The Newsroom

BBC News Mandela Coverage

(December 2013)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
CI
cityprod
dosxuk posted:
cityprod posted:
No, the BBC as a whole did not screw up.


The vast majority of the people I've spoken to today / read their opinions do not differentiate between the different areas and departments of the BBC.


Then put quite simply they are fools. Radio 1 Newsbeat does not have the same agenda as Radio 4, which in turn does not have the same agenda as any individual BBC local radio station.

Even whilst BBC1, BBC2 and BBC News were all covering the Mandela story at the same time, you still had BBC3 and BBC4 which were not. Plus on radio, you still had Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3, 6music, Radio 4 Extra and 1Xtra all not providing breaking news coverage of Mandela, and that's just in terms of national radio, never mind the local radio stations that were not breaking away from Mark Forrest and regional late shows to cover the weather.

So why denigrate the whole organisation, when you had a choice of coverage or not from the BBC?
DT
DTV
all new Phil posted:
SO BORED OF THIS THREAD NOW.


To be honest, so am I. But then people shouldn't set me off on a political train track because my debating brakes are incredibly faulty and I end up half way across the metaphorical world having run out of energy about 12 hours later.

dosxuk posted:
Nice mock


Thanks, obviously I did it with a heavily Sarcastic Tone on powerpoint in under 5 minutes and don't expect anyone to take it seriously. A joke if you may.
DO
dosxuk
cityprod posted:
Then put quite simply they are fools. Radio 1 Newsbeat does not have the same agenda as Radio 4, which in turn does not have the same agenda as any individual BBC local radio station.


No different to BT getting complained about because someone's broadband goes down when BT Openreach make a mistake.

No different to G4S getting complained about when G4S security make a cock up in their Olympics planning.

No different to any large organisation with many sub brands / arms / companies.

Though at least on this occasion, some criticism can be rightly aimed at "The BBC" - the central core which sets the company wide aims and agenda. A decision to break away from normal programming on BBC One would not come from BBC News, so it implicates the organisation from there upwards.

And again, the main complaint I've heard is not that the BBC were covering the death of Mandela, but that they were covering that story alone, despite a much bigger and more important story for UK residents developing at the same time.
DO
dosxuk
DTV posted:
Thanks, obviously I did it with a heavily Sarcastic Tone on powerpoint in under 5 minutes and don't expect anyone to take it seriously. A joke if you may.


Should have cropped off the copyright notices on the website images Wink
JO
jordy
cityprod posted:
Then put quite simply they are fools.


So if someone doesn't share your view, they are 'fools'...
BA
bilky asko
itsrobert posted:
I would have preferred some coverage of the Autumn Statement too. I awoke on Friday morning to news that the Chancellor was due to give his statement on the economy and that pensions and retirement age was to be mentioned and I eagerly awaited the details once I had arrived home from work. By the time I settled down to the Ten O'Clock News to find out just how long I will have to work in my career, Mandela had died and that was that - no news on the Autumn Statement at all. And to say that someone should just use the internet as an alternative is not acceptable. I was also interested to hear Nick Robinson's take on the political/economic events on the day but alas it was not to be.

Autumn Statement coverage was shown on BBC Parliament later.
itsrobert posted:
To put it another way, if Mandela had died and then the 9/11 attacks happened shortly afterwards in which thousands of people died - would you still be arguing for wall-to-wall Mandela coverage?

Eh?
itsrobert posted:
I suspect not - because the circumstances would be totally different.

I'm not sure how irrelevant points help your argument.
CI
cityprod
itsrobert posted:
You can't make editorial decisions in a vacuum as some of you seem to think.


Now you're being stupid.

Nobody has talked about making editorial decisions in a vacuum.

You make editorial decisions in the moment.

As I have previously stated, several BBC local radio stations in the affected areas, went rolling coverage on the flooding, which was the right decision. But BBC1 news made the decision to drop every other story. Don't like it? Tough. You can't change it. Nor can I, nor anybody outside of that Broadcasting House newsroom.

We all have our opinions on whether it was right or wrong, but basically carrying on as though the BBC should only be answerable to you directly, or that BBC1 national news is the whole of BBC News, is frankly stupid and unsupportable, and incredibly disrepectful to those who work in the myriad of BBC Newsrooms outside of Broadcasting House, especially to those who worked in the local newsrooms in the affected areas.
DO
dosxuk
cityprod posted:
carrying on as though the BBC should only be answerable to you directly, or that BBC1 national news is the whole of BBC News, is frankly stupid and unsupportable


If you think somebody expressing the opinion that the BBC did something wrong is "carrying on as though the BBC should only be answerable to you directly" then you have some serious issues.
BA
bilky asko
Nobody has yet provided a cogent, logical, fact-based reason as to why there needed to be more coverage of the weather last night, it seems.
CI
cityprod
dosxuk posted:
cityprod posted:
Then put quite simply they are fools. Radio 1 Newsbeat does not have the same agenda as Radio 4, which in turn does not have the same agenda as any individual BBC local radio station.


No different to BT getting complained about because someone's broadband goes down when BT Openreach make a mistake.


Nope, no different, but still just as wrong.

dosxuk posted:
And again, the main complaint I've heard is not that the BBC were covering the death of Mandela, but that they were covering that story alone, despite a much bigger and more important story for UK residents developing at the same time.


BBC1 and BBC News Channel were, BBC local radio, especially in the affected areas, not so much.

Again, not fair to criticise the BBC as a whole for the actions of just one part of it.
DO
dosxuk
bilky asko posted:
Nobody has yet provided a cogent, logical, fact-based reason as to why there needed to be more coverage of the weather last night, it seems.


Simple - developing story that was directly affecting the lives and livelihoods of British people.

Only 60 years ago over 2500 people died in a similar storm surge.
IT
itsrobert Founding member
cityprod posted:
itsrobert posted:
You can't make editorial decisions in a vacuum as some of you seem to think.


Now you're being stupid.

Nobody has talked about making editorial decisions in a vacuum.

You make editorial decisions in the moment.

As I have previously stated, several BBC local radio stations in the affected areas, went rolling coverage on the flooding, which was the right decision. But BBC1 news made the decision to drop every other story. Don't like it? Tough. You can't change it. Nor can I, nor anybody outside of that Broadcasting House newsroom.

We all have our opinions on whether it was right or wrong, but basically carrying on as though the BBC should only be answerable to you directly , or that BBC1 national news is the whole of BBC News, is frankly stupid and unsupportable, and incredibly disrepectful to those who work in the myriad of BBC Newsrooms outside of Broadcasting House, especially to those who worked in the local newsrooms in the affected areas.


Can you not see the irony of this statement? That's EXACTLY what you are doing. You wanted Mandela coverage and you got it. You seem to be sticking two fingers up to those who wanted something else.

And can we have less of the 'idiots' and 'fools' please?

Newer posts