The Newsroom

The BBC World News Thread

BBC World | 30 Years Anniversary - Page 127 (October 2019)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
UN
Universal_r
World simulcasted The Papers last night at 10.30pm GMT.

I think they’ve done it all this week because I remember a presenter saying if you’re watching in the UK we’ll be back later.
TV
TVNewsviewer
The tension (maybe imagined by myself here?) between reporting the truth and protecting children that of course watch the News Channel in numerous numbers before the watershed. Repeated use of "strong language", just after 7pm tonight (in the Outside Source segment also carried on BBC World News). Not only heard in the audio but also printed on-screen in full with no asterisks (although Ofcom in the past has found asterisked versions unacceptable pre-9pm). What amuses me is that the sentence with the first use appears fully on screen and then, a split-second *later*, a caption "Warning: strong language" appears. Too late, as if the warning mattered, it would appear before the word did and the offence (in the sense of breach of the rule rather than anyone being seriously bothered by the F-word) already committed.

In any event, there should never be any warnings of this word on UK terrestrial television between 5.30am-9pm. Although at one time I was told news content was exempt so that it was not in breach of guidelines even if pre-9pm (why did Chris Rogers once apologise for a press conference quoting the word if that was so?), my understanding was and is that the Ofcom Broadcasting Code has a complete ban on the word before the watershed, with no justification at all for context and does not mention any exemption for news reports. As (or if) the word is completely banned at this time, it should therefore never appear and therefore there should never be any warnings for it.

I love a good swear before the watershed (as opposed to being present at a scene of violent threat at the time), so that this is an excellent segment of broadcasting to me. The most controversial part may be at 19:05 in the reporting of racist attacks against black police officers where, according to Ofcom, the "most offensive language" is the F-word and any derivatives of it with a complete ban before 9pm but the N-word is acceptable before 9pm where it may be justified by the context. Therefore, according to Ofcom, we would be criticising the black officer for their own two uses of F-words but not the reporting of the N-word as that's justified by it being the context of a full and accurate report.

However, in reality the F-words go unnoticed and what may provoke thousands of complaints and resignations of DJs from BBC radio is the N-word, heard the same as it was heard when quoted by Fiona Lamdin on the last controversy (where the BBC defended the quotation for days until, finally, Tony Hall apologised) but also fully seen on screen now - surely a double offence? Before the watershed the same as the Lamdin so what's the difference just after 7pm? If any watching the 10.33am Lamdin broadcast were watching now, wondering whether the BBC might be facing Nword-gate number 2. (I suspect I am out of touch and that there may be not a murmur via Twitter this time - perhaps those shocked' by the Lamdin report weren't watching this time. Is the difference the BBC reporter (Lamdin) quoted the word last time but, this time, the word was quoted by the impeachment evidence (Ros Atkins didn't use or quote it)?)

I was in doubts whether to post this post or not, as the broadcast of F-words is something to be ignored in my view and the N-word quotation is no problem to me either. (I am obviously out of touch as it's the same as the Lamdin broadcast didn't make me blink an eye.) However, after teetering on the brink of whether to post, I have done so because of the interest this caused as well, that has tipped me over:

There won't be a ban in the sense of any risk of the BBC being taken off air in the UK as things don't happen this way in this country.

AFP is reporting as well that BBC WORLD NEWS is BANNED in China




However, the use of the words "content violation" are interesting to me there because on the basis of my understanding of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (which ultimately people could go to if not satisfied with the BBC), there would be seem to be, indeed, numerous "content violations" on the BBC News Channel tonight. (BBC World News not regulated by Ofcom but would the N-word pass the test of the BBC's own guidelines post Lamdin?)
Last edited by TVNewsviewer on 11 February 2021 9:03pm - 13 times in total
TV
TVNewsviewer
Looking at some of the Twitter complaints made last time (about Lamdin's quotation), tonight's broadcast should provoke outrage (over the N-word justified in the context and not in breach and nothing like the allegedly "clear example of the most offensive language" F-word that might be in breach of the Ofcom Code).

{I guess I should, melodramatically, give a warning for "the most offensive language" (Ofcom description) in the picture of the BLM protest on the page at the link: Just to draw everyone's attention to something that might otherwise go unnoticed.)
https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/30/bbc-news-airing-n-word-laughs-face-black-lives-matter-13058922/

"@amyrockson
BBC News, there is no excuse and no acceptable reasoning for the utterance of this abhorrent word. Both the reporter and the people who gave the green light should be disciplined. This is a slippery slope to normalising its use. Please issue an apology. Now."

It is a "slippery slope to normalising its use". Therefore it seems to me tonight's appearance of the word in audio and fully printed on-screen would not meet this viewer's standard.

"@KateWilliamsme
Yes it should be 'the N word'. We should not ever hear this word said. [So presumably the appearance of the word on-screen in full print is acceptable?!? Or maybe she was just addressing hearing it being said since that is the extent of what happened last time.] And not even 'the N word' is necessarily needed - 'horrific racist abuse' is enough."

"Not ever" hear this word. As it is not **ever** (my emphasis), tonight is clearly contrary to this expectation.

"@Marvyn_Harrison
Dear @BBCNews can you commit to NEVER airing the N word EVER on air or print? ..."

His capitals, on both occasions. So, he wants it NEVER (his emphasis) aired EVER. This airing, and in print (in the sense of seen in text on the impeachment evidence shown on-screen), clearly a breach of his complaint, on both counts (as it's "on air" and in "print", extending "print" not just to including ink but to anything in text).

If I am wrong, any of the people quoted feel free to correct me.
QN
Quatorzine Neko
The ban of BBC World News in China might be both related to the removal of CGTN's license in the UK and to a report about the tortures inflicted on the Uyghurs by the Chinese regime, Agence France-Presse says.

Le Parisien's article in French: https://www.leparisien.fr/international/bbc-world-news-bannie-en-chine-apres-un-reportage-sur-les-ouighours-11-02-2021-ZXUP6JSGUFDC7LZ4BGFI5XLIIQ.php

France 24's article in English: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210211-china-pulls-bbc-world-news-off-air-after-uk-s-ban-on-cgtn [advisory: this link contains some written descriptions of torture, including sexual torture]
AndrewPSSP, Ittr and Roger Darthwell gave kudos
UN
Universal_r
Interesting that the news channel ticker has “China bans bbc world television” instead of BBC world news.
WO
Worzel
Didn't know where to put this but Kamal Ahmed has departed BBC News...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9248545/Kamal-Ahmed-axed-non-job-205k-BBC-editorial-director-role-losing-power-struggle.html
UN
Universal_r
World news is not taking the papers tonight. Wonder why they took it the last few nights.
BR
Brekkie
It's escalating quickly - I imagine the position and safety of BBC journalists within China is also of concern now too.
DA
davidhorman
Quote:
In any event, there should never be any warnings of this word on UK terrestrial television between 5.30am-9pm.


Eh? Not sure that says what you meant it to say.

Quote:
Although at one time I was told news content was exempt so that it was not in breach of guidelines even if pre-9pm (why did Chris Rogers once apologise for a press conference quoting the word if that was so?)


Because it's a good idea, and good manners, to do so even if it's not technically in breach of Ofcom code.
JF
JamesyFish
While BBC World News being banned in China may feel like a big, bold move, in real terms it will have very little impact. It’s all for show.

I currently live in Shanghai and for the past 2 years of me living here, the BBC website and app are blocked. Of course most people who want to access it can readily use a VPN to access it.

Similarly, the BBC World News channel is not broadcast widely here before the ban. You would only really find it in hotel rooms of western-brand chains. Most people watch BBC World News on dodgy IPTV boxes that are very common in China, and these won’t be affected by the ban. I sat here happily watching it this morning over breakfast.

The attitude towards the BBC is an interesting one here. My landlord came over to check on something and I had BBC News on the TV and he just said ‘wow’ and asked to watch for sometime.

As mentioned by other posters above, the more significant and impactful move will be if China expels journalists. I think it’s to be expected considering the number of foreign journalists who have been removed in the last few years as well as the increasing hostility towards foreigners in the last year in light of COVID and the situation in HK.

Edit: just noticed how long this post is... sorry! Also to note this is my first post on the forum in 6 years! No idea it had been that long...
TV
TVNewsviewer
Quote:
In any event, there should never be any warnings of this word on UK terrestrial television between 5.30am-9pm.


Eh? Not sure that says what you meant it to say.


It says exactly what I meant it to say. (It is very carefully written as I am on the autism spectrum. It is people who aren't on the autism spectrum that often don't say exactly what they mean.)
There should never be any need to give any warnings of this word during the pre-watershed period on television. There is a complete ban on the word during those times. Therefore it should never be there in the first place. As such, since it shouldn't be there and the rules always complied with, there won't ever be an occasion when it is aired before the watershed and, therefore, no warnings for it will apply. If it is aired before the watershed, my understanding is that the Ofcom rules are automatically breached. So it is a technical point that there won't need to be any warning (going back to something in the old Broadcasting Standards Council Code of Practice 1989 saying that there shouldn't normally need to be any warnings before the watershed because all content at that time should be suitable for family viewing anyway - so you are not going to be warning about graphic violence unsuitable for children pre-watershed as there shouldn't be any anyway). The addition of any 'warning' changes nothing: the mere airing of the word in and of itself is an automatic breach of 1.14 as that imposes a complete ban on what Ofcom considers "the most offensive language" before the TV watershed. Unless Ofcom has now decided that it isn't, in their words, "the most offensive language" and a "clear example" of such after all.

However, even if the F word was downgraded from "the most offensive language" to merely "offensive language", this would seem to be in breach as 1.16, on offensive language, says "In any event, frequent use of such language must be avoided before the watershed" and it could well be said that there was frequent use on the News Channel as there were multiple uses in the space of a few minutes. Of course, this made the broadcast even better for me and the highlight was seeing the MF word in full on my television screen. I really love that communication. However this, or any complaining about the 'swearing', misses the point as the context isn't the use of words on television but instead is showing what actually happened at the Capitol and presenting that as impeachment evidence, hence goes to the very first sentence of my original post.

It seemed, by contrast, the N word (used once in audio and text as far as I am aware) is allowed before the watershed but, as "offensive language", has to be justified by the context and I haven't been aware of any change to this position. Apparently the N word isn't "the most offensive language" according to Ofcom as far as I understood. However the idea that somehow it isn't the most offensive language seems increasingly untenable. It seems Ofcom may have had a change of mind of late, AFAIK without any further audience research, as they are now claiming - in their latest Broadcast Bulletin of a few days ago - that a song that uses a derivation of the N word, and not that full word, contains "the most offensive language" on a radio channel. So I don't now know if all of a sudden the goalposts have been switched and I have now asked Ofcom to clarify because it is not using the rule against "the most offensive language" but one against merely "offensive language" instead. It is interesting because the song in question has been aired numerous times in the mid-1990s on numerous mainstream radio channels, apparently without any issue or complaint ever being made but now, apparently, it is "human error" to have aired it.

As regards your response to the other part of my post, I agree with you on that.
Last edited by TVNewsviewer on 12 February 2021 5:12am
TV
TVNewsviewer


I currently live in Shanghai and for the past 2 years of me living here, the BBC website and app are blocked. Of course most people who want to access it can readily use a VPN to access it.


Shows that you can't censor the internet.


Edit: just noticed how long this post is... sorry! Also to note this is my first post on the forum in 6 years! No idea it had been that long...


Eh, I'm the prime waffler!
I guess I should apologise for this but, sadly, I cannot pretend this to be genuine. (As a person on the autism spectrum, I have problems pretending things to be true when they are not.) I also go into detail and thorough analysis because of my autism and therefore, polite or not, I can't really help writing at length. I feel it a bit wrong to apologise because an apology would be saying I am at fault - and I am always apologising when I am wrong or at fault - but this one is caused by my disability and apologising for that would be apologising for my disability and it's unacceptable that anyone should apologise for their disability or something they can't really help as a result. At least if anyone does get an apology from me, they will know it is heartfelt. And also there is no suggestion or implication in any of what I am writing here as I don't do hidden meanings, so please no-one get the wrong idea! Even though they probably will now I have added this - I feel I can't win! (But then it is not some sort of competition that I ought to 'win' - I'm not competing with anyone.) It is a different form of English that I write, and more technical and literal, except my feeling I can't win is not literal but metaphorical.

Anyway, I oughtn't to explain (at length). I'm sorry!
Last edited by TVNewsviewer on 12 February 2021 5:42am - 10 times in total

Newer posts