GL
So are we doing TV debates based on opinion polling now? Fair enough. (I'm not sure you get it)
BA
It's a propaganda machine that has sucked quite a few people in. Conspiracy theorists is a lucrative market for various reasons, hence the amount of money raised for The People's Voice (a lot of which being unaccounted for).
The Green Party exclusion is not only a rather unimportant story, but it's a point that I've heard brought up time and again on the BBC.
Kudos to whoever keeps convincing governments and the wealthy that funding these utterly irrelevant micro-channels is a good idea, I don't know how they do it when it's so obvious that they are totally useless.
It's a propaganda machine that has sucked quite a few people in. Conspiracy theorists is a lucrative market for various reasons, hence the amount of money raised for The People's Voice (a lot of which being unaccounted for).
He's a former Communist. It's no real surprise he loves having heavily state controlled media 'broadcasting to the world'. However, sadly, some of the points made by the leadership at RT are correct. The BBC is - whether we like this or not - a state controlled entity. It claims to have independence from the Government but it would be fairly ridiculous to suggest that the national public broadcaster, which relies entirely on public taxes (which can be cancelled at any point by the politicians) would not pander, at least some times, to the powers that be. RT's endless attempts to portray Broken Britain, corrupt Europe and chaotic USA can often make it come across like a neurotic conspiracy theorist, but there are some positives. The top story on the Green party being excluded from national debates, despite having several MEPs, control of a council and an MP is a seriously important story. We have major problems in this country. It's unfortunate that RT is the only outlet that seems to be covering some of them.
The Green Party exclusion is not only a rather unimportant story, but it's a point that I've heard brought up time and again on the BBC.
LL
London Lite
Founding member
No RT UK bulletin when I tuned in at 8pm, instead simulcasting RT Intl.
MI
Interesting to see BBC Monitoring's report on RT UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/monitoring/kremlins-uk-tv-fails-to-match-ambitions
WW
The content of that report seems very reasonable to me, but isn't it a conflict of interest for the BBC to be seen reviewing one of its competitors? (Especially because the report's conclusion -- that RT is an insignificant "minnow" -- is surely a welcome one for the BBC.)
Interesting to see BBC Monitoring's report on RT UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/monitoring/kremlins-uk-tv-fails-to-match-ambitions
The content of that report seems very reasonable to me, but isn't it a conflict of interest for the BBC to be seen reviewing one of its competitors? (Especially because the report's conclusion -- that RT is an insignificant "minnow" -- is surely a welcome one for the BBC.)
LL
London Lite
Founding member
RT UK bashed the BBC on it's first bulletin and now the BBC are doing the same to RT via it's monitoring service.
However, the Monitoring article is factually correct which can't be said for some of RT's output which skews the 'news' to Putin's agenda.
However, the Monitoring article is factually correct which can't be said for some of RT's output which skews the 'news' to Putin's agenda.
WW
Right, but shouldn't the BBC stay above the RTs and Fox News Channels of the world by not even engaging in such tit-for-tats with them (which is what they ultimately want)?
RT UK bashed the BBC on it's first bulletin and now the BBC are doing the same to RT via it's monitoring service.
Right, but shouldn't the BBC stay above the RTs and Fox News Channels of the world by not even engaging in such tit-for-tats with them (which is what they ultimately want)?
CA
I have a feeling you don't know what BBC Monitoring actually is. It is nothing to do with BBC News. In fact it was the subject of a Newsnight investigation a few months ago.
It's been analysing news and propaganda since WW2 and selling its findings to Governments and private clients.
It's been analysing news and propaganda since WW2 and selling its findings to Governments and private clients.
Last edited by Cando on 12 November 2014 1:04am
LL
London Lite
Founding member
Fair enough Cando. However, it has the BBC brand, hosted on a BBC website, so of course I'm going to tag it as a BBC service presumptuously.
That doesn't make me pro or anti BBC, this isn't Digital Spy after all.
That doesn't make me pro or anti BBC, this isn't Digital Spy after all.
WW
I've heard of BBC Monitoring, but my understanding was that their mission is to report what the world's media outlets are saying, not how they are saying it. Since BBC Monitoring is still a part of the BBC, their dismissal of a rival news service can look like a conflict of interest, even when that dismissal is otherwise justified (as it is in this case).
I have a feeling you don't know what BBC Monitoring actually is. It is nothing to do with BBC News. In fact it was the subject of a Newsnight investigation a few months ago.
It's been analysing news and propaganda since WW2 and selling its findings to Governments and private clients.
It's been analysing news and propaganda since WW2 and selling its findings to Governments and private clients.
I've heard of BBC Monitoring, but my understanding was that their mission is to report what the world's media outlets are saying, not how they are saying it. Since BBC Monitoring is still a part of the BBC, their dismissal of a rival news service can look like a conflict of interest, even when that dismissal is otherwise justified (as it is in this case).
GL
It's a propaganda machine that has sucked quite a few people in. Conspiracy theorists is a lucrative market for various reasons, hence the amount of money raised for The People's Voice (a lot of which being unaccounted for).
The Green Party exclusion is not only a rather unimportant story, but it's a point that I've heard brought up time and again on the BBC.
You make a fair point that the BBC has been covering the Green Party issue. However, it's worth remembering that the BBC is one of the broadcasters that SUGGESTED not including the Greens in the debate but wanted UKIP in it. It's much the same point as with BBC Monitoring. We need to stop swallowing this line that different wings of the BBC operating independently of each other. It's nonsense and a very old school argument businesses use to get out of a disagreement with customers.
Kudos to whoever keeps convincing governments and the wealthy that funding these utterly irrelevant micro-channels is a good idea, I don't know how they do it when it's so obvious that they are totally useless.
It's a propaganda machine that has sucked quite a few people in. Conspiracy theorists is a lucrative market for various reasons, hence the amount of money raised for The People's Voice (a lot of which being unaccounted for).
He's a former Communist. It's no real surprise he loves having heavily state controlled media 'broadcasting to the world'. However, sadly, some of the points made by the leadership at RT are correct. The BBC is - whether we like this or not - a state controlled entity. It claims to have independence from the Government but it would be fairly ridiculous to suggest that the national public broadcaster, which relies entirely on public taxes (which can be cancelled at any point by the politicians) would not pander, at least some times, to the powers that be. RT's endless attempts to portray Broken Britain, corrupt Europe and chaotic USA can often make it come across like a neurotic conspiracy theorist, but there are some positives. The top story on the Green party being excluded from national debates, despite having several MEPs, control of a council and an MP is a seriously important story. We have major problems in this country. It's unfortunate that RT is the only outlet that seems to be covering some of them.
The Green Party exclusion is not only a rather unimportant story, but it's a point that I've heard brought up time and again on the BBC.
You make a fair point that the BBC has been covering the Green Party issue. However, it's worth remembering that the BBC is one of the broadcasters that SUGGESTED not including the Greens in the debate but wanted UKIP in it. It's much the same point as with BBC Monitoring. We need to stop swallowing this line that different wings of the BBC operating independently of each other. It's nonsense and a very old school argument businesses use to get out of a disagreement with customers.
MI
I've heard of BBC Monitoring, but my understanding was that their mission is to report what the world's media outlets are saying, not how they are saying it. Since BBC Monitoring is still a part of the BBC, their dismissal of a rival news service can look like a conflict of interest, even when that dismissal is otherwise justified (as it is in this case).
BBC Monitoring's remit:
•focus on open media sources
•ability to provide "the words as spoken" - accurate and impartial translations of what leading figures have said
• analysis of how the media report an event
•understanding of the complex media scene in key countries
•a selection of material, including media reviews, for the BBC News website
•provision of audio and video clips for BBC programmes
•[provision of] broadcast-ready journalists, able to explain our insight to BBC audiences
http://www.bbc.co.uk/monitoring/about-us
until the recent changes which saw Monitoring and World Service come under the licence fee , BBC Monitoring was completely externally funded with income from the Cabinet Office, FCO and commercial bodies around the world.
It view of the context of its historical remit, it certainly should not be seen as tit-for-tat reporting and certainly the article does stay rather neutral without the emotive language you would see in newspapers.
I have a feeling you don't know what BBC Monitoring actually is. It is nothing to do with BBC News. In fact it was the subject of a Newsnight investigation a few months ago.
It's been analysing news and propaganda since WW2 and selling its findings to Governments and private clients.
It's been analysing news and propaganda since WW2 and selling its findings to Governments and private clients.
I've heard of BBC Monitoring, but my understanding was that their mission is to report what the world's media outlets are saying, not how they are saying it. Since BBC Monitoring is still a part of the BBC, their dismissal of a rival news service can look like a conflict of interest, even when that dismissal is otherwise justified (as it is in this case).
BBC Monitoring's remit:
•focus on open media sources
•ability to provide "the words as spoken" - accurate and impartial translations of what leading figures have said
• analysis of how the media report an event
•understanding of the complex media scene in key countries
•a selection of material, including media reviews, for the BBC News website
•provision of audio and video clips for BBC programmes
•[provision of] broadcast-ready journalists, able to explain our insight to BBC audiences
http://www.bbc.co.uk/monitoring/about-us
until the recent changes which saw Monitoring and World Service come under the licence fee , BBC Monitoring was completely externally funded with income from the Cabinet Office, FCO and commercial bodies around the world.
It view of the context of its historical remit, it certainly should not be seen as tit-for-tat reporting and certainly the article does stay rather neutral without the emotive language you would see in newspapers.