The BBC World News Thread

A little OT but BBC World News is now banned in China due to "unfair" and "untruthful" reporting - must be related to the CGTN ban in the UK... Here's the official webpage translated by Google:
(By the time I post this the news just broke hence you might can't find relevant news in websites like Google just yet...)

And the RTHK spokesperson previously said RTHK will scrap BBC World News, which was never been aired on RTHK…

It says exactly what I meant it to say. (It is very carefully written as I am on the autism spectrum. It is people who aren't on the autism spectrum that often don't say exactly what they mean.)
There should never be any need to give any warnings of this word during the pre-watershed period on television. There is a complete ban on the word during those times. Therefore it should never be there in the first place. As such, since it shouldn't be there and the rules always complied with, there won't ever be an occasion when it is aired before the watershed and, therefore, no warnings for it will apply. If it is aired before the watershed, my understanding is that the Ofcom rules are automatically breached. So it is a technical point that there won't need to be any warning (going back to something in the old Broadcasting Standards Council Code of Practice 1989 saying that there shouldn't normally need to be any warnings before the watershed because all content at that time should be suitable for family viewing anyway - so you are not going to be warning about graphic violence unsuitable for children pre-watershed as there shouldn't be any anyway). The addition of any 'warning' changes nothing: the mere airing of the word in and of itself is an automatic breach of 1.14 as that imposes a complete ban on what Ofcom considers "the most offensive language" before the TV watershed. Unless Ofcom has now decided that it isn't, in their words, "the most offensive language" and a "clear example" of such after all.

However, even if the F word was downgraded from "the most offensive language" to merely "offensive language", this would seem to be in breach as 1.16, on offensive language, says "In any event, frequent use of such language must be avoided before the watershed" and it could well be said that there was frequent use on the News Channel as there were multiple uses in the space of a few minutes. Of course, this made the broadcast even better for me and the highlight was seeing the MF word in full on my television screen. I really love that communication. However this, or any complaining about the 'swearing', misses the point as the context isn't the use of words on television but instead is showing what actually happened at the Capitol and presenting that as impeachment evidence, hence goes to the very first sentence of my original post.

It seemed, by contrast, the N word (used once in audio and text as far as I am aware) is allowed before the watershed but, as "offensive language", has to be justified by the context and I haven't been aware of any change to this position. Apparently the N word isn't "the most offensive language" according to Ofcom as far as I understood. However the idea that somehow it isn't the most offensive language seems increasingly untenable. It seems Ofcom may have had a change of mind of late, AFAIK without any further audience research, as they are now claiming - in their latest Broadcast Bulletin of a few days ago - that a song that uses a derivation of the N word, and not that full word, contains "the most offensive language" on a radio channel. So I don't now know if all of a sudden the goalposts have been switched and I have now asked Ofcom to clarify because it is not using the rule against "the most offensive language" but one against merely "offensive language" instead. It is interesting because the song in question has been aired numerous times in the mid-1990s on numerous mainstream radio channels, apparently without any issue or complaint ever being made but now, apparently, it is "human error" to have aired it.

As regards your response to the other part of my post, I agree with you on that.

During coverage of the terrorist bomb attacks in London on 7 July 2005, three channels ran footage of a victim being stretchered from an ambulance into hospital. The man was clearly in a critical condition and was pictured, apparently close to death, while receiving heart massage from one of the medical personnel in attendance. A number of viewers found these images offensive. 26 viewers complained about their inclusion in BBC’s coverage on BBC1 and BBC News 24, shortly before 11:00.
Another nine complaints were received about the use of the same images in ITV’s Early Evening News, shortly after 18:00. A further two complaints were received about their use on Channel 4 News after 19:00.

Even within the context of a shocking news event these particular images were exceptionally strong and disturbing - and their use demanded exceptional justification. We do not believe the images themselves were too offensive for broadcast – provided they were handled sensitively and placed in a proper context. In considering offence we take into account the strong public interest in reporting on the aftermath of the bombings both as soon as possible after the actual event and also in later accounts and analyses of the day’s events.

The BBC showed the images whilst a studio presenter spoke in general terms about the emergency operation taking place after the bomb blasts and the casualties arriving at hospitals. The presenter gave a warning but introduced the images from the hospital by saying “..let’s just take a look at some of the pictures coming from the Royal London”. It appeared to us that the pictures were used generically and the commentary did not reflect the seriousness of the images being transmitted. We welcome the BBC’s admission that the images had not been viewed properly, and its acknowledgement that they should not have been put to air in such a manner.

The images on the ITV Early Evening News were used in the context of an edited item. A warning was included in the introduction, which stated that the item contained “graphic images of the injured”. The script established a clear narrative context and the pictures were sensitively ‘written to’. We considered this was an appropriate treatment of the incident, given the very exceptional events of the day and did not breach the Code.

Channel 4 News also used the images within the context of an edited item. Again, a warning was given in the introduction about the disturbing nature of some of the material. The pictures were not used casually and the item was voiced appropriately. The script referred to the timings of the bombings but did not fully reflect the enormity of the images that were being transmitted. Nevertheless, their use was not careless and – on balance – we consider that Channel 4 also had not breached the Programme Code.

BBC - Resolved.
ITV Early Evening News – Not in Breach
Channel 4 News - Not in Breach

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/45918/issue44.pdf

While BBC World News being banned in China may feel like a big, bold move, in real terms it will have very little impact. It’s all for show.

I currently live in Shanghai and for the past 2 years of me living here, the BBC website and app are blocked. Of course most people who want to access it can readily use a VPN to access it.

Similarly, the BBC World News channel is not broadcast widely here before the ban. You would only really find it in hotel rooms of western-brand chains. Most people watch BBC World News on dodgy IPTV boxes that are very common in China, and these won’t be affected by the ban. I sat here happily watching it this morning over breakfast.

The attitude towards the BBC is an interesting one here. My landlord came over to check on something and I had BBC News on the TV and he just said ‘wow’ and asked to watch for sometime.

As mentioned by other posters above, the more significant and impactful move will be if China expels journalists. I think it’s to be expected considering the number of foreign journalists who have been removed in the last few years as well as the increasing hostility towards foreigners in the last year in light of COVID and the situation in HK.

Edit: just noticed how long this post is... sorry! Also to note this is my first post on the forum in 6 years! No idea it had been that long...

Special impeachment titles just used. Seems odd that this is the first time they’ve been used (I believe?) and they’re expecting it to be over tomorrow or Monday.

Can you install a satellite dish and point it to any one of the satellites that pick up bbc world anyway?

Is it only blocked via satellite, or can China still watch it online though, like the UK can?

I did not see Outside Source, but I would imagine Ofcom would accept that it was broadcast on a news channel not aimed at children, there was a warning (although it was late), BBC News was taking the programme live and was technically not in control of the feed which was being produced by the World News team and the topic of the item was racist attacks against police.

News may not be explicitly exempt but I have certainly seen swearing in the House of Commons not being apologised for, and that was during PMQ's.

EDIT: It appears that Outside Source is not on iPlayer and the BBC News schedule doesn't actually list it as being aired, which is interesting.

Special impeachment titles just used. Seems odd that this is the first time they’ve been used (I believe?) and they’re expecting it to be over tomorrow or Monday.