NB
.
I admit it was a rubbish joke. However, the object of my anger was at the use of the BBC News brand as a whole in an ill-advised joke, not of victims of a terrorist incident. I have many objections to this double standard approach to serious news broadcasting, with a nice juxtaposition to this thread detailing how broadcasters will transmit reverential 'silence'. TV Forum is hardly the place to berate somebody for an anoraky comment!
James Hall posted:
No, I just don't like people like you who try to make crap jokes about terrorist attacks and anoraky comments. You're so so boring.
I admit it was a rubbish joke. However, the object of my anger was at the use of the BBC News brand as a whole in an ill-advised joke, not of victims of a terrorist incident. I have many objections to this double standard approach to serious news broadcasting, with a nice juxtaposition to this thread detailing how broadcasters will transmit reverential 'silence'. TV Forum is hardly the place to berate somebody for an anoraky comment!
JA
So, because the newsteam are willing to get involved in a huge, once-every-so-often event, that made a few people whinge, that means the BBC News brand loses all credibility, and has double standards?
I assume you're also referring to the countless times the BBC News 24 branded stuff has featured on documentaries, and docu-dramas. If that makes the BBC lose credibility then I'm afraid you've got quite a few screws loose.
The BBC isn't just separated into departments which only stick to what they know best - that's the beauty of it, news can mix with entertainment occasionally, news mixes with kids and music as well.
I still don't see the point of all of these dull people who wrote in to complain about the spoof news bulletin being misleading. For five seconds max, Huw Edwards had the crowd tense that there was a serious incident - but surely the whole point of the tension was to make you breathe a sigh of relief and think "aah, that was clever, wasn't it - but oh no! She's lost her handbag" instead of "well, that was an awful joke. You had me going for five seconds that Buckingham Palace has exploded. Shame on you BBC!". It's people like that that make the country tedious, boring, idiotic and inane.
It was a cleverly written way to start the programme - and some people just can't see that sometimes the BBC are right in what they do. Maybe next time, we should just have a little tea party for the Queen's 90th. That would be far more appropriate than a huge party with a witty intro!
I assume you're also referring to the countless times the BBC News 24 branded stuff has featured on documentaries, and docu-dramas. If that makes the BBC lose credibility then I'm afraid you've got quite a few screws loose.
The BBC isn't just separated into departments which only stick to what they know best - that's the beauty of it, news can mix with entertainment occasionally, news mixes with kids and music as well.
I still don't see the point of all of these dull people who wrote in to complain about the spoof news bulletin being misleading. For five seconds max, Huw Edwards had the crowd tense that there was a serious incident - but surely the whole point of the tension was to make you breathe a sigh of relief and think "aah, that was clever, wasn't it - but oh no! She's lost her handbag" instead of "well, that was an awful joke. You had me going for five seconds that Buckingham Palace has exploded. Shame on you BBC!". It's people like that that make the country tedious, boring, idiotic and inane.
It was a cleverly written way to start the programme - and some people just can't see that sometimes the BBC are right in what they do. Maybe next time, we should just have a little tea party for the Queen's 90th. That would be far more appropriate than a huge party with a witty intro!
CD
Where's the Jon Gaunt bit?
roxuk posted:
The BBC have got quite a large section on the website dedicated to the annaversery. On there you can listen to Jon Gaunt show from BBC London 94.9 from the morning of the attacks.
Where's the Jon Gaunt bit?