JO
Again, I was applying your own logic to the situation.
hahaha! maybe there would be an Alex Jones Foot interest, whatever floats your boat Jon. But I'm sure anyone with any sense knows the US president being assassinated is more important than a TV Presenters foot.
Again, I was applying your own logic to the situation.
JO
I think you'll find he's a very intelligent bloke actually.
...And the Amstell joke.. Amstel being an idiot being the main attraction to that story not Mandela's Death.
I think you'll find he's a very intelligent bloke actually.
CI
Not true. You pay for every commercial broadcaster through your shopping bills, especially if you shop in supermarkets who take the money that they make from you and spend some of it on advertising themselves on ITV, Sky and everywhere else, so the myth that you don't pay for commercial broadcasting is busted.
But how many viewers actually understand editorial judgement, especially if they've never worked in a newsroom or broadcast organisation? Not many I'd wager. Mandela had far more impact than any other politician before or since, a global impact, and a legacy that will be felt far beyond the borders of South Africa.
The floods had far less impact than Mandela. Hence Mandela was the bigger story on BBC1. On BBC Local Radio in the flood affected areas, it would very likely be the other way around. The floods would be having greater impact at that time, than even the death of Nelson Mandela.
Editorial judgment is not a simple thing, It's much more complicated than most people seem to think.
Not arsed about ITV/Sky News e.c.t i don't pay for it so they can do what they want
Not true. You pay for every commercial broadcaster through your shopping bills, especially if you shop in supermarkets who take the money that they make from you and spend some of it on advertising themselves on ITV, Sky and everywhere else, so the myth that you don't pay for commercial broadcasting is busted.
if i'm paying £140 quid a year for the BBC i should be able to switch on and be updated about all the news, not just one story. We all pay so we all have a right to criticize them when they make mistakes.
But how many viewers actually understand editorial judgement, especially if they've never worked in a newsroom or broadcast organisation? Not many I'd wager. Mandela had far more impact than any other politician before or since, a global impact, and a legacy that will be felt far beyond the borders of South Africa.
The floods had far less impact than Mandela. Hence Mandela was the bigger story on BBC1. On BBC Local Radio in the flood affected areas, it would very likely be the other way around. The floods would be having greater impact at that time, than even the death of Nelson Mandela.
Editorial judgment is not a simple thing, It's much more complicated than most people seem to think.
JO
Not true. You pay for every commercial broadcaster through your shopping bills, especially if you shop in supermarkets who take the money that they make from you and spend some of it on advertising themselves on ITV, Sky and everywhere else, so the myth that you don't pay for commercial broadcasting is busted.[/quote]
Oh please don't this bring nonsensical crap I hate to the debate. It's really not the same.
It's really not the same thing though.
To a large exent I agree with jjfsdjdfdfs, the weather + floods due to the immediate impact they were having on people across the UK should have had a more time than I'm led to believe they were. But the his tone is wrong and the argument and the logic he's bringing to the debate isn't very well thought through.
Not arsed about ITV/Sky News e.c.t i don't pay for it so they can do what they want
Not true. You pay for every commercial broadcaster through your shopping bills, especially if you shop in supermarkets who take the money that they make from you and spend some of it on advertising themselves on ITV, Sky and everywhere else, so the myth that you don't pay for commercial broadcasting is busted.[/quote]
Oh please don't this bring nonsensical crap I hate to the debate. It's really not the same.
Quote:
so the myth that you don't pay for commercial broadcasting is busted.
It's really not the same thing though.
To a large exent I agree with jjfsdjdfdfs, the weather + floods due to the immediate impact they were having on people across the UK should have had a more time than I'm led to believe they were. But the his tone is wrong and the argument and the logic he's bringing to the debate isn't very well thought through.
JO
Yes but i'm not directly giving cash to ITV there is no out of date illegal law forcing me to, but that argument is for a different thread.
And The floods had more impact than Nelson because it actually affected peoples lifes right here and now, hardly any reports about the British families left homeless and there homes damaged just before Christmas, even DAYBREAK had better storm coverage now that's certainly saying something. I just think sometimes the BBC needs to come out of the media bubble and report whats actually going on under there noses.
And The floods had more impact than Nelson because it actually affected peoples lifes right here and now, hardly any reports about the British families left homeless and there homes damaged just before Christmas, even DAYBREAK had better storm coverage now that's certainly saying something. I just think sometimes the BBC needs to come out of the media bubble and report whats actually going on under there noses.
DA
By that logic if the only thing that happened in the UK was The One Show's Alex Jones breaking her foot and the US president was assainated the Alex Jones story would be the main one.
You shouldn't joke about things like that, Jon. There was a heavy grotesque on The One Show on Wednesday. Gordon Ramsay dropped it on the floor and I thought for a moment when I read your post that it had broken Alex Jones' foot. A Google search and the fact that there was no mention of it on The One Show this evening was the only thing that reassured me it wasn't true.
plus BBC News is not an international news channel, its a Domestic news channel and domestic news should have priority.
By that logic if the only thing that happened in the UK was The One Show's Alex Jones breaking her foot and the US president was assainated the Alex Jones story would be the main one.
You shouldn't joke about things like that, Jon. There was a heavy grotesque on The One Show on Wednesday. Gordon Ramsay dropped it on the floor and I thought for a moment when I read your post that it had broken Alex Jones' foot. A Google search and the fact that there was no mention of it on The One Show this evening was the only thing that reassured me it wasn't true.
JO
So you do have a anti-licence fee agenda and you are using this as a stick to beat the BBC in it's current form with?
I'm not even sure who or what I'm arguing anymore. So I'm going out.
It's beyond a joke.
Yes but i'm not directly giving cash to ITV there is no out of date illegal law forcing me to, but that argument is for a different thread.
So you do have a anti-licence fee agenda and you are using this as a stick to beat the BBC in it's current form with?
I'm not even sure who or what I'm arguing anymore. So I'm going out.
It's beyond a joke.
BA
I don't get all this moaning about the coverage last night. If you yourself were in danger, there's the Environment Agency. If you're worried about relatives, there is the telephone, the mobile telephone, Facebook, and Twitter to communicate concerning such matters.
We have plenty of out of date laws. However, can you provide any proof that the law is "illegal" and not just one you disagree with.
there is no out of date illegal law
We have plenty of out of date laws. However, can you provide any proof that the law is "illegal" and not just one you disagree with.