Catchup

192 posts in the last 24 hours, most recent first

AL
AaronLancs Granada North West Today

Reminiscing The Big Breakfast

Wonder if the house still has the same phone number.


Also along the same lines, does it still have the same postal address as it did back then. I still remember it for some strange reason, don't ask why.
AARON
A random bunch of thoughts molded into person
LO
LivefromORL

Shepherd Smith hired at CNBC after leaving Fox "News"

Watched the past two nights, I enjoyed the show, presentation, content, and set, but I wish it didn’t sound so echoey and shouty. Surely some acoustic treatment in the ceiling would help dampen some of the sound?
LO
LivefromORL

CNN International

Maybe I’m in the minority but I like the sidebar effect. There was a time when they’d just stack boxes over the picture, now that was messy!
AN
all new Phil Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)

No Time to Die - Delayed James Bond film.

This assumes we'll be out of this by Easter 2021, I'm not so sure that's a realistic prognosis.

The article is quite explicit in that it seems that the producers want to recoup the anticipated profit $350M in the short to medium term. Allowing this release to extend ad infinutum risks that considerably. Although not released it'll become stale. A quick sale to either AZ, Apple or Netflix would sort this instantly.

Netflix seemingly needing something quickly to hang it's subs on (especially as their rates are rising imminently globally, they've increased in the US tonight).

A three month Exclusive deal from Dec - Feb with a multiple outlet offer starting in March then catching Cinemas when able would to me be sensible considering everything in play now.

It won’t play in cinemas if it’s had a streaming release. That’s a dangerous precedent to set that would destroy the cinema industry and, in turn, the film industry. I would be very surprised if Bond goes to streaming.
BR
Brekkie Wales Wales Today

Reminiscing The Big Breakfast

Wonder if the house still has the same phone number.
Turns out nobody had 2020 vision.
WW
WW Update

International News Presentation: Past and Present

POP TV, Slovenia, 2003:

DE
denton

New BBC social media guidelines

Indeed, I would have thought the "we're not neutral on racism" stance established after the Naga Munchetty complaint debacle would have applied equally to sexuality issues in this day and age.


You'd think so, but no. And that Naga fiasco came literally weeks after the BBC told news staff in Northern Ireland that they were not allowed to attend Belfast Pride. An issue pretty much ignored by the UK wide media at the time, except for one article in the Guardian, but the same policy/excuse that was applied then is what is being applied now.
BF
BFGArmy Channel Channel Islands

CNN International

The whole thing just looks a mess on screen - far too much going on and things moving around when you consider the purple coronavirus sidebar has a moving image and there's the scrolling ticker at the bottom too.

A shame too as one of the advantages of the current look when it first came in was that it was minimalistic and seemed to be the opposite of the trend with US news channels of filling the screen with all manner of graphics.

Even ignoring the election countdown graphic, the sidebar in that second image and the headline strap are saying the same thing.
AF
Affi_85 Central (West) Midlands Today

BBC News nostalgia, including BBC World

What does the North America feed show during the time it opts out from Asia business?


Talking about nostalgia: what was the difference between the generic programmes and Europe Direct / USA Direct previous to the 2000 rebranding? Was USA Direct a proto World News America live from Washington? I never saw recordings from both programmes

Europe Direct was originally a one hour News 24/World simulcast at 2000 UK. (Remarkable given all the fuss when Outside Source was simulcast two decades later).

It included a news bulletin, sports round-up, reports, interviews and discussions, alongside a full European weather forecast near the end.

Presented from the News 24 soft-set (used for Weekend 24), and located where Philip Hayton was doing Asia Today several years later in that video upthread!

A more informal affair than the traditional BBC World News bulletins of the time. News coverage of the Kosovo War led it being recorded and played out on World later in the evening in 1998 in a 50 minute slot, before being reduced to 30 minutes and then turned into a weekly magazine programme before vanishing altogether.

USA Direct (0005 UK) again was more informal and marked BBC World's advancement into the USA in 1997, following a distribution deal with Discovery. Until then, BBC World wasn't really available in the Americas - just Europe, Africa and Asia-Pacific - reflected in the time zones displayed in trailers during the 1995-1997 era.

It was the start of a battle for that timeslot, between catering for the Asia-Pacific morning audience and catering for the USA evening audience. The resolution of this battle is that nowadays, the North America feed opts out of Asia Business Report and Sport Today for three consecutive hours between 2300 & 0200 UK.
SP
Steve in Pudsey Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)

New BBC social media guidelines

Indeed, I would have thought the "we're not neutral on racism" stance established after the Naga Munchetty complaint debacle would have applied equally to sexuality issues in this day and age.
Write that down in your copybook now.
UL
UsuallyLurks West Country (East) Points West

New BBC social media guidelines

Some points in here probably are reasonable - e.g. “If you have a story to break, the BBC platforms are your priority, even if it takes slightly longer”.

However the policy doesn't seem fit for purpose and is a bit vague in areas where it shouldn't be.
Who's deciding whether a social media account is "an account which reflect only one point of view on matters of public policy" is a grey area (and hard to police - there's always new accounts popping up and who is responsible for judging this, how often would they be judging this). Similarly too what's deemed a “controversial topic" is a grey area and not clear and is the typical BBC issue of trying to create a 'give both sides' narrative in the name of "balance" when not both sides are equally reasonable and deserving of equal coverage.

The discussion point that seems to be doing the rounds this evening is sexuality. The optics of punishing employees in 2020 if they were to support people who are LGBT (e.g. maybe a close friend or colleague who's just come out or who may be LGBT but been abused in public as an example) is awful and would make it appear as if people being LGBT is "up for debate". Even if that's not the intention as Munro's tweet seems to suggest the wooly wording of the policy doesn't make it explicitly clear if something like sexuality is a "controversial topic".

Basically the Beeb had two options: use a 'common sense' type policy when it comes to have employees use social media (so leave it to employees to judge and reprimand them if they're deemed to have crossed the line) or to do an explicit policy explaining what is and isn't acceptable with a list of clear, explicit criteria so even if controversial (I don't think firms should be overly policing what employees do in their own time as long as it doesn't bring the firm into disrepute) everyone would know where they stand.

What the BBC have ended up doing is neither, created as many questions as it's resolved and probably pleased nobody.


Isn't that what people usually point to as proof that the BBC is supposedly "doing something right"?
BF
BFGArmy Channel Channel Islands

New BBC social media guidelines

Some points in here probably are reasonable - e.g. “If you have a story to break, the BBC platforms are your priority, even if it takes slightly longer”.

However the policy doesn't seem fit for purpose and is a bit vague in areas where it shouldn't be.
Who's deciding whether a social media account is "an account which reflect only one point of view on matters of public policy" is a grey area (and hard to police - there's always new accounts popping up and who is responsible for judging this, how often would they be judging this). Similarly too what's deemed a “controversial topic" is a grey area and not clear and is the typical BBC issue of trying to create a 'give both sides' narrative in the name of "balance" when not both sides are equally reasonable and deserving of equal coverage.

The discussion point that seems to be doing the rounds this evening is sexuality. The optics of punishing employees in 2020 if they were to support people who are LGBT (e.g. maybe a close friend or colleague who's just come out or who may be LGBT but been abused in public as an example) is awful and would make it appear as if people being LGBT is "up for debate". Even if that's not the intention as Munro's tweet seems to suggest the wooly wording of the policy doesn't make it explicitly clear if something like sexuality is a "controversial topic".

Basically the Beeb had two options: use a 'common sense' type policy when it comes to have employees use social media (so leave it to employees to judge and reprimand them if they're deemed to have crossed the line) or to do an explicit policy explaining what is and isn't acceptable with a list of clear, explicit criteria so even if controversial (I don't think firms should be overly policing what employees do in their own time as long as it doesn't bring the firm into disrepute) everyone would know where they stand.

What the BBC have ended up doing is neither and something which feels 'designed by committee', has created as many questions as it's resolved and probably pleased nobody. The BBC really are their own worst enemy at times.
denton and AlfieMulcahy gave kudos