MA
So are you complaining that the BBC actually trys to hold the government to account rather than sycophantically swallowing everything Alistair Campbell puts out.
And tell me C@t which organisation has recently been censured for making up a report
The BBC does have a massive global reputation mainly through the work of World Service Radio.
Why do you think the Goverment were so upset at the BBC but ignored similar reports on other media.
Because they know people believe what they see and hear on the BBC
Marcus
Founding member
c@t posted:
No, that is absolute tripe and you know it, Marcass. Excuse my Freudian slip.
Sky said that there were FEARS of another POSSIBLE Sars outbreak - which there were - which REPORTEDLY was going on in Hong Kong.
They later clarified the issue after health officials came out and said that actually it wasn't Sars but just some sort of bad cough.
It was reported all over the place, not just on Sky. Give it a rest with your standard-bearing, global-repuation droll, will you. In the current climate, the BBC is the last organisation to be lecturing anyone about journalistic standards.
Sky said that there were FEARS of another POSSIBLE Sars outbreak - which there were - which REPORTEDLY was going on in Hong Kong.
They later clarified the issue after health officials came out and said that actually it wasn't Sars but just some sort of bad cough.
It was reported all over the place, not just on Sky. Give it a rest with your standard-bearing, global-repuation droll, will you. In the current climate, the BBC is the last organisation to be lecturing anyone about journalistic standards.
So are you complaining that the BBC actually trys to hold the government to account rather than sycophantically swallowing everything Alistair Campbell puts out.
And tell me C@t which organisation has recently been censured for making up a report
The BBC does have a massive global reputation mainly through the work of World Service Radio.
Why do you think the Goverment were so upset at the BBC but ignored similar reports on other media.
Because they know people believe what they see and hear on the BBC
:-(
So are you complaining that the BBC actually trys to hold the government to account rather than sycophantically swallowing everything Alistair Campbell puts out.
And tell me C@t which organisation has recently been censured for making up a report
The BBC does have a massive global reputation mainly through the work of World Service Radio.
Why do you think the Goverment were so upset at the BBC but ignored similar reports on other media.
Because they know people believe what they see and hear on the BBC
... and let's not forget that nice survey from earlier this week saying the BBC is the most trusted TV news organisation... Sky News got 11% compared to near 60% for the Beeb.
A former member
Marcus posted:
c@t posted:
No, that is absolute tripe and you know it, Marcass. Excuse my Freudian slip.
Sky said that there were FEARS of another POSSIBLE Sars outbreak - which there were - which REPORTEDLY was going on in Hong Kong.
They later clarified the issue after health officials came out and said that actually it wasn't Sars but just some sort of bad cough.
It was reported all over the place, not just on Sky. Give it a rest with your standard-bearing, global-repuation droll, will you. In the current climate, the BBC is the last organisation to be lecturing anyone about journalistic standards.
Sky said that there were FEARS of another POSSIBLE Sars outbreak - which there were - which REPORTEDLY was going on in Hong Kong.
They later clarified the issue after health officials came out and said that actually it wasn't Sars but just some sort of bad cough.
It was reported all over the place, not just on Sky. Give it a rest with your standard-bearing, global-repuation droll, will you. In the current climate, the BBC is the last organisation to be lecturing anyone about journalistic standards.
So are you complaining that the BBC actually trys to hold the government to account rather than sycophantically swallowing everything Alistair Campbell puts out.
And tell me C@t which organisation has recently been censured for making up a report
The BBC does have a massive global reputation mainly through the work of World Service Radio.
Why do you think the Goverment were so upset at the BBC but ignored similar reports on other media.
Because they know people believe what they see and hear on the BBC
... and let's not forget that nice survey from earlier this week saying the BBC is the most trusted TV news organisation... Sky News got 11% compared to near 60% for the Beeb.
HA
I agree entirely that you should be able to comment on the quality of its presentation, that is what this forum is primarily for.
But to equate poor presentation and low viewing figures/the quality programming is way off the mark, in my book. Some people around here seem to be under the illusion that the general public have watercooler moments concerning News 24's graphics - that most people actually give a sh-t. They don't.
Discuss graphics and presentation, absolutely; discuss viewing figures... but don't attempt to link both of them, because in this instance it really doesn't matter one tiny bit.
As it stands, I think the graphics are sh-t, and the programming is sh-t. But that's the only connection between the two.
Anyway, it's now Thursday and I can't see any tickers.
I totally agree, at the end of the day, it's the substance that counts, the way BBC News 24 deliver the news is pretty boring, and their graphics presentation should be consistant with the rest of BBC News, who have adopted far sensible astons(not sure about Breakfast).
As to the tickers, well perhaps Columbus needs to be reinstalled to have a ticker!
harshy
Founding member
c@t posted:
harshy posted:
I agree with all your points c@t, and we are not implying that News 24 is sh*t because they can't decide on the clock etc, but we should be aloud to comment on such things, as it does provide an image of the channel, otherwise they wouldn't be any need for graphics!
I hope you understand what you mean, and I appreciate what you are saying.
I hope you understand what you mean, and I appreciate what you are saying.
I agree entirely that you should be able to comment on the quality of its presentation, that is what this forum is primarily for.
But to equate poor presentation and low viewing figures/the quality programming is way off the mark, in my book. Some people around here seem to be under the illusion that the general public have watercooler moments concerning News 24's graphics - that most people actually give a sh-t. They don't.
Discuss graphics and presentation, absolutely; discuss viewing figures... but don't attempt to link both of them, because in this instance it really doesn't matter one tiny bit.
As it stands, I think the graphics are sh-t, and the programming is sh-t. But that's the only connection between the two.
Anyway, it's now Thursday and I can't see any tickers.
I totally agree, at the end of the day, it's the substance that counts, the way BBC News 24 deliver the news is pretty boring, and their graphics presentation should be consistant with the rest of BBC News, who have adopted far sensible astons(not sure about Breakfast).
As to the tickers, well perhaps Columbus needs to be reinstalled to have a ticker!
MA
Marcus
Founding member
Nicky doesn't work on the channel so wouldn't know all the details. I can tell you what I have heard and that is that a ticker is on it's way. Probably just for Breaking news and during taped programmes, at least to begin with. As for a date, it depends when they can get the technology working. These things nearly always miss their launch date
CA
Actually, I think Sky's was 13%.
Channel 4's was 11%.
What does this prove? That the survey is tripe.
Less people trust Channel 4's journalism than Sky's and ITV's? Even I trust Channel 4's more than Sky's.
It works on the basis of how many people watch them, not the basis of how reliable they are. And as I have said many times before, if you think the general public have a clue what they're on about, you're obviously working for MORI or some other crackpot polling company producing more and more rubbish by the day.
I REALLY hate HTV West posted:
... and let's not forget that nice survey from earlier this week saying the BBC is the most trusted TV news organisation... Sky News got 11% compared to near 60% for the Beeb.
Actually, I think Sky's was 13%.
Channel 4's was 11%.
What does this prove? That the survey is tripe.
Less people trust Channel 4's journalism than Sky's and ITV's? Even I trust Channel 4's more than Sky's.
It works on the basis of how many people watch them, not the basis of how reliable they are. And as I have said many times before, if you think the general public have a clue what they're on about, you're obviously working for MORI or some other crackpot polling company producing more and more rubbish by the day.
RE
i wouldn't say any news channel is more reliable than any other, most of the news comes from the same sources.
i think its the specialist programmes that make something seem more reliable. take radio 4's today programme, and Newsnight. it is those programmes that probably gain the bbc credit, not bbc news 24. as far as i know sky doesn't have any agenda setting programmes like that, and so in survey's like the above are disadvantaged.
i think its the specialist programmes that make something seem more reliable. take radio 4's today programme, and Newsnight. it is those programmes that probably gain the bbc credit, not bbc news 24. as far as i know sky doesn't have any agenda setting programmes like that, and so in survey's like the above are disadvantaged.