The BBC are on strike...
Cressers
Posts: 1,329
...has anyone noticed?
0
Comments
-
Yep.
Today programme replaced with a show about birds in the Wash.0 -
Cressers wrote:...has anyone noticed?
Sadly, they haven't just put up the test card, which would be the most humane thing to do to the daytime viewing publicWhat wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!0 -
I wonder if news of the strike panicked the Jeremy Kyle show loving chavs and dropouts.....until it dawned on them that he's on the channel with the adverts.0
-
tarquin_foxglove wrote:Yep.
Today programme replaced with a show about birds in the Wash.
I definitely preferred waking up to that then the Today programme.0 -
Birds having a wash would have been better still
0 -
You may well have learned more. I'm thinking of all the airtime on the BBC filled with inane waffle...0
-
That was the point I was making.0
-
I've gotten so used to waking up to the Today programme that I was completely thrown by todays revised schedule. I kept thinking that the clock must be wrong or maybe I had slept through 'til Saturday or something!0
-
NapoleonD wrote:antooony wrote:I wonder if news of the strike panicked the Jeremy Kyle show loving chavs and dropouts.....until it dawned on them that he's on the channel with the Brighthouse adverts.
Fixed.
Brighthouse, wow what a business, just thought I'd have a quick at their web site for a TV that you can find on the internet for under £1000 you would end up paying well over £3200 for. The cost of risk!
As for the BBC I'm sure there are lots of people who would love their jobs, it almost feels like moylesanistic feeling is spreading0 -
-
shm_uk wrote:There are so many alternative news sources available these days that the loss of one surely doesn't really register?
Seriously?
With the exception of C4 news is there any journalism on TV or radio that comes close to the BBC?
Whether you like Radio 4, Fivelive or Newsround, the BBC's current affairs output is far better than any competitor.
Have you ever seen Fox/Sky in the states or listened to their radio stations? Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin? Trust me, you don't want that here.0 -
guinea wrote:shm_uk wrote:There are so many alternative news sources available these days that the loss of one surely doesn't really register?
Seriously?
With the exception of C4 news is there any journalism on TV or radio that comes close to the BBC?
Whether you like Radio 4, Fivelive or Newsround, the BBC's current affairs output is far better than any competitor.
Have you ever seen Fox/Sky in the states or listened to their radio stations? Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin? Trust me, you don't want that here.
But nobody watches Fox. It's coverage far outweighs it's popularity. Even Murdoch regards it as an embarrassment. And on the other foot you have CBS.
It comes down to why people want journalism, and the vast majority want news/comment that agrees with and reinforces their world-view and prejudices.
So WHY don't we want that kind of biased news here? This was the question which was buzzing around my head the other week when the beeb and the Guardian and the Mirror all went up to Downing Street to complain bitterly that Murdoch was much better at his job than they were and should be stopped. If there is a market for a left of centre TV news channel and that's what people want rather than being "force fed" evil "right wing/neo con" news then why not set one up? If there's a market for serious leftwing journalisnm, why is the Guardian losing £80,000 a day?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:
So WHY don't we want that kind of biased news here?
Because in the states, the papers must be neutral, but the TV doesn't have to be.
In the UK it's the other way around.
And in the bigger scheme of things, the Guardian isn't that left wing. I doubt it'd be considered particularly left at all in say, the Netherlands, even with its lurch to the right.0 -
To be fair, I didn't mention the Graun in that context, only in the list of people who went to Downing Street."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
As much as the free market dictates how the news is reported, I am genuinely of the opinion that news outlets, that claim themselved to be that (i.e. news propgrammes and newspapers) should be held to stricter rules on how the journalism is conducted - naming sources, tighter rules on how far spurious stories and rumours can be used, etc.
The market of news needs a little correction.0 -
And I think most people will agree that ever since the Dr Kelly incident, BBC news has been considerably worse quality.
Starting the top stories with political rhetoric like: "Gordon Brown is a rubbish PM... says Tory MPs today, after...blah"
It's less informative, and the vox-pops and talking heads of randomers in the street massively irritates me. If i wanted the opinion of a man in the street, I'd step out of my own front door.
I want someone who is a professional in telling and explaining the news to do that, not tell me how the news is being recieved. It's just a horrible feedback loop.0 -
Rick,
Agree with you there. Somewhere, about 15 years ago, some bright spark in a news programme somewhere decided that people were turned off by experts explaining complicated things that didn't always have nice, easy answers and instead recerted to deciding what they thought people wanted to hear, demonising the other side and declaring everything either a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.
That and plugging their own programmes and calling it news and reporting press releases."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Shows such as NBC's NIghtly News in the US are far superior to anything you get over here. Fox News isn't nearly as bad as people think either. I've lived 'over there' and seen it all and can compare to what you get here and there's something to be said for networks that get funding from ads instead of the public.0
-
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Pokerface wrote:there's something to be said for networks that get funding from ads instead of the public.
What, a conflict of interest?
It doesn't happen.0 -
Pokerface wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pokerface wrote:there's something to be said for networks that get funding from ads instead of the public.
What, a conflict of interest?
It doesn't happen.
:?
I must disagree.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Pokerface wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pokerface wrote:there's something to be said for networks that get funding from ads instead of the public.
What, a conflict of interest?
It doesn't happen.
:?
I must disagree.
There's a first!
Seriously though. I thought the News this morning was as good if not better than normal.
Anyone on strike with a high salary should be concerned about more than their pension.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Pokerface wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Pokerface wrote:there's something to be said for networks that get funding from ads instead of the public.
What, a conflict of interest?
It doesn't happen.
:?
I must disagree.
Proof please. (Leaving Fox News out of it for the sake of argument).0 -
Seriously though. I thought the News this morning was as good if not better than normal.
Perhaps because there were no journalists around to rehash govt press releases as news? It may just be me but the BBC these days is sounding like a bizarre mating of Newsround and Ye Olde Radio Moscow...0 -
Pokerface wrote:Proof please. (Leaving Fox News out of it for the sake of argument).
I don't have proof (though, neither have you..), but I can give you a hypothetical, and probably realistic situation.
OK - your news programme is sponsored by, say Shreddies.
Meanwhile, in the News, Nestle have been found to be doing some dirty sh!t which your journalist has unconvered.
Nestle quite easily can turn around and say "if you run with this, we will pull our sponsorship and you'll lose all that cash".0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Pokerface wrote:Proof please. (Leaving Fox News out of it for the sake of argument).
I don't have proof (though, neither have you..), but I can give you a hypothetical, and probably realistic situation.
OK - your news programme is sponsored by, say Shreddies.
Meanwhile, in the News, Nestle have been found to be doing some dirty sh!t which your journalist has unconvered.
Nestle quite easily can turn around and say "if you run with this, we will pull our sponsorship and you'll lose all that cash".
News programs are not 'sponsored' by anyone. Networks sell ads. Local stations (of those networks) sell ads. There are so many different networks that a news story of any worth is going to be reported by all of them, so no point trying to 'cover it up' to save an advertiser.
Maybe 20 years ago - but not today. If it was happening - it would be known, thus my assertion that it simply doesn't happen.0 -
The BBC aren't on strike at all, just a section of NUJ members.
As for the news I much prefer the BBC to any of the other channels.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
solsurf wrote:As for the BBC I'm sure there are lots of people who would love their jobs
...until they find out the Beeb had taken a 15-year employer contributions 'holiday', saving it around £1bn between 1988 and 2003 (staff had continued being deducted their share of the contributions throughout this time) and was proposing to solve the deficit problem by shrugging off it's future responsibilities.0
