Or on topic, never type BBC News into BBC News. 
Is that why they had all those problems on air the other day?
Is that why they had all those problems on air the other day?
DE
I'm not too sure if this article about Harry Redknapp belongs in the Sport section... 
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/46345447
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/46345447
Now officially retired from TV Forum. "When the fun stops, stop."
BF
"Gemma Collins: Three Times She Won Us Over".
Does this really belong on the BBC News Website?! It's not as if there's a lack of that sort of garbage elsewhere on the web.
Does this really belong on the BBC News Website?! It's not as if there's a lack of that sort of garbage elsewhere on the web.
:-(
A former member
It should be on the news beat if anything but your right... Ita utter crap.
She's never won me over, she's a vile, self centred woman.
LL
BBC News or Digital Spy...?
Quote:
It may be on the "other" channel but we are loving this year's I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here.
AN
Main story in the entertainment section today was
“7 things we learnt from the Super Bowl adverts”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47114899
“7 things we learnt from the Super Bowl adverts”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47114899
Considering the amount spent on Super Bowl advertising, and the entertainment crossover in the event, The way that it directs Consumer Spending in the US directly with global overspill is highly relevant. That for a dull Monday in early February isn't atypical and in my view is quite a suitable lead for the Entertainment section today.
NT
Super Bowl ads are a (US) cultural phenomenon, so I can see why they did a piece - but it's in no way a lead story, and the childish "7 things we learned..." (who are "we" when most Britons don't give a toss?) listicle treatment grates.
The BBC News site has always dipped its toe - and sometimes waded right into - into these topics, but the treatment and prominence has completely changed.
I've got a feeling that the BBC's critics will soon see the job cuts at BuzzFeed, etc, which pioneered this kind of coverage, and start to put two and two together (whether this is justified or not).
The BBC News site has always dipped its toe - and sometimes waded right into - into these topics, but the treatment and prominence has completely changed.
I've got a feeling that the BBC's critics will soon see the job cuts at BuzzFeed, etc, which pioneered this kind of coverage, and start to put two and two together (whether this is justified or not).
AN
Today we’ve got
“9 things we spotted in the Oscars class photo”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment_and_arts
At the present time it seems to be promoted on the news front page
“9 things we spotted in the Oscars class photo”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment_and_arts
At the present time it seems to be promoted on the news front page
SE
Square Eyes
Founding member
Ofcom to carry out investigation on BBC News clickbait.
The prevalence of soft news and “clickbait” on the BBC website will be examined during the biggest independent review ever taken of the corporation’s news output.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-investigated-over-web-clickbait-z5t8dgprk
The prevalence of soft news and “clickbait” on the BBC website will be examined during the biggest independent review ever taken of the corporation’s news output.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-investigated-over-web-clickbait-z5t8dgprk
EL
Thing is it's not as if the BBC News website JUST does those fluff pieces. There are sections. You can do everything.
And they'll obviously promote a range of stuff on the front page.
And they'll obviously promote a range of stuff on the front page.