Remembrance Day good, World Aids Day bad

mrfpb

Graham Norton has been reprimanded by BBC bosses for wearing a World Aids Day ribbon on his chat show.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25317116

Editorial guidelines state: "The BBC must remain independent and distanced from government initiatives, campaigners, charities and their agendas, no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial."

Are the BBC bosses hypocrites, as they promote Remembrance Day quite heavily?

the playing mantis

No.

VTech

The BBC is one of the most corrupt organisations on earth.

Recession was made massively worse because of them.
Racism is made worse because of them.

The BBC is a brainwashing channel that feeds the british people with whatever the people behind it think we need to be filled with, Ohh, we pay for too

team47b

stop talking sense Vtech you're confusing me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBtj9B9WP90

smoggysteve

just as well the BBC don't get involved with charities such as children in need or helping starving Africans. oh wait......

daviesee

SmoggySteve wrote:

just as well the BBC don't get involved with charities such as children in need or helping starving Africans. oh wait......

Yeah.
And that is all done ethically too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25273024

GiantMike

Why does Comic Relief invest this money? Shouldn't it be spent on all the people around the world who are dying? Hasn't there just been a major Typhoon in the Philippines?

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

Why does Comic Relief invest this money? Shouldn't it be spent on all the people around the world who are dying? Hasn't there just been a major Typhoon in the Philippines?

There are three reasons.
1. It is part of their manifesto that all proceeds go to charity. In order to cover admin costs, they invest money and the profits cover their costs. Possibly risky but how else do they meet their manifesto?
2. All that money arriving at once has to be distributed. They may as well earn some interest in the intervening time.
3. Who's to say there won't be another worthy cause 6 months down the line? Or is it first come, first served and everybody else has to do without.

GiantMike

daviesee wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Why does Comic Relief invest this money? Shouldn't it be spent on all the people around the world who are dying? Hasn't there just been a major Typhoon in the Philippines?

There are three reasons.
1. It is part of their manifesto that all proceeds go to charity. In order to cover admin costs, they invest money and the profits cover their costs. Possibly risky but how else do they meet their manifesto?
2. All that money arriving at once has to be distributed. They may as well earn some interest in the intervening time.
3. Who's to say there won't be another worthy cause 6 months down the line? Or is it first come, first served and everybody else has to do without.

But Red Nose day is all about getting money to spend on good causes, not to stockpile funds in anticipation of a future event.

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

But Red Nose day is all about getting money to spend on good causes, not to stockpile funds in anticipation of a future event.

Do you propose spending all the donations on Day 1?

pinno

It is a bit of a conundrum.

We need publicly owned broadcasting but on the other hand, it must be an impossible organisation to rum. If it wasn't for the BBC, we would have Red topped newspaper style news - all commercially and/or politically driven. The BBC just by being there, puts checks and balances into the equation.
If you listen to Prime time on Radio 4, the news is quite different to the mainstream TV news - fodder for the masses, so there are contradictions within and a hell of a lot of pressure from politicians always threatening to revoke the license, especially before a general election. The BBC has to do the impossible job.

Mikey23

@gm.. Catch the prog on iplayer. All will be explained

the playing mantis

pinarello001 wrote:

It is a bit of a conundrum.

We need publicly owned broadcasting but on the other hand, it must be an impossible organisation to rum. If it wasn't for the BBC, we would have Red topped newspaper style news - all commercially and/or politically driven. The BBC just by being there, puts checks and balances into the equation.
If you listen to Prime time on Radio 4, the news is quite different to the mainstream TV news - fodder for the masses, so there are contradictions within and a hell of a lot of pressure from politicians always threatening to revoke the license, especially before a general election. The BBC has to do the impossible job.

Yeah like c4 news. Itv news is commercial news but fair

pinno

ITV news is shyte. I don't think that any of the council TV news is rounded and balanced (the non-terrestrial channels, I have no respect for). They all pander to the lowest common denominator as if we are all thick. (C4 aside).

rolf_f

daviesee wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

just as well the BBC don't get involved with charities such as children in need or helping starving Africans. oh wait......

Yeah.
And that is all done ethically too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25273024

Lucky we have the BBC to expose this!

VTech wrote:

The BBC is one of the most corrupt organisations on earth

Oh go on then - do tell. On what basis? That is quite a statement you are making here. Would you put the BBC in the top ten most corrupt organisations on earth? Or top 20? Got to be somewhere high up there.

TBH, I think you'll find a few hundred more corrupt organisations in Russia alone to start with let alone America, South America, Africa, China etc. Do you really think that the little old Beeb is right up there?

Whatever - I am duly grateful for the Beeb. 10 minutes of American TV is all I can cope with (eg the weather channel that didn't actually tell me what the weather was!) - and you only have to look at all the silly channels on Freeview to realise that the Beeb for all its faults is a pretty damn good thing.

pinno

Rolf F wrote:

daviesee wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

just as well the BBC don't get involved with charities such as children in need or helping starving Africans. oh wait......

Yeah.
And that is all done ethically too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25273024

Lucky we have the BBC to expose this!

VTech wrote:

The BBC is one of the most corrupt organisations on earth

Oh go on then - do tell. On what basis? That is quite a statement you are making here. Would you put the BBC in the top ten most corrupt organisations on earth? Or top 20? Got to be somewhere high up there.

TBH, I think you'll find a few hundred more corrupt organisations in Russia alone to start with let alone America, South America, Africa, China and the likes of Starbucks, Amazon, Google, Union Carbide etc. Do you really think that the little old Beeb is right up there?

FTFY

VTech

Rolf F wrote:

daviesee wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

just as well the BBC don't get involved with charities such as children in need or helping starving Africans. oh wait......

Yeah.
And that is all done ethically too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25273024

Lucky we have the BBC to expose this!

VTech wrote:

The BBC is one of the most corrupt organisations on earth

Oh go on then - do tell. On what basis? That is quite a statement you are making here. Would you put the BBC in the top ten most corrupt organisations on earth? Or top 20? Got to be somewhere high up there.

TBH, I think you'll find a few hundred more corrupt organisations in Russia alone to start with let alone America, South America, Africa, China etc. Do you really think that the little old Beeb is right up there?

Whatever - I am duly grateful for the Beeb. 10 minutes of American TV is all I can cope with (e.g. the weather channel that didn't actually tell me what the weather was!) - and you only have to look at all the silly channels on Freeview to realise that the Beeb for all its faults is a pretty damn good thing.

The fact that you are asking the question explains my point very clearly.

To answer your last bit though, I wasn't marking the BBC against the sat channels, I wasn't even referring to them. I simply stated a point about the corruption of the BBC and how they manipulate the facts to get the reaction intended.

pinno

VTech wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

daviesee wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

just as well the BBC don't get involved with charities such as children in need or helping starving Africans. oh wait......

Yeah.
And that is all done ethically too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25273024

Lucky we have the BBC to expose this!

VTech wrote:

The BBC is one of the most corrupt organisations on earth

Oh go on then - do tell. On what basis? That is quite a statement you are making here. Would you put the BBC in the top ten most corrupt organisations on earth? Or top 20? Got to be somewhere high up there.

TBH, I think you'll find a few hundred more corrupt organisations in Russia alone to start with let alone America, South America, Africa, China etc. Do you really think that the little old Beeb is right up there?

Whatever - I am duly grateful for the Beeb. 10 minutes of American TV is all I can cope with (e.g. the weather channel that didn't actually tell me what the weather was!) - and you only have to look at all the silly channels on Freeview to realise that the Beeb for all its faults is a pretty damn good thing.

The fact that you are asking the question explains my point very clearly.

To answer your last bit though, I wasn't marking the BBC against the sat channels, I wasn't even referring to them. I simply stated a point about the corruption of the BBC and how they manipulate the facts to get the reaction intended.

Care to qualify your statement with a specific account?

VTech

Of course.

Just a few years ago we were getting everyone to believe that the world was coming to an end (recession) which in turn absolutely obliterated the financial markets, the pound weakened, people stopped spending and thousands lots jobs needlessly. (builders took a massive hit as people stopped spending)

Several times over the past decade they have hugely publicised race and the so called issues of new cultures into the UK when the reality of it is that instead of huge losses of jobs for UK "born and bred" we actually have a better lifestyle because people have come here to work when so many of us so called "born and bred" are in fact lazy.
They did the same when the people from the west indies came in the 60's then asians in the 70's.

There is a school of though along the terms of divide and conquer with the BBC and many business leaders have very dim views.

rolf_f

VTech wrote:

Of course.

Just a few years ago we were getting everyone to believe that the world was coming to an end (recession) which in turn absolutely obliterated the financial markets, the pound weakened, people stopped spending and thousands lots jobs needlessly. (builders took a massive hit as people stopped spending)

Several times over the past decade they have hugely publicised race and the so called issues of new cultures into the UK when the reality of it is that instead of huge losses of jobs for UK "born and bred" we actually have a better lifestyle because people have come here to work when so many of us so called "born and bred" are in fact lazy.
They did the same when the people from the west indies came in the 60's then asians in the 70's.

There is a school of though along the terms of divide and conquer with the BBC and many business leaders have very dim views.

This really doesn't remotely come close to justifying your claim that the BBC is one of the most corrupt organisations on earth.

As for what you have said, that's what the media does though - it's not a BBC specific thing. Personally I think journalists mostly stink but I can't see why you'd fixate on the BBC which at least sometimes does admit it's failings (and is often the organisation to uncover them) unlike the vast majority of alternatives - do you really prefer the Murdoch approach?

As for the recession - that happened because people are blithering idiots who couldn't work out that you can't spend every penny you own on new BMWs and crap like that. Yes, people did stop spending - because they had no money to spend and that was a good thing. The recession is a good thing. Crikey, does anyone seriously think it would have been better for things to carry on as they were? When your child misbehaves, it needs a (metaphorical) kick up the backside to tell it that it was wrong. That's what the recession is (though it sounds like it hasn't been a big enough kick up the arse so far). If you want to blame the BBC for that, at least blame it for the right reasons - eg all those stupid programmes encouraging people to buy ever more pointlessly expensive houses and fooling them (not that that was hard) that because their house had doubled in value that they were somehow richer (when, in most cases, it is pretty obvious that the reverse was the case).

the playing mantis

Vtech u are being a little extreme, but the others are too. The BBC themselves concluded that there is a political bias in the organization which is completely against the whole point of the bbc. I for one think itv news us fine. I'm not bothered about the regional news it's all bollox and filled about June Babbage from needham market finding one if her garden gnomes bear's a striking resemblance to bill oddie.

arran77

the playing mantis wrote:

Vtech u are being a little extreme, but the others are too. The BBC themselves concluded that there is a political bias in the organization which is completely against the whole point of the bbc. I for one think itv news us fine. I'm not bothered about the regional news it's all bollox and filled about June Babbage from needham market finding one if her garden gnomes bear's a striking resemblance to bill oddie.

Sounds interesting, link please

VTech

the playing mantis wrote:

Vtech u are being a little extreme, but the others are too. The BBC themselves concluded that there is a political bias in the organization which is completely against the whole point of the bbc. I for one think itv news us fine. I'm not bothered about the regional news it's all bollox and filled about June Babbage from needham market finding one if her garden gnomes bear's a striking resemblance to bill oddie.

Maybe I am but I like to air on the side of fairness and I don't think the BBC are fair.
I wouldn't like to be in an "ethnic minority" and rely on the BBC for support. Likewise for the business sector including all aspects, builders, sales etc etc the BBC have aided the downfall.

They also like to tell us about the bad in the world and how awe full it is yet I personally have a lot of contacts the world over and can watch a report on the BBC about troubles in a certain region, about how people cannot leave their home for fear of safety yet a simple phone call to a friend confirms that they know nothing about these fears.

I remember a long time ago when I decided that I wanted to go to Cuba and the BBC tell me that although it is beautiful, it isn't safe for families yet when I get there I find it one of the most pleasant places on earth with the most friendly people.

It isn't always down to trust either, they do have a "brainwash" mentality.

Bobbinogs

I must admit that I just don't get the continued existence of compulsory license funding for the beeb. I can easily choose my digital channel content such that I don't consume bbc products and yet I am expected to pay for them regardless.

Also, I am not sure when I ever got to choose for a large chunk of my license fee to be spent on the annual frenzy around children in need, I just thought the license fee covered the basics, like converting my bbc website into 250 languages so that everyone who doesn't speak English can read it.

pinno

Okay Vtech, the doom, gloom and very bad news is one thing, but 'corruption' is another.

I agree that the reporting is generally dour. When in Sweden for example, I watched the ITV international news and listened to the world service. First of all, there was a lot more European news and secondly, it wasn't all doom?!
I liken the BBC too the MCC of old but I cannot say that they are one of the most corrupt organisations in the world.