TV
[Irrelevant now given earlier deletion.]
Last edited by TVNewsviewer on 23 June 2018 1:19pm
JA
There's presenter & rota discussion and then there's writing a 3 paragraph post speculating who might be presenting in 40 minutes time.
It's also verging on going against the yellow warning box that pops up when you reply to this thread...
Posting in presenter/rota topics:
No general daily presenter discussion (e.g. "who presented at 3pm yesterday?")
No fantasy rotas/schedules
Posts should not relate to presenter's personal life/privacy
Stick to the facts - focus on what is actually happening
Positive and negative opinions should be constructive
I'm no moderator and I envy the time you seem to have available to you to indulge in your interest... but calm down.
It's also verging on going against the yellow warning box that pops up when you reply to this thread...
Posting in presenter/rota topics:
No general daily presenter discussion (e.g. "who presented at 3pm yesterday?")
No fantasy rotas/schedules
Posts should not relate to presenter's personal life/privacy
Stick to the facts - focus on what is actually happening
Positive and negative opinions should be constructive
I'm no moderator and I envy the time you seem to have available to you to indulge in your interest... but calm down.
RO
rob
Founding member
Richard Baker is still reading the news
— Terence Dackombe (@SirTerence) June 20, 2018
(Gyles Brandreth, in ‘The Oldie’) pic.twitter.com/JeGJn6fA3T
TV
I hadn't thought it was in breach of any of those rules - it wasn't general daily discussion, asking who presented; it wasn't a fantasy rota or schedule; it didn't relate to anyone's private life; it mentioned what was happening and it gave a lot of what I thought was useful information and discussion that was constructive. However, I've now seen your post and think you are referring to "Stick to the facts". Presumably this means that we can't refer to anything at all that happened in the past but only on what is actually happening at the time we post?
I'm now entirely confused: in fact two of the bullet points are inherently contradictory to me and either the second one, stated later, is to be deemed to overrule the earlier one or else neither of them can stand at the same time as each other. On the one hand, we are required to "Stick to the facts". This means sticking to the facts, providing factual information only and seems to me to disallow all expression of opinions since opinions are not facts. The two things (fact and opinion) are not the same: whilst you can have opinions that are supported by the facts, and those that are not, or are less so, opinions are not facts and vice versa. However, the next bullet point then asserts "Positive and negative opinions should be constructive". If we are required to "Stick to the facts" how can any opinions at all be posted? This bullet point clearly envisages that opinions can be posted and that they should be constructive (only I note it uses the word "should" rather than "must" - therefore they do not have to be constructive even though they "should" be). If however opinions can be posted, as this bullet envisages, this fails to comply with "Stick to the facts". Either one or these rules must apply or the other - it cannot be both - please can someone guide me as to which it is as I'm now entirely confused and concerned about the matter - without such guidance I do not know how to regulate my conduct to ensure that it complies with the rules - do I have to "stick to the facts" or can I give positive or negative opinions that should be constructive? If the answer is I'm allowed to give opinions, from time to time, that should be constructive, how can anyone that does so ever be "sticking" to the "facts"? I do not understand how the two rules can both apply, as it now seems to me they inherently contradict each other and I therefore I completely and seriously no longer know which one of them I have to, or should, comply with and which one overrules the other.
An assumption I've been making for some time seems to me to be no longer valid (I don't give the opinion that it is no longer valid, it is a fact that it seems to me that it is). That was the assumption that is, or another current thread, is a discussion forum. The other forum I am referring to is headed "BBC News Channel Presentation - 21/03/16 onwards" and says that it was "Split from BBC News Channel General Discussion", which indeed it was. This led me to believe that it was a place for discussion and has confused me for some time into believing that it is; however I note that the current title does not say that it is and that this forum itself just says "BBC News: Presenters & Rotas". Again, it doesn't say anything about it being a "discussion". Clearly neither of the current forums can be discussion forums because any discussion at all is relating to giving an exchange of people's opinions and discussing matters - these are not places for discussions, they are places for sticking to the facts.
Or does the fact that it says "No general daily presenter discussion" imply that all other discussion is allowed? And if it does, how does posting any such discussion comply with sticking to the facts? It's discussing things, it's not stating immutable and unchallengable facts. Facts are things that apply constant and are true and are beyond dispute. Clearly anything at all can be disputed as it is, or would be, physically possible to do so; however any dispute that might be taken to a fact would be factually wrong on the matter. In that sense a fact is therefore not challengable (without any challenge being wrong - and it's still (as a matter of fact) wrong regardless of anyone's opinion to the contrary, no matter how strongly held or (wrongly) believed). This leaves no scope for any discussion at all as a fact is true and applies regardless of anyone's opinon and the only thing that can be posted it seems to me are pure facts as we are required to "stick" to the facts. I don't see how sticking to the facts would ever allow a discussion to be posted as there is no debate or discussion about the facts, in any case posting any discussion is not sticking to the facts and facts can't be challenged as they are facts. This leaves no scope for discussion on the matter. Either some statement is a fact or it isn't - and, if it isn't, then it cannot be posted.
What is actually happening might be thought by some people to be my own confusion on the matter. Actually there is no confusion, as it is clear what a fact is - and therefore I can't understand how that could allow any debate or discussion, despite me wrongly assuming this was a discussion thread for many months, or how any opinions whether positive or negative (whatever that means) can be posted even if they are constructive as they "should" be.
I now notice that TV Forum is straplined "The television presentation and related discussion website". However, this seems to me must mean that this fourm is part of the "presentation" part of the website and not the "related discussion" part, because the rules that apply to this place disallow all discussion.
I am fine when we can just post on here without any issues arising and in relation to news presenters and rotas. Then common sense just takes over and everyone is fine. However, now that I come to the rules and am pointed to start considering them and therefore trying to work out what they mean in order to ensure I comply with them on every occasion, I do not know which rule is taken to apply and on which occasion and why whatever rule that is applied is the one chosen to apply (because the other one in contradiction to it cannot be complied with at the same time - it must just be sticking to the facts and therefore rendering the rule about opinions totally redundant, as there are no circumstances in which this rule could be engaged in the first place as the only thing compliant with the rules that can ever be posted is stuck-to facts) and why the one rule that was chosen was chosen in preference to the other and not the other rule instead. This seems to me to arise because I am the person that gives real serious consideration to complying with the rules and then can't work out what I am to comply with, whilst almost no-one else ever seriously considers the rules and just gets on fine and there's generally no problem (until the point that someone points out a rule that they didn't comply with and then they probably delete their post and everything resumes fine). However, as almost the only person that is seriously rule-bound and considers them and tries to ensure everything is compliant, but fails to achieve this is all of his tizz, I am again left with contradictory rules and no clue as to which if any is to apply.
There's presenter & rota discussion and then there's writing a 3 paragraph post speculating who might be presenting in 40 minutes time.
It's also verging on going against the yellow warning box that pops up when you reply to this thread...
Posting in presenter/rota topics:
No general daily presenter discussion (e.g. "who presented at 3pm yesterday?")
No fantasy rotas/schedules
Posts should not relate to presenter's personal life/privacy
Stick to the facts - focus on what is actually happening
Positive and negative opinions should be constructive
I'm no moderator and I envy the time you seem to have available to you to indulge in your interest... but calm down.
It's also verging on going against the yellow warning box that pops up when you reply to this thread...
Posting in presenter/rota topics:
No general daily presenter discussion (e.g. "who presented at 3pm yesterday?")
No fantasy rotas/schedules
Posts should not relate to presenter's personal life/privacy
Stick to the facts - focus on what is actually happening
Positive and negative opinions should be constructive
I'm no moderator and I envy the time you seem to have available to you to indulge in your interest... but calm down.
I hadn't thought it was in breach of any of those rules - it wasn't general daily discussion, asking who presented; it wasn't a fantasy rota or schedule; it didn't relate to anyone's private life; it mentioned what was happening and it gave a lot of what I thought was useful information and discussion that was constructive. However, I've now seen your post and think you are referring to "Stick to the facts". Presumably this means that we can't refer to anything at all that happened in the past but only on what is actually happening at the time we post?
I'm now entirely confused: in fact two of the bullet points are inherently contradictory to me and either the second one, stated later, is to be deemed to overrule the earlier one or else neither of them can stand at the same time as each other. On the one hand, we are required to "Stick to the facts". This means sticking to the facts, providing factual information only and seems to me to disallow all expression of opinions since opinions are not facts. The two things (fact and opinion) are not the same: whilst you can have opinions that are supported by the facts, and those that are not, or are less so, opinions are not facts and vice versa. However, the next bullet point then asserts "Positive and negative opinions should be constructive". If we are required to "Stick to the facts" how can any opinions at all be posted? This bullet point clearly envisages that opinions can be posted and that they should be constructive (only I note it uses the word "should" rather than "must" - therefore they do not have to be constructive even though they "should" be). If however opinions can be posted, as this bullet envisages, this fails to comply with "Stick to the facts". Either one or these rules must apply or the other - it cannot be both - please can someone guide me as to which it is as I'm now entirely confused and concerned about the matter - without such guidance I do not know how to regulate my conduct to ensure that it complies with the rules - do I have to "stick to the facts" or can I give positive or negative opinions that should be constructive? If the answer is I'm allowed to give opinions, from time to time, that should be constructive, how can anyone that does so ever be "sticking" to the "facts"? I do not understand how the two rules can both apply, as it now seems to me they inherently contradict each other and I therefore I completely and seriously no longer know which one of them I have to, or should, comply with and which one overrules the other.
An assumption I've been making for some time seems to me to be no longer valid (I don't give the opinion that it is no longer valid, it is a fact that it seems to me that it is). That was the assumption that is, or another current thread, is a discussion forum. The other forum I am referring to is headed "BBC News Channel Presentation - 21/03/16 onwards" and says that it was "Split from BBC News Channel General Discussion", which indeed it was. This led me to believe that it was a place for discussion and has confused me for some time into believing that it is; however I note that the current title does not say that it is and that this forum itself just says "BBC News: Presenters & Rotas". Again, it doesn't say anything about it being a "discussion". Clearly neither of the current forums can be discussion forums because any discussion at all is relating to giving an exchange of people's opinions and discussing matters - these are not places for discussions, they are places for sticking to the facts.
Or does the fact that it says "No general daily presenter discussion" imply that all other discussion is allowed? And if it does, how does posting any such discussion comply with sticking to the facts? It's discussing things, it's not stating immutable and unchallengable facts. Facts are things that apply constant and are true and are beyond dispute. Clearly anything at all can be disputed as it is, or would be, physically possible to do so; however any dispute that might be taken to a fact would be factually wrong on the matter. In that sense a fact is therefore not challengable (without any challenge being wrong - and it's still (as a matter of fact) wrong regardless of anyone's opinion to the contrary, no matter how strongly held or (wrongly) believed). This leaves no scope for any discussion at all as a fact is true and applies regardless of anyone's opinon and the only thing that can be posted it seems to me are pure facts as we are required to "stick" to the facts. I don't see how sticking to the facts would ever allow a discussion to be posted as there is no debate or discussion about the facts, in any case posting any discussion is not sticking to the facts and facts can't be challenged as they are facts. This leaves no scope for discussion on the matter. Either some statement is a fact or it isn't - and, if it isn't, then it cannot be posted.
What is actually happening might be thought by some people to be my own confusion on the matter. Actually there is no confusion, as it is clear what a fact is - and therefore I can't understand how that could allow any debate or discussion, despite me wrongly assuming this was a discussion thread for many months, or how any opinions whether positive or negative (whatever that means) can be posted even if they are constructive as they "should" be.
I now notice that TV Forum is straplined "The television presentation and related discussion website". However, this seems to me must mean that this fourm is part of the "presentation" part of the website and not the "related discussion" part, because the rules that apply to this place disallow all discussion.
I am fine when we can just post on here without any issues arising and in relation to news presenters and rotas. Then common sense just takes over and everyone is fine. However, now that I come to the rules and am pointed to start considering them and therefore trying to work out what they mean in order to ensure I comply with them on every occasion, I do not know which rule is taken to apply and on which occasion and why whatever rule that is applied is the one chosen to apply (because the other one in contradiction to it cannot be complied with at the same time - it must just be sticking to the facts and therefore rendering the rule about opinions totally redundant, as there are no circumstances in which this rule could be engaged in the first place as the only thing compliant with the rules that can ever be posted is stuck-to facts) and why the one rule that was chosen was chosen in preference to the other and not the other rule instead. This seems to me to arise because I am the person that gives real serious consideration to complying with the rules and then can't work out what I am to comply with, whilst almost no-one else ever seriously considers the rules and just gets on fine and there's generally no problem (until the point that someone points out a rule that they didn't comply with and then they probably delete their post and everything resumes fine). However, as almost the only person that is seriously rule-bound and considers them and tries to ensure everything is compliant, but fails to achieve this is all of his tizz, I am again left with contradictory rules and no clue as to which if any is to apply.
Last edited by TVNewsviewer on 23 June 2018 2:33pm - 10 times in total
TV
This is where it becomes totally complex to me and unclear to me. [Decided to delete the rest of my explanation as this is a BBC News Rotas & Presenters thread.]
Christ Almighty 
It's pretty simple to me... just don't talk about presenters' shift patterns unless it is an absolutely Earth-shattering development that will rock the TV News profession to its very core.
Anything else, don't bother.
It's pretty simple to me... just don't talk about presenters' shift patterns unless it is an absolutely Earth-shattering development that will rock the TV News profession to its very core.
Anything else, don't bother.
This is where it becomes totally complex to me and unclear to me. [Decided to delete the rest of my explanation as this is a BBC News Rotas & Presenters thread.]
Last edited by TVNewsviewer on 23 June 2018 7:05pm - 4 times in total
TV
[Deleted - not relevant to the topic of the thread]
Last edited by TVNewsviewer on 23 June 2018 7:06pm - 4 times in total
TV
I didn't come here originally today to post all that obviously. What I came here today to post was some factual information that I have (in retrospect obsessively) collated. It would have provided factual information as to BBC News Presenters and Rotas, that may have informed everyone. However, after spending about half an hour getting the information together, I've concluded that it can't be posted because it is about what has actually happened rather than about what is actually happening at the time I post. So I can tell you there is a Dateline repeat on air, which tells you nothing and isn't unusual, so is not even noteworthy, but it seems to me my substantive information, that would have addressed whether people's impressions as to whether a certain shift is less covered by someone who regularly presented it are factually correct, can't be posted as it is not what is actually happening at this precise moment on the BBC News Channel. So, whilst it would comply with rules 1, 2 and 3 and rule 5 is always seemingly inapplicable, it doesn't meet rule 4 as it is not what is actually happening at this precise second.
However, if I think about it, I might be able to present it and it's purely factual) in the form of trends over time that point to the way things might be going and therefore what is "actually happening" on BBC News - e.g. is presenter X actually presenting this shift less now or not? Which would be actually substantive and provide factual information at the centre of the topic on BBC News Presenters and Rotas rather than the trivial and useless information as to what is currently on BBC News right now this afternoon. The information as to Dateline being on is trivial but the content of the programme actually on there is not. The point about whether presenter X is nowadays (therefore 'actually happening') presenting there or not is pertinent because it was originally supposed to be their regular shift. It's seems I'd have to present it as trends that point towards the future (and therefore pointing to what is 'actually happening') rather than factual information that has happened. It seems to me much of it can't be posted even though it's actually substantive factual information - it seems to me I could only address extracts of it towards what is "actually happening", which would then make it more focused on the individual presenter rather than being the more substantive, non-individual focused thing that the overall entirety of the information was - which would have provided a full overall picture that would have been very useful and very pertinent to the whole aim of BBC News Presenters and Rotas. As it would take me too much time to think about how it could be posted, it's just too great a task to do (unlike the mere half hour getting all the information together was that would just have provided excellent substantive factual information that didn't focus on the individual presenter) and therefore I can't post it which seems to me shame.
EDIT: What is actually happening is that Dateline has ended and the News Channel has now gone to the weather. And that's roughly the extent of the information I can post right now, which doesn't go very far or be very useful. And what is actually happening is me saying I can't post the information that I think would have been informative and useful to have shared as well as highly relevant to the topic of BBC News Presenters & Rotas.
However, if I think about it, I might be able to present it and it's purely factual) in the form of trends over time that point to the way things might be going and therefore what is "actually happening" on BBC News - e.g. is presenter X actually presenting this shift less now or not? Which would be actually substantive and provide factual information at the centre of the topic on BBC News Presenters and Rotas rather than the trivial and useless information as to what is currently on BBC News right now this afternoon. The information as to Dateline being on is trivial but the content of the programme actually on there is not. The point about whether presenter X is nowadays (therefore 'actually happening') presenting there or not is pertinent because it was originally supposed to be their regular shift. It's seems I'd have to present it as trends that point towards the future (and therefore pointing to what is 'actually happening') rather than factual information that has happened. It seems to me much of it can't be posted even though it's actually substantive factual information - it seems to me I could only address extracts of it towards what is "actually happening", which would then make it more focused on the individual presenter rather than being the more substantive, non-individual focused thing that the overall entirety of the information was - which would have provided a full overall picture that would have been very useful and very pertinent to the whole aim of BBC News Presenters and Rotas. As it would take me too much time to think about how it could be posted, it's just too great a task to do (unlike the mere half hour getting all the information together was that would just have provided excellent substantive factual information that didn't focus on the individual presenter) and therefore I can't post it which seems to me shame.
EDIT: What is actually happening is that Dateline has ended and the News Channel has now gone to the weather. And that's roughly the extent of the information I can post right now, which doesn't go very far or be very useful. And what is actually happening is me saying I can't post the information that I think would have been informative and useful to have shared as well as highly relevant to the topic of BBC News Presenters & Rotas.