SC
scottishtv
Founding member
BBC Three isn't really aimed at me these days but I do see the links to their "stories" from the BBC News website. I couldn't help but notice over the last few days:
A tweet about silly bath photos went viral on Twitter, so Twitter made it a Twitter Moment. Then BBC Three just basically copied that.
A tweet about parents inadvertently shaming their offspring when viral on Twitter, so Twitter made it a Twitter moment. Again, BBC Three just basically copied that.
What's going on? They are blatantly (and needlessly) copying content from a third party here. Plus most people that want that sort of stuff will be on the original platform (Twitter) anyway.
As for the news website, I think it should focus on stories that would make it on to a network bulletin. If it wouldn't fit on TV, don't put it on the website. Leave the fluff, features and opinions to others. I think the BBC would also save themselves a lot of hassle, and accusations of bias etc. by following such an approach too.
A tweet about silly bath photos went viral on Twitter, so Twitter made it a Twitter Moment. Then BBC Three just basically copied that.
A tweet about parents inadvertently shaming their offspring when viral on Twitter, so Twitter made it a Twitter moment. Again, BBC Three just basically copied that.
What's going on? They are blatantly (and needlessly) copying content from a third party here. Plus most people that want that sort of stuff will be on the original platform (Twitter) anyway.
As for the news website, I think it should focus on stories that would make it on to a network bulletin. If it wouldn't fit on TV, don't put it on the website. Leave the fluff, features and opinions to others. I think the BBC would also save themselves a lot of hassle, and accusations of bias etc. by following such an approach too.
Last edited by scottishtv on 28 March 2019 12:27pm
JA
I agree on the BBC Three/Twitter stuff. Fair enough if they were adding context/insight to something that had gone viral but they're really not.
I think you're off the mark about the website = bulletin content only. The website is a place where they can go into more depth than on the network bulletins and I think that if they went down the route you suggest they would actually find themselves in more bother re. bias etc., not less.
Take this article for example, there's no way on this planet a network bulletin would have time to individually cover how some 500+ MPs across 8 different options but it's arguably a very valuable and useful article. Yes the raw data is available elsewhere, but not nearly as accessible or contextualised as on the BBC News website.
I think you're off the mark about the website = bulletin content only. The website is a place where they can go into more depth than on the network bulletins and I think that if they went down the route you suggest they would actually find themselves in more bother re. bias etc., not less.
Take this article for example, there's no way on this planet a network bulletin would have time to individually cover how some 500+ MPs across 8 different options but it's arguably a very valuable and useful article. Yes the raw data is available elsewhere, but not nearly as accessible or contextualised as on the BBC News website.
SC
Fair point, I was being over-simplistic. I don't care for much on the Features sidebar on that page though.
Maybe it's just me, I find the tone of voice quite patronising in many of those pieces. But I also used to get annoyed with the Magazine section back in the day - so maybe I should just finally learn to accept it!
scottishtv
Founding member
Take this article for example, there's no way on this planet a network bulletin would have time to individually cover how some 500+ MPs across 8 different options but it's arguably a very valuable and useful article. Yes the raw data is available elsewhere, but not nearly as accessible or contextualised as on the BBC News website.
Fair point, I was being over-simplistic. I don't care for much on the Features sidebar on that page though.
Maybe it's just me, I find the tone of voice quite patronising in many of those pieces. But I also used to get annoyed with the Magazine section back in the day - so maybe I should just finally learn to accept it!
AN
Andrew
Founding member
This is a high quality article currently on the news front page
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47786788
Seems to be targeting people who in reality will never be reading BBC News online
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47786788
Seems to be targeting people who in reality will never be reading BBC News online
LL
London Lite
Founding member
It's a shame as the Radio 1 produced bulletins are of a high quality which don't treat the listener as stupid, unlike the online copy.
BF
The absolute state of this article...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47934381
I mean that's almost sub Buzzfeed in terms of content.
One tip they didn't include was to avoid the BBC website - last week there was the Wrestlemania event which took place overnight until stupid o'clock in the morning and BBC didn't even attempt to hide the results announcing who'd won the main event in the headline and included a giant image for good measure rather than doing a 'Who won' type headline like they usually do for reality TV fare.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47934381
I mean that's almost sub Buzzfeed in terms of content.
One tip they didn't include was to avoid the BBC website - last week there was the Wrestlemania event which took place overnight until stupid o'clock in the morning and BBC didn't even attempt to hide the results announcing who'd won the main event in the headline and included a giant image for good measure rather than doing a 'Who won' type headline like they usually do for reality TV fare.
Last edited by BFGArmy on 15 April 2019 4:28pm - 2 times in total
GO
Crazy. I can't think of any other news site that has Buzzfield-style content like this but doesn't have it in its own branded section. That's all it needs, there probably is a sort of place for this type of fluff but it needs to be within a distinct section, not tarnishing the main BBC News brand.
The absolute state of this article...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47934381
I mean that's almost sub Buzzfeed in terms of content.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47934381
I mean that's almost sub Buzzfeed in terms of content.
JA
Crazy. I can't think of any other news site that has Buzzfield-style content like this but doesn't have it in its own branded section. That's all it needs, there probably is a sort of place for this type of fluff but it needs to be within a distinct section, not tarnishing the main BBC News brand.
But it is branded - Newsbeat?
The absolute state of this article...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47934381
I mean that's almost sub Buzzfeed in terms of content.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47934381
I mean that's almost sub Buzzfeed in terms of content.
But it is branded - Newsbeat?
NT
I'm looking forward to an anti-BBC Tory MP bellowing "FULL. OF. BANTS." at some bewildered BBC exec on a select committee in the coming months.
This is a high quality article currently on the news front page
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47786788
Seems to be targeting people who in reality will never be reading BBC News online
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47786788
Seems to be targeting people who in reality will never be reading BBC News online
I'm looking forward to an anti-BBC Tory MP bellowing "FULL. OF. BANTS." at some bewildered BBC exec on a select committee in the coming months.