You are all right. There just isn’t this type of building going on in the US nowadays.
It's interesting to hear that. Of course, bombs have been a threat in the UK for many decades and perhaps we view things differently as a result. The increase in the anti-attack bollards here is noticeable, but that's mainly to prevent terrorists running down pedestrians rather than to stop bombs being planted near buildings (in my view anyway).
It's also to stop people driving cars and trucks into buildings (a la Glasgow Airport)
Not sure what point you're trying to make with that information.
I'm sure that the building will have all the proper architectural elements to protect it, the BBC does have some experience in having buildings attacked of course and is very contingency aware. Also Broadcasting House and the BBC's buildings in Salford have lots of glass in their frontages as does Glasgow I think, Channel 4's HQ is also largely glass, and that was built before the Northern Irish peace process. It's not really an unusual type of design here
Just thinking out loud. Security measures and stuff. There are buildings like that in the US but none really in DC (save for the Newseum), near me or without a large concrete podium (with either glassed in lobby or the look of glass when there’s nothing but concrete behind it) or bollards or processes that restrict movement near the building.
The thing about NBH is their entrance is sufficiently set back and I believe protected with removable bollards (isn’t the loading dock entrance in that “bridge” area by the Peel wing).
If you design buildings that are obviously 'terror proof' - then the terrorists have won.
The key thing about modern development planning is that you design access control measures in a less obvious way.
BBC NBH is not only protected by bollards, but there are also very large concrete planters full of plants that would also deflect attacks. Stone benches, large pieces of art etc. are all used in a less obtrusive way to protect buildings. UK cities are full of fully glazed buildings. And yes - we've had some nasty attacks in the past (think of the IRA bomb in Docklands or the Manchester bomb attack). However we shouldn't let terrorists become architects by proxy... Just take sensible precautions and design buildings effectively and aesthetically.
Though doesn't every international state backed broadcaster do that to some extent, including some would argue the BBC.
"Some people say" is a classic technique straight out of the RT (and Fox News) book though... No need for facts - just report other people saying something fictitious...
The BBC editorial team - whether domestic or World Service - don't have their running orders and 'news lines' dictated to them by Number 10...
RT's editorial links to the Kremlin in being told the 'party line' are well known. RT reporters are amazed that BBC field reporters are allowed to broadcast what they know to be true, live. RT reporters are told by Moscow what to say and how to spin it, before they are allowed on-air...
Quote:
It is why so many states are willing to bankroll international news channels. Propaganda is probably as prevelent as it's ever been.
Yes - the BBC World Service has been the most honourable example of this. It's there to promote British values of free and objective reporting, independent of government influence. That kind of soft power is worth a lot more in reputational terms for a country, and a system of government, than propaganda outlets.
Last edited by noggin on 13 March 2018 6:42pm - 2 times in total
“Ofcom has an ongoing duty to be satisfied that all broadcast licensees are fit and proper to hold a licence".
You go after one - you have to go after all. And if you dig deep enough, with that vauge 'wishy-washy' Daily Mail and Telegraph pleasing statement, then you would shut down numerous channels.
I know that RT is funded by the Kremlin, but is it's editoral policy dictated by it as well - in the same way Pravda was during the Soviet era? Well, take a look at any given news bully. In the few I've watched, if there's been a direct statement out of the Red Square press office and onto to Kevin or Bill's RT autocue, it's been very well diluted.
Yes. RT reporters in the field are effectively scripted from Moscow (have had this confirmed by people who work alongside them) - and the whole narrative they spin is entirely driven by the Kremlin propaganda machine.
They have a very specific role in the West, to sew seeds of doubt, to suggest that domestic news providers are somehow not telling 'the whole truth'. It's more sophisticated than 'Russia Good, West Bad' - it's more about spinning 'there isn't one truth' kind of narratives...
It's insidious and there is absolutely no way I would work for them. I'd leave the industry if they were my only employment option.
Last edited by noggin on 12 March 2018 11:06pm - 2 times in total
Whatever happens there will be changes ahead for Mello 2019. For one thing David Lindgren will not return as host. It will be interesting to see if SVT return to more familiar faces or decide on a new generation of hosts. I’d honestly be surprised if Sunil Munshi returns as the Executive Producer. His ideas, including the ‘Mello’ branding, simply haven’t worked. Mello is known of its fun and colourfulness (glitter!) and the use of black and white branding really looked out of place.
Yep - the Mello thing looked like a mistake as it wasn't used consistently. I think it was SVT doing their best to bring the show back on course when their new producer was trying to steer it in a different direction.
Quote:
Needless to say the scripts and overall creative direction need a makeover but also the staging of the performances need serious work. Whilst many were visually stunning they lacked any real live atmosphere. There was a real problem this year with the backing vocals being too loud in the mix, with the viewer not being able to hear the lead singers. The result was numerous bland, overally produced, performances. As for the audience they often appeared to be in a collective coma!
New sound supervisor this year, and the balances were very different. Big issue for me was that the mixes had very little audience / ambience in the mix, and sounded totally like a recorded karaoke track with some slightly dodgy live vocals over the top. They need to stop autotuning the backing tracks so much - if at all...
Compared to NMGP an DMGP the sound mixes on Mello were lifeless and cold. Just like the production. Very slick, but far too clinical and lifeless.
Go'morgon was gentle and a bit too 'daytime' - but Morgonstudion had a very wobbly start. They spent far too long chatting to each other and didn't do anywhere near enough news coverage. The first week they spent far too much time talking about the new show rather than actually getting on with the news. It feels like they are spreading a little content a very long way...
Andre Pops - who was the main SVT Sport presenter - was bought in to present, but I can't see him staying long.
SVT Nyheter doesn't have a 24 hour news channel - and often struggles to deliver decent breaking news coverage. Morgonstudion doesn't seem to have changed this much. (TV4 had a news channel for a while, and seems to do breaking news better than SVT still., but I think SVT is very low staffed)
NRK tried to reduce their local news recently. It went from 20 minutes to 15 minutes without much comment, but then it was announced it was going to be 5 minutes (with regional news stories carried more on the network bulletins)
Caused such a kerfuffle that they had to re-think and retain longer regional bulletins.
SVT have a LOT of regional news regions - they effectively tripled the number by pre-recording multiple bulletins in each regional centre rather than having fewer, with live presentation.
DOI still has the edge over Strictly for me, although I realise I’m probably in a minority with this.
Certainly in audience ratings terms DOI isn't as popular as Strictly. DOI has been around the 5-5.5m for most of its run by the look of it. Strictly does a LOT better than that - almost twice as well...
Quote:
Holly and Phil hold things together much better than Tess and Claudia, and the whole production just seems slicker.
I find Holly and Phil a bit too daytime for the show. Tess and Claudia bring a bit more of an LE edge to Strictly, and Claudia is in a different league to Holly.
I also think the judges on DOI are a bit less entertaining. I was disappointed Jason returned. He's a bit of a pound-shop Craig Revel Horwood, but without the same likability. (We're all in on "Nasty Craig" being a bit of a pantomime villain act. Jason just feels a bit nasty at times)
The flash bulb will have absolutely saturated the Red, Green and Blue tubes with charge, and it may have taken longer than 1/50th of a second (field duration) for that to dissipate, but it will have done it differently for each tube (they had different chemical make-ups) and as a result you end up with different colour casts across the picture as the tubes recover.
I'm sure there's something about this written up somewhere on the Doctor Who Restoration Team site, but I can't for the life of me remember which episode it was. Definitely something with a lot of gunfire, which caused stripes to pop up on the video.
That was almost certainly "microphony" - where sound was so loud it physically caused the tubes to rattle and the scans to disrupt and you got. You see it a lot on tubed music concerts where they are near PA speakers (Live Aid is covered in it)
