing. In fact, I wouldn't have bothered covering the OJ "trial" at all.

[Sysman]

Linky link http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96jun/blair/blair.htm

More Geoffrey Wheatcroft: The BBC wants public funds to fritter on free-market pay

Once upon a time the BBC was rather a puritanical sort of organisation, and I don't just mean the stern Sir John Reith's insistence that adultery was a sacking offence. Nobody used to join the corporation to get rich. That didn't stop it attracting plenty of talent. I well remember how BBC traineeships were the hottest, most sought-after ambition for graduates in the late 1960s. They were ambitious, that is, to make good programmes, have fun and, no doubt, meet glamorous, liberated girls – but not to make a pile.

I remember a college acquaintance getting a job at the Beeb. Back then it really was a prestige job but the pay wasn't good at all. If I remember correctly he was starting on less than 2K p.a. at a time when a typical graduate would get 2.5 - 3K.

And young James Murdoch's attack on the Beeb and Ofcom:

he BBC news website, argued Murdoch, is preventing commercial news organisations from investing in news, with potentially dire consequences for society and democracy. "The [BBC] news operation is creating enormous problems for the independent news business and it has to be dealt with," he said. "The BBC should not be in the business of competing with professional journalists. The consequences [for] independent journalists is probably the most urgent one to deal with." News International's papers are struggling to make money from their websites and Murdoch is considering introducing charges. But that's difficult when the BBC provides online news and other services free.

[centurian]

so why when there are race riots on the streets of Birmingham does the BBC fail to report on them (they did have the anniversary of the Girl Guides though, whichbwas nice), yet SKY had it as a lead story

In the 90s when the OJ Simpson trial was at an end and the jury were coming back - even in this country everyone wanted to know if he would be sent down or get away...

The verdict was due at exactly 6pm UK time. After the credits for the six o'clock news ran, the newsreader said something like... "And straight away, we are now going to take you live to.... the labour party conference."

I kid you not. They went live to the conference to show a recorded, I repeat, recorded speech by leader of the opposition Tony Blair earlier that day. It wasn't even a live speech. I think they mentioned OJ's acquital in passing on the 3rd news item.

It was like they went out of their way not to report on something that was clearly newsworthy to a lot of viewers. A secondary factor was that at the time (mid 90s), the BBC were seen as very, very friendly with the labour party. The labour spin doctors (in opposition remember) had been pestering the TV news channels to ignore the OJ verdict, but the BBC were the only one's that obliged.

Linky link http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96jun/blair/blair.htm

[Ruse]

nope no apologies needed i watched the bbc last night and continually flicked between it and sky no sign of it. They may have posted a piece to the website that was deemed not suitable for terrestrial though

Ah ok fair enough.

[mrdonuts]

nope no apologies needed i watched the bbc last night and continually flicked between it and sky no sign of it. They may have posted a piece to the website that was deemed not suitable for terrestrial though

[Ruse]

so why when there are race riots on the streets of Birmingham does the BBC fail to report on them (they did have the anniversary of the Girl Guides though, whichbwas nice), yet SKY had it as a lead story

On 2nd thoughts mrdonuts perhaps you weren't looking closely enough

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...ds/8239818.stm

Apologies to the BBC

[mrdonuts]

rather than being afraid i was wondering if they just want to look at the UK through rose coloured glassses and believe that the way the country is going/gone is working fine

[Ruse]

so why when there are race riots on the streets of Birmingham does the BBC fail to report on them (they did have the anniversary of the Girl Guides though, whichbwas nice), yet SKY had it as a lead story

Because the BBC is afraid to cover it. As a Public Service Broadcaster they absolutely should be covering it.

I wouldn't be the first to suggest that the BBC is in fact quite often overtly political.