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.

The BBC
 

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:

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

Unbiased Reporting
 

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.

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.

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.

BBC Is it any different today
 

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

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

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.

Great Fibs of the World

Off duty policeman.

Retired politician.

and .....

..... off the record.

> 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

BBC Reports from 'Locations'
 

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

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

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.

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...

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!