• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

BBC's reputation

Analogue Boy

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
13,547
OK. Now they've come clean and admitted that the 'competition' prizes went not to phone-in entrants but to the production staff, and that the Breakfast News has forgone any form of serious investigative journalism and is little more than a series of items advertising a BBC show later in the evening - and now that they've admitted to betraying the trust of the nation - where do you think this leaves its reputation as the country's main media service?
 
I think in the short term it might do some damage but it won't be long before people forget about it. Media outlets, much like politicians, are almost expected to lie and be deceitful so people won't be too shocked and ultimately these are really very small breaches of the public trust. Politicians and celebrities often come back from much worse abuses and sometimes come back stronger. As long as it keeps producing programmes that people want to watch they won't really care. There will, of course, be many people who'll be vocal in denouncing the Beeb but they will largely be drawn from the ranks of those who already disapprove.

Is there a particular conspiratorial angle to this story that you think might not have been reported in connection with this story so far?
 
It's a fair point.

I thought you may ask that question and I was thinking of posting under mainstream news stories but as the BBC does so much to influence public opinion, I think it relevant that we are allowed to question the morals and motives of the people who make the news and what comes into the living room.

(edit) I may also add that although I'm no legal expert, the running of fraudulent competitions for financial gain on a national scale must, in some way be illegal, so I would expect the Police Service to take an interest. (edit)
 
4 minutes from a 30 year old movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI

as for the bbc, i dont think its malicious. They blamed technical faults, and hence made stuff up. just sloppy judgement and probably common practice from the assorted production crews. The show must go on!
 
Yes, it's been mostly arse-covering and they don't seem to be gaining in any significant way. Also, the people who are carrying out the fraud (not themselves benefitting in any way except with regard to avoiding damage to their professional reputation) have very little influence within the BBC and consequently on the country. In many cases they seem not even to be BBC employees.
 
IMO too, it's cock-ups and arse-covering (I wonder if the Queen incident was someone having a laugh in the editing suite and then accidently sending out the joke edit).

Most of the newspapers that are screaming "Shame at the BBC" deliberately lie for political ends on a regular basis and the politicians who are getting "outraged" lie as habitually as breathing...
 
However, leaving aside that more licence payer's money will be syphoned off to send them onto Training courses in being unfraudulent, there is still the matter that the Company has acted fraudulently for financial gain.

As someone on their website put it, 'I wonder if the BBC will pay for me to go on a training course when I fail to pay the licence fee next time?'
 
jimv1 said:
However, leaving aside that more licence payer's money will be syphoned off to send them onto Training courses in being unfraudulent, there is still the matter that the Company has acted fraudulently for financial gain.
Click to expand...

True but it's not so much the company as a few people employed by the corporation (and not neccessarily directly). There's nothing linking these abuses to corporate policy or that senior officials were encouraging or even aware of the abuse. It's a bit like getting short changed by till staff in a shop (and for their own personal gain) rather than a big chain knowingly conning its customers.
 
What reputation?The BBC reported the 'collapse' of WTC 7 more than 20 minutes BEFORE it actually happened & then lied about losing the footage!!There was a time when you could, "know it because the BBC said it"..there was a time when the BBC was more trusted..by a great deal..than any American news source...sorely, that time isn't today!..A propaganda outlet..nothing more!
 
The problem is that the BBC has farmed out various things to production companies, and has also changed the way it presents itself and it's programming. BBC1 has never been all that good as a news source, especially in the past 10 years or so - BBC2 seems to have a better slant on that via 'Newsnight'. That said, what has gone does seem to be fraud, and yet no-one seems to have been arrested for it - it seems that what happened would be a phone-scam by any other name, but no-one seems to be addressing that as an issue. I imagine that this may be because it's not just the BBC who've done such things. IMHO, the more this sort of thing happens, the more one wonders how the license fee is spent and whether it should be scrapped. I still think it's one of the stranger fees one has to pay for living in the UK.
 
It's also indicative of the disdain they have for their audience.

Apart from wasting the fiscal output of a small country on inventing a new colour (BBC red) and expensive graphics that are aired for a limited amount of time, they joined the dumb-down race with an endless stream of house, style, cookery programmes. The news is a shadow of what it used to be years ago and I've noticed a creeping editorial element that sometimes crosses over into drama. That is aside from the fact that the Breakfast News serves little purpose other than to promote the channel's own shows later in the evening.

The reason we pay a licence fee, it has always been said, is to own and operate the receiver necessary to view this output. Now that many programme concepts are in the hands of independent companies, there's very little we can say to influence them.

There are, however, some very good books out there.
 
Yep, I agree. The BBC nowadays almost seems like a commercial channel (albeit one that just promotes itself), and IMHO I don't know why it doesn't just become a true commercial station. And, let's face it, the license fee is a rather odd (and expensive) way of funding just one channel under the guise of being able to watch TV in general. It all seems rather daft. And whilst I guess people could say that a commercial BBC would suffer in quality etc. it really can't get much worse than it is now ;)
 
Jerry_B said:
Yep, I agree. The BBC nowadays almost seems like a commercial channel (albeit one that just promotes itself), and IMHO I don't know why it doesn't just become a true commercial station. And, let's face it, the license fee is a rather odd (and expensive) way of funding just one channel under the guise of being able to watch TV in general. It all seems rather daft. And whilst I guess people could say that a commercial BBC would suffer in quality etc. it really can't get much worse than it is now ;)
Click to expand...
Outsourcing, which seems to have begun, in a serious way, under John Birt's reign as Director General, appears to have fundamentally undermined and weakened the BBC.

It was not designed as a commercial broadcaster. It was designed as a flagship of public excellence and High Values. However, Middle English, OxBridge, those High Values might be.

As a down market purveyor of bought in commercial, lowest common denominator schlock, it would sink and the rest of British Culture with it.
 
I've always been of the opinion that being forcibly charged the license fee because you own a television is exactly the same as being forcibly charged for eggs, flour, sugar and butter because you own an oven.

You may not want to bake a cake, but because you could, then you must pay for the ingredients.
 
However much you complain about the BBC (and BBC One is really terrible these days), I would say it was still worthwhile due to BBC Four, BBC Radio and the Online News.

At least it's not quite as bad as ITV1 yet... (watch the ITV Early Evening News for details - it's like having the Daily Star shoved down your throat by Max Clifford).
 
Creamstick1 said:
I've always been of the opinion that being forcibly charged the license fee because you own a television is exactly the same as being forcibly charged for eggs, flour, sugar and butter because you own an oven.

You may not want to bake a cake, but because you could, then you must pay for the ingredients.
Click to expand...
It's more like, you own an oven and although your forced to pay a fee for that privilege, a steady supply of. reasonably high quality, "eggs, flour, sugar and butter" is delivered to your door every morning, so that you can bake a cake, whether you want to or not.
 
Ahemmm

Imagine a world where you can buy whatever radio or television set you wish and still be able to tune into the BBC. Imagine if you could record a show on your VCR or a radio broadcast on your tape recorder. A world where the BBC uses free and open standards for radio and television to reach more people in the world than any other broadcasting corporation. This is the world as we've known it for over thirty years.

What if I told you that the BBC had decided to use secretive and proprietary standards? That they were implementing technology that would restrict what you can use to watch BBC programming and when you can watch it? That the software they are distributing would make decisions about what was on your computer? That the BBC had decided to give an exclusive deal for all Internet video broadcasting to just one company? That you had to buy this company's product if you wanted to view BBC television programming on your computer?

The deal made between the BBC and Microsoft does exactly that.
Click to expand...

Source

If they're right then BBC content will only be playable (legally) using Microsoft products. Bit of a worry?
 
ttaarraass said:
However much you complain about the BBC (and BBC One is really terrible these days), I would say it was still worthwhile due to BBC Four, BBC Radio and the Online News.

At least it's not quite as bad as ITV1 yet... (watch the ITV Early Evening News for details - it's like having the Daily Star shoved down your throat by Max Clifford).
Click to expand...

Quite. Whilst I have reservations about the legitimacy of charging people for a service they might not want to use you have to compare it to the tv and radio services we get for 'free'. ITV and Channel 5 are practically a write-off. Channel 4 still has some good programmes but it's gone downhill faster than the BBC. Whilst it might seem a little arrogant to say so I have no moral objection to getting the television I want to see funded by people who'd rather watch Celebrity Carpet Beating or The Mint.
 
The other morning the BBC TV News seemed to be struggling for content. They then ran a story on a report that there had been a sharp increase in the number of cases of animal cruelty as reported by the RSPCA. They interviewed an RSPCA officer who seemed unsure of herslf in the interview and seemed to need prompting. Later, whilst driving to work, I heard BBC Radio 5 reporting an increase in complaints to the RSPCA but a small decrease in the number of confirmed cases. As this was a small headline 'in passing' I'm inclined to believe it but I'm still not sure who to believe.
 
BBC's Alan Yentob in 'noddy' controversy

The BBC has admitted that Alan Yentob, the corporation's creative director, has performed 'noddy shots' on interviews that he did not personally conduct for his arts series Imagine.

In the first instance of a senior BBC executive being drawn into the TV trust issue, a senior corporation source admitted that Mr Yentob often does not conduct all the interviews on Imagine - even though he appears nodding or reacting to.

Mr Yentob, one of the BBC's most senior figures and widely seen as the corporation's ambassador, conducts many of the major interviews for the series, which most recently featured British artists Gilbert & George and a profile of artist Scott Walker that featured interviews with musicians Jarvis Cocker, Radiohead and David Bowie.

However, it is understood that scenes featuring Mr Yentob reacting to some of the more peripheral figures and experts featured in his programmes were edited in even though he was not actually present. Editing work on the programme later gave the impression that he was present.

The BBC declined to issue a statement about the matter last night. It comes after the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, last month told staff that those involved in deceptions could face dismissal.'Nothing matters more than trust and fair dealing with our audiences,' he told staff in an internal broadcast. 'We have to regard deception as a very grave breach of discipline which will normally lead to dismissal. If you have a choice between deception and a programme going off air, let the programme go. It is far better to accept a production problem and make a clean breast to the public than to deceive.'A senior BBC source admitted that Mr Yentob had engaged in so-called 'noddy' shots for interviews he did not conduct but declined to name which instances.

The source robustly defended the practice, insisting that Yentob was unable to attend every interview that appears on his show because of his workload.'Everybody does it - it is a universal technique,' he said. 'The important point is to ask - does this change the meaning of what you are doing and the answer is no it does not.'If you had everybody who did interviews featured in them you would have have 11 or 12 people nodding at different times which is getting into the realism of the ludicrous. This is standard practice across the industry.'The debate over 'noddys' was given added impetus last week when the Channel Five News editor, David Kermode, decided to ban what he called 'rather hackneyed tricks' in his channel's bulletins.'I genuinely believe that if we lead the way by stopping some of the tired old 'showbiz' shortcuts, we can help restore trust in our medium and make our programmes more creative too,' Mr Kermode told MediaGuardian.co.uk.

However many senior figures within the BBC were reluctant to follow Five's lead, with one senior news source describing Five's move as a 'publicity stunt'.The BBC source added: 'No wonder Channel Five can do that - their news reports aren't long enough anyway so they can do it but the BBC bulletins are usually much more in-depth. It was pure attention seeking on their part.'Having asked its viewers if it should ban staged shots, Peter Barron, the editor of BBC2's Newsnight programme, recently decided to ban contrived introductory 'walking shots' in which a reporter and interviewee are shown walking before a cut to the interview. However the programme, while limiting the use of noddy shots, has decided not to ban them.

In July, the BBC was plunged into crisis after admitting to six incidents in which BBC staff had passed themselves off as members of the public or a fictitious winner had been announced on programmes.

They included incidents during the BBC's flagship telethons Children in Need, Comic Relief and Sport Relief.

The BBC Trust said it was 'deeply concerned that significant failures of control and compliance within the BBC ... have compromised the BBC's values of accuracy and honesty'.The media regulator, Ofcom, had already already fined the BBC 50,000 over an incident in which a girl on a studio tour was persuaded to pose as the winner on a Blue Peter competition.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/s ... rss&feed=4

Personally I think the whole controversy is worth it just to get the phrase "Alan Yentob's 'noddy' shots".
 
Is anyone reminded of an outraged Albert Brooks in Broadcast News? So they insert shots of the presenter into interviews. Big deal.
 
gncxx said:
Is anyone reminded of an outraged Albert Brooks in Broadcast News? So they insert shots of the presenter into interviews. Big deal.
Click to expand...

Yes. Can't you see me nodding?
 
I only read the headline in the Groaniad and wondered which of the Big Ears they had caught him in bed with. Chief suspects being Andrew Marr and that curious-looking creature that gets all excited about money. :shock:
 
gncxx said:
Is anyone reminded of an outraged Albert Brooks in Broadcast News? So they insert shots of the presenter into interviews. Big deal.
Click to expand...

The reason this is being regarded as a new low is because a) it's Yentob and b) he wasn't even doing the interview in the first place. They could just have well inserted footage of a nodding parakeet off You've Been Framed.

But it's not the worst thing that's happened to the BBC this year.
 
It is quite clear to me the continuing deplorable exploits of the ratings-hungry Blue Peter are out of control. Not content with rigging yet another phone-in to name the new kitten 'DeathClaw', It transpires that the alternative names for nomination sent to the mobile phones of under sevens were...
'Faster Pussycat, Kill!, Kill!'
'I Piss On Your Gravy'
And 'Starfish Biscuits'.

Worse than this, they had duplicate kittens from the same litter with these alternative names already daubed in lead paint across them waiting to be held up in front of the camera and were individually trained to let loose on cue to create a money generating 'comedy clip' like 'John Noakes and the elephant' which - apart from Dance Fever' and the tantalising thigh flashing of Fiona Bruce to get more people interested in Crimewatch - is all that's been keeping the BBC going the past few years.

I would say 'Why Oh Why Oh Why?'. But I Know, Know, Know, Know , Know, Know.
 
Apparently the actual winning name that was rejected for the original Blue Peter cat "Cookie" was deemed inappropriate for a children's show - why? Did they think someone was going to eat it? Or is "cookie" some street drug that I've never heard of?

Please advise.

-
 
Rrose_Selavy said:
Apparently the actual winning name that was rejected for the original Blue Peter cat "Cookie" was deemed inappropriate for a children's show - why? Did they think someone was going to eat it? Or is "cookie" some street drug that I've never heard of?

Please advise.

-
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the actual name was 'Pussy', which whilst might have been appropriate for the 1970s ribaldry of Are You Being Served, might have been too much of single-entendre for the BBC producers of today.
 
Seems it was "Cookie", perhaps an encouragement to eat biscuits in the production team's eyes. As if we needed encouragement!

Although the "Pussy" story sounds like the start of a urban myth.
 
Blame me for bringing the Pussy version to this MB. I Googled for the story and this site
came out top.

Now, let's see, should we trust a curiously busy message-board which actually appears to be written by dogs on acid. Or the dear old Beeb . . .

Hm, hard choice these days.

We need a chin-stroking smiley. :nonplus:
 
Actually, I saw it elsewhere a few times when the story first broke and possibly the first place I saw it might have been on Popbitch. In between the snarkiness and the sarkiness they're usually on the money as half the posters work in media anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top