Are the BBC aviators?

[wokkameister]

A few weeks ago, I made an off the cuff remark about the BBC. Upon returning from det, I had a 200 word diatrabe in my inbox spouting how important the BBC is from one of it's employees.

This morning, when I mentioned the fact that the two UK rotary lost had originally been reported as US by the BBC, I again provoked an angry response from the pro-BBC lobby.

I have no particular axe to grind, but it would seem any critisism of the Beeb on here is completely verboten. Maybe we should all find a journos chatroom and move in there?

I know there are journo's on here, such as Jack who share a lot with our community, but this 'BBC Bias' is winding me up. It's bad enough we have to pay a licence tax for the rubbish.

Any one else got a view?

[gar170]

Its got worse since all this 24 hr news crap started They are so desperate to to get some story they are to quick to report little snippets of information rather than report a story. At least when the news was set at a certain time like 6 9 10 they had time to investigate the story rather than just let out hear say

[spocla]

Yes, I have. The BBC thinks that producing one or two decent programmes per week gives it both the justification for the iniquitous licence fee and carte blanche to flood the rest of the schedule with purile rubbish. This is typified by misinformed left leaning "news", exorbitant salaries for camp, talentless purveyors of filthy inuendo and a general repudiation that programmes are being dumbed down! As if to confirm all this, the BBC offers the following gems in tonight's line up:
Help! My Dog's as Fat as Me (and probably less smelly, one imagines)
'Allo 'Allo (might have been jocular once, but not 20th time around)
EastEnders ( for a whole hour is cruel and unusual punishment)
Graham Norton Uncut ( how many times can one re-work camp oral sex gags-no pun intended)
YES, I can switch off or over BUT I can't switch off the licence fee (a.k.a. BBC Tax).

[barnstormer1968]

I have come to totally dis-trust BBC TV news, It seems that whole stories can be based solely on speculation or guess work. And the fact that a "royal" reporter may be stood outside Clarence house for example, simply doesn't add any weight or truth to a story.
If I want to know the fullest from any story, I listen to BBC radio 4, I find it reports as accurately as possible, and spends a decent amount of time on each item of news (by which I mean world affairs, not celebrity gossip)
On Pprune, we can be a bit over critical sometimes, I.E. if reporting on an MR Nimrod, a pic of an R is shown, then that's understandable (but not accurate in these "google" day's. But to show the wrong aircraft altogether, or a helicopter instead of a fixed wing, or as recently shown, a Soviet aircraft instead of R.A.F. (Oh yes, not forgetting ALL rotary is Army!!).

[Roadster280]

The BBC, like it or not, commands worldwide respect, and has a reputation, again, like it or not, for unbiassed reporting. I've travelled all over the place, and often people tell me that they listen to the BBC to get the facts. I feel a sense of national pride. I don't fly BA anymore, but I used to get a kick out of sitting on a BA 777, and hearing shortly after takeoff "and now, from London, the news from the BBC". It meant something.
However, I agree with the point that the facts of an event should be confirmed, before announcing what turns out to be completely the wrong news. It seems to me that the rush to get a "story" out is more important than the accuracy of that story. If the BBC has a reputation for unbiassed accuracy, then it ought to strive to maintain it.
However, a more disturbing thought for me, is that the change in British society as a whole over the last three decades or so, is being reflected in the BBC. Those of us who serve, or have served, perhaps hold more traditional views than those who are in the media, and thus there will be conflict.
Personally, I would prefer the BBC maintain the same standards as the Times or Telegraph.

[Impiger]

Sadly, I have to agree with the underlying sentiment here. BBC Television is no longer a world class act. It has some very good bits but the majority ain't worth watching. BBC News and documentaries are both particularly poor. I can only comment on the things I know about - but whenever such topics are covered by the News or Panorama or Newsnight they are invariably misrepresented and unbalanced. Therefore, I suspect that when I watch subjects which are not within my knowledge base I'm being fed the same tendentious line.

Come on Beeb journalists defend your lack of balance!

Oh - I would say the Radio 4 crowd seem to do a significantly better job than the televisual team.

[PICKS135]

Have to say was pretty disgusted with Ceefax this morning. Top story some pongo has dumped his bird. Second story 2 UK helicopters collide:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

RIP People

[Albert Driver]

In my view the BBC should be broken up.

BBC TV, which has sunk in quality way below acceptable levels, should be privatised and sold to the highest bidder.

BBC Radio, which is still world class and retains a worthwhile international reputation, should be retained and funded directly. The TV licence fee could then be scrapped.

[Vox Populi]

Valid criticism is fine, but there's a tendency on this forum to lord it over every little mistake as if the whole BBC is incompetent. It's worth remembering that every aspect of BBC News is broadcast and open to immediate and unchecked scrutiny...mistakes will be made of course, but some sense of proportion is required. In my experience mistakes were often made in the RAF (tears/fights/sulks in the debrief anyone?). However the (smaller) errors generally stayed within the confines of the building, rather then get broadcast to the nation.

This morning BBC no doubt reported what the international news agencies in Iraq reported to them...and corrected it when the MOD corrected the story. It was obviously in the MOD's interests not to correct the story before kinform to minimise the period between families learning a UK fatality had occurred and them finding out it is/isn't their loved one.

My sincere condolences to all concerned.

[The Swinging Monkey]

wokkameister
Yes, I have an opinion, and it pretty much mirrors yours.

I am sick to death of being given innacurate cr&p from the BBC. The reporting is poor, it is inaccurate, and I think half of it is just made up. It does nothing but cause unnecessary anxiety to people when stories, such as the Pumas, occurs. I too read it this morning and the BBC clearly stated that it was 2 American helos that had crashed. Shame on you BBC, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Roadster280
Once upon a time the BBC did command respect, but those days have long gone. The BBC is no better (and no worse) than Sky, ITV or anyone else for that matter. Its all rubbish.

Rant over, sorry. Its been a bad week and I'm feeling a bit down at the moment, very sorry. Maybe I'll go and have a large glass of grouse!

Kind regards to all
TSM

[Roland Pulfrew]

And just out of interest why does everry BBC 'reporter' now get a "Special Correspondant" title?:ugh:

And I am utterly fed up of the "opinions" of the special correspondants. Who cares? Just report the facts fer fecks sake, and make sure the facts are in fact, fact.

[Sentry Agitator]

First of all I would also like to express for sincere condolences for those lost.

With regards to the BBC, ITV and Sky ....can you please just stop trying to sensationalise everything. I too am just so fed up with the speculation of who has done what to whom and maybe when.....I just don't care!

Give me the facts of what has happened. If you don't know at the time the story breaks then tell us so. If you want to wait for further details before breaking an incorrect story then better still. Oh, and try to get somebody who actually knows about the military when you get the 'special correspondant' in for the insight knowledge.

I'd much rather have an accurate report than this incomplete sensationalist borrox that is more about getting the viewing figures at the earliest possible juncture than give a hoot about who the story is likely to offend or most importantly worry!

Ban 24hr news channels is what I say.

SA

[c130jbloke]

The BBC is paid for by taxes. Taxes = government, government = bunch of Labour spinners who are only interested in looking good and god help anbody / thing which gets in the way. Therefore, IMHO when it comes to news, they will say what their bosses tell them to....

[Focks 2]

Its got worse since all this 24 hr news crap started
Jo Blogs must have his video podcast before he gets to the next shop because its his rules, his choice, and thats the lifestyle choice that he's made. :ugh:

[Hot Charlie]

The reporter this morning really got my goat with her comment (about a certain current incident in Iraq) the "the next of kin have been informed so we should have names and pictures within 24 hours". So that's all they're interested in is it? Journalism at its incompetantly insensitive "best".:suspect: :(

[vecvechookattack]

the BBC should leave the news to the professionals. the BBC excels at sports coverage, costume drameas and light armchair theatre....but news...laughable.... and for goodness sake, what is that strawberry blonde chap called Witchell spouting on about? has he ever met one of the Royal Family? Sack the Buffhoon immediately.

[spocla]

Witchell: Prince Charles had that stimper just right!! Who could argue with that.

[PICKS135]

During recent SAR incident Kinloss RCC called up Nimrod and said MOD [PR] have been on the phone and want to know have you any video / stills of the incident.

Couldnt hear Nimrods response

[PompeySailor]

Don't forget that during Gulf 03, on the Ark Royal the "official" channel - the BBC - was dumped for Sky TV, and it was only on orders from above that the receiver was retuned. We had got so fed up with the biased reporting, the idiot reporter they sent to sea with us (ex CBBC, does a cracking line in foot-stamping, fist-clenching tantrums!), and the final nail in the coffin was after the helo collision when they rolled out a complete village idiot to complain about servicing routines!

The BBC are not renowned for their unbiased reporting, that's a fallacy, you only have to look at some of their stories and how they are slanted. They are unfortunately a world power in broadcasting, but everyone I know goes elsewhere for their news these days...

[Dan Gerous]

Haven't had a TV for over 3 years now. Refused to pay for a licence and then be unable to access the programmes I am paying for. Usually watch a bit of sattelite at my Dad's when I visit on a Sunday, and I am totally unimpressed by any of the news channels. It is just the same crud spouted over and over, until the next little snippet comes along. I find I can at least listen to the BBC news, but I find the presenters (jounalists???), on Sky, a bunch of smug gits. One woman presenter in particular, always seems to have a permanent sneer on her face, and they all seem to suffer from slurred speech. There is also the impression that they haven't a clue what they are talking about. Like others have said, I get my news from Radio 4.

[samuraimatt]

I get my news from Radio 4.

That will be BBC Radio 4 then.

[gar170]

The best was during the Falklands when the BBC WORLD SERVICE reported that 3 Para was attacking Goose Green 3 hrs before the paras even got there.
The Argie commander of thr falklands in a interview when asked as to why he did not reforce goose said he thought that even the british wasnt stupid enough to tell them they were coming.
NOW YOU KNOW.

[Almost_done]

Just watched the ITV News at 7pm tonight, in the main report on the Puma crash they used a small shot of a Puma and finished with long and close shots of the junglies landing in Serria Leone.

Ah what is the point!! Will they ever realise that not all Mil Helo's are the same. :ugh:

[barnstormer1968]

That will be BBC Radio 4 then.

I take it that you have never worked for the BBC then.
You may find that the BBC is not very "jointed".
But then if I wanted an aircraft re-fuelled, armed ,and a pilot to fly it for a low level night sortie, I might not get much help from an assortment of snowdrops, MT drivers and cooks.
Having worked for the Beeb, I can tell you there is very little mixing of staff, and the radio four tribe are poles apart from the 24hour news gang

But on the other hand, if you could come up with a scheme to fund the Air Force by licence fee, as per BBC, it would be great. There would be 5 pilot's per aircraft, more aircraft than you could use, load's of stations, and at least 100,000 personnel, (oh, and very cheap, high quality food too).

[TheWizard]

Ah what is the point!! Will they ever realise that not all Mil Helo's are the same.

Simple fact is that they don't care. As long as it fills the slot.
Did anyone notice how the crash news took about 20 seconds and the rest was all about how the Bliar's overseas policy was justified?:hmm:

[RNGrommits]

Its not just the BBC. Just watched the ITN news reporting about the 2 RAF helos, whilst they were showing the Junglies Rapid Roping onto the beach in Sierra Leone. That footage must be 4/5 years old now. Wrong helos, wrong service, wrong bloody country. Do no news agencies employ anyone who has any knowledge of the Armed services? I bet if the story was about BA they wouldn't dare show a virgin aircraft, just cos it's a plane. I lost count of the number of times I worked at RAF Culdrose, and that was normally the west country local TV!

[Rev I. Tin]

Today's Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=WTT2X5LSMZZ4XQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/15/whelicopter115.xml)

'British Army' helicopters despite that photo caption stating the RAF has 33 Pumas.
And 'Pumas are ordinarily operated by the RAF regiment.'

[Wensleydale]

When I was a lad, the BBC news lasted for about 10 minutes. They reported just the news from the studio with occasional reports from their correspondents on the spot. Additional programmes, such as Panorama then took a news story and gave opinion on the story -they were known as "current affairs" programmes. In these days of 24 hour news, the journalists have become more self important, and their opinion is now taken as news - this is furthered by our politicians who now use opinion to "spin" their message rather than let facts get in the way. I despair at the headlines of a "report that will be published later today". It has all become rather mixed up.

The BBC needs to redefine its programmes to allow those of us who just want to hear the facts to do so. Unfortunately the nanny state will not allow this - how dare we make up our own minds when we should be thinking along the same lines as our so called leaders. George Orwell got it right in "1984". Politically correct new speak and Government spin have taken over from giving us the news in its purest form - just the verified facts as they happened. Please BBC, treat us as adults and let us make up our own minds rather than telling us what to think.:*

[Zoom]

I prefer Channel 4 News, mainly because their 7pm news is an hour long so they devote more time to each story and seem to cover each very fully. But I really can't tell if they report more accurately or truthfully than any other channel.

But it does often seem that all TV news programmes get their news from the daily papers. Countless times I have heard 'breaking news' on the lunchtime or early evening TV news programmes and then realised that I read all about it in the DT, which went to press at 10pm the day before.

One piece of BBC TV incompetence sticks in my mind. I was watching live coverage of the appalling events of 9/11 and hopping between BBC and ITV. At about 1.55pm BST ITV reported and showed film of the collapse of the second twin tower, but BBC TV didn't report this event until about 2.05pm BST. It might not seem much but they were 10 minutes behind the rest of the world with their so-called live coverage, and so I watched the rest of this drama on ITV. I felt that this was a major pig's ear by the BBC in the coverage of one of the most significant news events of the modern era.

[unclenelli]

I was in Afghanistan last year on 24 September.
It came over CHAT (only a matter of seconds after the event) that <callsign> reported that <nimrod callsign> had crashed. As we were unaware of <nimrod callsign>, a quick check of the ATO confirmed that it was a Nimrod<type> and based out of <base>.
For the next 6-12 hours we had to endure umpteen f*c*w*ts/experts on Sky News (and BBC) speculating that the only RAF aircraft in Afghanistan that could carry that many people were C130 and CH47.
As I was working with CH47, everyone was desparate to contact their rellies to say they were OK (Minimise kicked in), but the rellies back in Blighty were also subjected to this inaccurate drivel provided by so-called "military experts" (subjecting the local waterboards Sewage Farms to a surge similar to that experienced by the National Grid when Corrie finishes!)
So, to all broadcasters/media:
Find out the facts first, or state that "there are UNCONFIRMED REPORTS that an UK AIRCRAFT has crashed/UK MILITARY PERSONNEL killed." (and do your best to confirm the UK bit first!!!!)
You should all be aware that with the numbers of personnel moving through Brize and Lyneham each year, speculative reports of bullsh1t like this can cause tremendous mayhem/anxiety/panic/unjustified relief amongst quite large populations of the UK (i.e. See Above, the mil population of Lyneham and Odiham areas as opposed to Kinloss!!!!!!!!). Whilst the NOKs in Scotland would have no doubt been aware of where their loved ones were operating, the last thing they need is for the State (or other - in this case Sky) broadcaster to say that it wasn't their loved ones, when in actual fact it was.
In this era of litigation, how long before Mrs Sqauddie sues Daily Blurb/XTV for the stress caused when thay reported that Soldier Squaddie had been killed, only to find out that it was Soldier Grunt instead!!!
You must remember that Joe Public will say whatever they think they saw/you want to hear in order to gain a fast buck. I would urge you broadcasters to await the official MOD announcement (I'm not saying that this announcement will be 100% factual, but it will give you the releasable facts)


OFF TOPIC
And just out of interest why does everry BBC 'reporter' now get a "Special Correspondant" title?

And I am utterly fed up of the "opinions" of the special correspondants. Who cares? Just report the facts fer fecks sake, and make sure the facts are in fact, fact.
Didn't John Irvine get "Tsunami Correspondant" status in Banda Aceh/Thailand because he happened to be on HOLIDAY THERE AT THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I bet the BBC flew him (& Family) home from it)

[anotherthing]

..........was about BA they wouldn't dare show a virgin aircraft, just cos it's a plane..........


A plane is a woodworking tool :}

[Mmmmnice]

After sending a slightly intemperate email complaining about the distress caused to service families (mine included) as a result of shoddy, inaccurate reporting, I was informed that the Beeb was not speculating itself - merely reporting other peoples speculation!! Same result but obviously entirely defensible in the eyes of the BBC..............I rest my case

[A2QFI]

Too much time to fill, too much padding and repetition, uninformed speculation, out of touch 'experts' and so it goes on!
They could save a fortune by not sending a camera crew and reporter to stand outside the Home Office when reporting on John Reid, or to a hospital where some useless footballer is having his metatarsal fixed. Worst to date was an aerial shot, from an expensive helicopter, of a coach taking the British football team (losers!) to the airport from their training ground. Totally irrelevant - it could have been any coach and we couldn't even see the overpaid stubbly wasters who were alleged to be in it anyway!

[forwardassist]

unclenelli

I couldn't agree with you more. During Telic 1, when 849 had their tragic accident, the BBC rolled out the stock footage of the junglies assaulting Sierra Leone with the breaking news of 2 Royal Navy Sea Kings collide, all pax missing presumed dead. You can imagine the dismay this caused at Yeovilton and Plymouth; my wife was with friends' wives and many of them were in pieces. The collective sigh of relief when the facts (that's FACTS, for any hacks out there) finally came out was drowned out by the sorrow from Culdrose who thought they were safe, but weren't.

I hate the media with a passion. The vast majority are not reporting for anything as noble the people, only to further their own ends and be first with BREAKING NEWS, regardless of accuracy.
That has set my Monday mood off a treat. :}

[tonyosborne]

I am not defending the BBC - nor do I work for them - but more of a nag at those 'further up the information chain.' I went to a large airbase to photograph an exercise last year, and the last stop on the tour was a long line of aircraft.
"Can we go and look around them," we asked, hoping to photograph the aircraft from different angles, "No,"we were told, we could only photograph them from a distance and that there was no need to look around them because "they are all the same, aren't they?" - and that was from a media officer... :ugh:
Usually most visits are all spot on, but was quite surprised at what the chap said, fortunately it was all sorted out, after much pleading...

[Regie Mental]

Not sure an MCO preventing spotters photographing aircraft is quite the same thing, Media Ops at the operational/strategic end is a completely different ball game.

For me what was telling recently about the BBC was their decision to not produce a 90 minute programme on how Beharry won his VC in Iraq. The reason given was that the BBC did not want to alienate it's anti-war audience.

If that's an attitude they appear content to reveal is it any surprise that they treat the facts relating to the loss of servicemens lives with apparent disdain? I know for a fact, because I know BBC journos, that this is a view not shared by the majority of journos who are very sensitive to the effects of mis-reporting. However the fact that it continues to happen indicates that the BBC is not seeking to mend it's ways and put in place a policy which would see such reports come under more scrutiny before broadcast. If this means that other news channels get the story, albeit innacurate, first, then so be it.

[Floppy Link]

Didn't John Irvine get "Tsunami Correspondant" status in Banda Aceh/Thailand because he happened to be on HOLIDAY THERE AT THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I bet the BBC flew him (& Family) home from it)
Johnnie is ITN.
As an aside, on the BBC One O'clock News today there was a piece about an inquest/enquiry into a Sea Knight crash with UK fatalities a while back. The footage was of a....Sea Knight. Maybe they are getting better...

[airborne_artist]

I'm afraid nothing changes.

Soon after the Brixton riots of 1981, I went with a composite squadron from 21/23 to Florida, and the NG Ranger battalion sent their best (!) to Brecon for a fortnight.

Though the Regt was never named, an enterprising journo from the Grauniad put two and two together and made 271. He assumed that we and other TA units were going to be trained by the NG to support the civil powers, and that the TA would be on the streets of the UK backing up Plod should a Brixton kick off again.

Total load of cock, as in fact we were trying (in vain) to impart some LRRP skills to an amiable bunch of guys whose idea of a tab was a stroll from the far side of the parking lot to the all-you-can-eat diner.

I've always added (or taken off) about 50% fudge factor for most of what I read or hear in the press ever since.

[ManOverhead]

Don't have a TV, don't pay the license fee! I haven’t had a TV for 11 years and I don’t miss it. And the first time I saw Sky News I thought it was an unfunny episode of Drop the Dead Donkey.

To be serious, over the years I have occasionally worked with reporters from different news organisations and they have generally been excellent. But, the men and women on the ground are being driven by agendas from editors and producers etc, and it seems to be getting worse (24 hr rolling news etc, as discussed above).

One little gem I picked up was that even radio news is driven by the visual – the story that gets picked up is the one with pictures (even if they use pictures of the wrong aircraft or just talk about them). And they can get much more mileage out of survivors than fatalities – we saw that last week.

The other thing is often forgetten is that some reporters are in the front line, trying to report accurately. And they take casualties – Frank Gardner survived, his cameraman didn’t. It seems that Alan Johnston may have been killed. I hope his report on Gaza is still accurate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6459521.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6459521.stm)

[Radar Command T/O]

You only have to look at any major article on the BBC website to see how far standards at the BBC have fallen. Not aviation related, but the current headline is the quite horrific story about the 22 dead in the US university shootings today. The article is quite informative and pretty well written, but right at the bottom there is this:

Are you in the area? Did you witness the shootings? Send us your comments and experiences using the form below. If you have any pictures or video you can send them to yourpics@ bbc.co.uk.

If nothing else, it typifies how little the media care about those about whom they are reporting, when in the very midst of reporting what is a huge tragedy for hundreds of people they are still sniffing round for a scoop.

Shame on you, BBC.:=

(Edited for poor syntax)

[Fitbin]

Does anyone know if the BBC also have a hand in the Daily Star?

There's a copy of todays Star in our canteen, with a front-on picture of an Apache and the caption "A puma helicopter, like this one...."

Amateurs, and a bunch of :mad: all of them.

[Sentry Agitator]

I've just finished a right ol' rant at the BBC through their 'Contact Us' email system.

It won't change a damb thing but I sure as hell let them know that I wasn't happy.

You know, perhaps if everyone filled their in-box with a winge and a moan they may....and I can't promise anything....just may get the idea that the public don't necessarily appreciate the rubbish they are producing.

SA:ugh:

[Colonal Mustard]

Its a shame, the D Star used to be edited by an ex para (his name escapes me now) Hitchin possibly but he used to ensure that only accurate headlines on the front page at least were put out

[MooseJaw]

I'm based in the USA - and it galls me to have to acknowledge that when I look for (reasonably) unbiased reporting my best bet is to wait about 24 hrs for the local news rag to process their various feeds after which I can be reasonably certain I'll see a much better quality product than BBC seem capable of produciing.

True the local media can be just as bitchy as the BBC and their analysis can be equally shaky and they are just as intolerant of their 'MoD' and inept/indecisive Service Leaders. Yet, unlike the BBC, they don't seem to have a problem finding a least one good news story a day (its usually a human interest one) and they also appear to realise that people in uniform do their duty, often despite personal views and opinions. For that reason they appear keener to support the morale of their people serving on the front lines and in the support roles.

I used to think that USA had the balance all wrong - too 'huggy' too much self congratulation and way overboard with the recognition. They are - but that surely is better the bias and macabre sensationalism we experience at the whim of the BBC 'Special correspondents'.
Perhaps it wouldn't be so emotive if they just changed their name and dropped the "British". Then they could ply their trade without any offence or pretence of grandeur amongst the World's 2nd division news feeds.

[PICKS135]

C5 news at 7 last night had a report about the coroner in Oxfordshire being a little peeved about the non-help, from USA. The reporter in this case said the inquest was into an American 'Chinook' crash. Suppose it is to be expected. Five news IS supplied by SKY.

[Paat]

I was on a Sqn which lost an aircraft, killing 9 of my mates. The deplorable actions of the media in attempting to get stories and footage of the grieving families in the aftermath of the accident means that I have a particularly low opinion of reporters, be it BBC or any other flavour.

As for accuracy, it appears to me that it is far more important for them to get something on the screen/page that fills "the slot" rather than ensuring that the coverage is factually accurate. Again, there is no consideration that this incorrect information may cause unnecessary or additional worry to families and friends.

[dwhcomputers]

21 January 1973
I am returning from Washington DC on a VC10 and at 03:00Z I am invited on to the flight deck and listen to the BBC World News.
Headline story "Washington DC was a nervous city yesterday ringed by 30,000 troops for the inauguration of Richard Nixon."
Fact 1: Washington DC is always ringed by at least 30,000 troops because of the number of bases in area.
Fact 2: We had driven in from Maryland through 14th St and K St passing within half a mile of the White House and then by the Lincoln Memorial and onto the George Washington Parkway to go out to Dulles Airport.
Fact 3: A few extra Police around than normal and a few extra road closures but never saw a US Serviceman.
So has the BBC changed a lot or is it because with the extra news channels and the Internet we are able to judge it performance against others

[Phil_R]

Alright, this is probably really ill-advised, but here we go anyway.

Blaming individual people who work for the BBC about the crap the organisation provokes and produces is like blaming some individual pilot for the war in Iraq.

To be completely upfront about this, I think Wokkameister is talking about something I sent him, which (if I remember correctly) concerned his reaction to a Mirror article. Having a go at BBC people on the basis of a Mirror article is rather like blaming the RAF because Iraqis used aircraft to nerve gas people.

Sorry to be blunt but there it is.

Phil

[wokkameister]

Partly Phil, but not completely. Whilst I reserve the right to slam any journalistic crap the mirror may publish, that was not the main reason for this thread.
It would seem three pages of similar experiences bears out my opinion.

[Green Flash]

Great Fibs of the World

Off duty policeman.

Retired politician.

and .....

..... off the record.

[Phil_R]

> You know, perhaps if everyone filled their in-box with a winge and a moan
> they may....and I can't promise anything....just may get the idea that the
> public don't necessarily appreciate the rubbish they are producing.

Yes, do that. Because at the end of the day, they produce what people want to watch. The problem is largely that most people are really really stupid. Large numbers of complaints -can- cause changes.

Better yet stop paying your TV licence (and stop watching TV - it won't kill you). I don't think they any longer deserve their statutory status; if you agree, this is the only response allowed under UK law. At the very least, this will be a hint that the special status of the BBC is questionable on the basis of their output, even more than the last charter review was.

For the record I have very rarely worked for Auntie and almost never do news anymore for anyone, for these exact reasons (and the fact that I don't get a service pension for risking getting shot). Nevertheless, as a public service broadcaster, the BBC has always been a special case.

Phil

[A2QFI]

I can see that it is, or may be, relevant to have reports from Afghanistan etc from reporters on the spot but why, when we are to hear of the long awaited resignation of John Reid (respected and admired by all who do not know him well) do we have to have it from a reporter standing in a London street with the Home Office in the background. Similarly, long range shots of hospitals where people are ill, pictures of prison vans coming down the road which may or may not have some felon in them. Costs money and adds very little interest or impact to what is usually a very uninteresting story

[Phil_R]

Usually because they have rented the uplink time and trucks and pay regardless of whether they use them or not.

Notice that there tends to be the same number of remotes every evening regardless of how much difference it actually makes.

P

[Pontius Navigator]

When Op Fresco kicked off East Midlands news wanted to cover every firestation at the same time as the take-over occured. They did not have enough equipment.

In Birmingham one enterprising reporter hopped in her car, collected two off-duty squaddies and took them to Pebble Mill. They were instructed to wander around in camera, in the background, while she gave an up to date report - from the Pebble Mill car park with a camera hanging out of the window.

A photograph never lies? Well in the hands of a professional purveyor of what the great British public wants . . .

And one of the doyen of the New York press was professionally pilloried for writing 'first-hand- articles about stories where he had never been present. Shame.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Sounds like the Beeb have resorted to 'if you can't beat them, join them' tactics.

The number of examples of recent journalistic ineptitude/unscrupulousness never fails to disgust me. For instance, on the night of the Morecambe Bay helicopter crash, Sky News used an enormous picture of a Sea King as a backdrop, with 'HELICOPTER CRASH' superimposed in large letters. The Sea King is purely a military helicopter (in the UK, anyway), and it was on a day of the year when very few military helos apart from Sea Kings would have been operating - I wonder how many wives/friends of SARBoys turned on the TV and feared the worst for their nearest & dearest until it transpired that it was not a Sea King and not even a mil helo.

At least that wasn't actually malicious, unlike the journos covering the Nimrod crash who were desperate to get the names of the victims, and who threatened to go around the married patch knocking on doors asking questions because they reckoned the MCO was taking too long to release the names...

Or the local rag journo who, when a colleague lost a baby to a sudden death, knocked on their front door the day after their bereavement, asking for an interview, and then had the gall to go back two days later and ask again. Makes you wonder how the journo found out the address - someone must have given it away...

[Postman Plod]

With regards to the quality of reporting, or the type of people its aimed at, I wonder what would happen if you compared a BBC main bulletin news report with a BBC "John Craven's Newsround" news report of 20 years ago? I reckon there wouldn't be much difference - in fact, I suspect Newsround may be more factually accurate and better researched, and certainly presented in a more adult fashion!