Thursday, 3 August 2017

BBC Online - Part 2

 Image result for pravda lenin

  As we saw here, the BBC IS a world leader in news reporting. BBC Worldwide is watched in hotels worldwide. 350 million people a week are reportedly watching some content from the various BBC world channels and programmes made.
Its very, very worthy. Equally as worthy and dull as CNN worldwide. The bland leading the bland.

Closer to home BBc News has dropped huge market share since the digital revolution and the rise of workable, readable smart phones. 3-4% year on year decline since 2012. Predicted 25-30% decline in viewers watching any TV news by 2022. And those that are watching are averaging 61 years of age. 

So to retain market share, online focus must be the future. The man or woman sitting behind a desk format is coming to an end. Which is just as well as TV channels have exhausted the ways of showing the same thing.
 Person behind desk. Phone on desk. No phone. Laptop on desk. Spindly glass desk showing persons legs. Person in front of desk. Balanced on a high stool with no desk. Filmed side on, instead of to camera.. Sitting on a low comfy sofa facing a digital screen. Desk in the middle of a glass box 360* panoramic swiveling. There's really only under the desk and lying flat on the sofa with a bowl of nachos left.

Back to the BBC.

This self censorship is seriously damaging their brand. Because of the politically correct attempts to avoid mention of race or religion in any way, means some news items make no sense at all when read on the BBC website.

During the French election there was a story about riots by French schoolchildren. Secondary school age kids were blockading and threatening to burn down schools. Bizarre. 
The piece suggested this would help Le Pen. 

There was no indication of why this would help Le Pen. No clue at all.
 On further investigation elsewhere the story was about a black boy, who claimed he was caught and raped by the French police with a police baton  This led to the rioting in the black areas of Paris. With a few kids on social media calling for protest and the barricading of streets and schools. 

Essentially, this was a race story. Disaffected banileue youth. Policing, tensions and immigration.
And that's why it would it was thought to favour Le Pen.
Later on the BBc expanded the story and it was reported with context. And made much more sense. But it was a few days on.

A more recent story was the GTA gang in Moscow. 3 defendants killed in courtroom escape bid.
In the BBC piece it emerged that the gang were suspected of killing 17, unrelated, motorists on the roads outside Moscow. For no reason. Over a long period of time. 
Cars had their tires blown with homemade traps. And the occupants murdered. No robbery took place.

What the ..? What's going on here?

The very last sentence of the piece gives a clue. 

One of them had fought for so-called Islamic State in Syria before returning to Russia, Russian television reported.

And going anywhere else reveals this is not a bandit gang story at all. Its a terrorist story. An Islamic state terror group are committing the killings. That's the motive. Killing unbelievers.


Image result for gta gang moscow

On other news sites this is immediately apparent. So why was it not made clear? 
This strange decision to hide facts. Race and religion should not be mentioned. 
Even if it is extremely important to the story.

This is without all the other odd, impersonal noun, choices the wider media have been making recently. 

Truck kills ten on London Bridge.
Women wounded by knife in German supermarket.

Strange choice to make.

 And another reason not to ever bother sitting down to the main news at ten. 
With the solemn woman sat behind/in/on/adjacent to/under/suspended above/ or just flopped on a beanbag beside the desk.

***

All the news that's fit to print. 
New York Times masthead.


All the news deemed fit to print 
Updated millennial masthead ?

20 comments:

K said...

I think the BBC might have a much bigger demographic problem than they realise. For example, they still claim that something like 30% of 16-30 year olds listen to Radio 1 but there was no way that was true even 15 years ago.

Electro-Kevin said...

The BBC has become sinister.

A mass refusal to pay its licence can't be that hard to start, surely ?

They can't prosecute everyone and once it becomes bigger then only the most principled of BBC watchers will bother paying it.

Crowd funding for those few that the BBC does target for prosecution.

The BBC has made me hate my own TV set. I'd get rid if she didn't watch it.

dearieme said...

I haven't watched or listened to a Beeb news in years. Thus I welcome your report that it's still all balls.

The Beeb is for University Challenge and the football highlights.

tolkein said...

This is why for breaking stories I'll read Guardian online. They are really good and I can always tune out the bias, but they are much more informative than the Beeb

Steven_L said...

I'd get rid if she didn't watch it.

And no doubt she'd go behind your back and pay the tele tax if you took a principled stand on the issue too? I know my other half would never run the risk of not paying it no matter how much I lobbied her.

John Miller said...

Unsurprisingly, when you think about it, this is why BBC comedy has ceased to be. It is no longer. It... [repeat dead parrot sketch until time ceases to have meaning].

If there are innumerable bounds on describing something, reporting events and comedy become impossible.

estwdjhn said...

"Here is your action news reporter..."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bxUfg3uCBbg

Anonymous said...

No fucker can beat £4.5 billion per year. Except perhaps Paris Saint Germane (sp). It's got nothing to do with they're paid so much, it's got more to do with it's wrong. They sneered at an election - it's unforgivably rude. If I wanted random opinion i'd ask Geoff Boycott.

Wearing a flat cap for the first time even though i'm a Yorkshireman in my 40's. It defo does create warmth.

DtP

Raedwald said...

If you expect no more from the BBC than you do from Russia Today (RT) you won't be disappointed. Both will publish the truth when it suits their respective agendas and misrepresent, omit and distort the truth when it does not. There is really no point in having expectations of the BBC any higher than this. The organisation can neither be changed nor reformed.

As for the TV tax, well, of course it should go. First, decriminalisation. Then removal of any special powers of entry and search. Then conversion to a voluntary donation scheme - like that the Guardian is running - under which committed neolibtards may set up direct debits to fund the thing themselves.

Y Ddraig Goch said...

"the politically correct attempts to avoid mention of race or religion in any
way"

I think this is being too generous. It portrays the BBC as a bit coy about the
facts, but still in an even-handed sort of way. In reality they are
deliberately and vindictively biased.

When Ched Evans - a white British male - was convicted of rape, the BBC
replayed the details of the trial in every news bulletin, with lengthy quotes
and detailed descriptions of events. It went on for days. When a few of
Rotherham's Muslim paedophiles were finally convicted, the BBC confined itself
to a brief report that the convictions had happened and no court room
reporting at all. Nothing to see here - move along.

In the aftermath of Evans' conviction, the BBC only ever referred to him as
"convicted rapist Ched Evans", pronounced as if his first name were
ConvictedRapistChed. It was clearly a corporate policy because they never
ever deviated from it - not even once. However, after Vicki Pryce was
convicted of perjury, the BBC adopted her as a regular guest expert on
economics, and, following the example they had set with Ched Evans ... never
once referred to her as "convicted perjurer Vicki Pryce".

Raedwald is right. The BBC is no better than Russia Today and arguably worse
- at least Russia Today seems to have Russia's best interests at heart.

Elby the Beserk said...

dearieme - yes, tho' I occasionally listen to chunks of Today in the same way that, when I was a kid, I read lots of horror stories. I am seriously troubled by Nick Robinson's pathological obsession with Donald Trump, and think he should seek urgent medical advice.

BBC usage here. Occasionally Radio 3. Radio 5 for football. 5 extra and 4 long wave for Cricket, by far and away TMS is the best thing on the BBC.

TV junked years back.

By the way, dearieme - on the matter of Inuits, I assume the digested vegetables they get form the stomachs of Walruses would be seaweed? Not a lot of allotments up that way, I think? :-)

E-K said...

If the decline in swan population was down to global warming you can bet the Beeb would have told us.

It took me an age to find out who was causing the rise in anti semitism in Europe and I didn't get it from the BBC

Elby the Beserk said...

Y Ddraig Goch said...

Spot on re Ched Evans. So much so, that the BBC changed his name to

Convicted Rapist Ched Evans.

When he was cleared, I don't think they renamed him to "Innocent of Rape Ched Evans".

Way past their sell by date. As for the salaries, FFS. And the pensions, FFFFFFFFS

Captcha beyond a joke, Now, TEN consecutive frames with ONE car. I'll try again...

dearieme said...

"on the matter of Inuits, I assume the digested vegetables they get form the stomachs of Walruses would be seaweed?" Fair enough: maybe "vegetation" would have been better than vegetables.

Anyway, about Inuitland - when next you're there decline all invitations to eat the liver of polar bears. Deadly stuff.

Bill Quango MP said...

I wrote about Ched Evans back in 2015.
Many readers thought it was not appropriate for this blog. Finance and politics.
It was really an employment piece though. Should an offender be allowed back to work after sentence ? and should mob social media screeching be the measure for justice.

It became quite heated as the original point, in a pretty long post, became lost and rape, not rehabilitation was the issue. And mobocracy.

I'm totally with you on the 'former rapist' and miss Price. That was really my point. One rule for some. One for others.

Have a look. http://www.cityunslicker.co.uk/2015/01/ched-evans-mobocracy.html

auralay said...

It,s quite straightforward. Watch RT for news about the UK and US. Watch CNN for news about Russia and a different take on UK. Watch Beeb for ... ah, it sort of breaks down there!

Lockers said...

Please, let's not forget the delightful Victoria Coren Mitchell on Only Connect. Another of the few reasons to watch anything on Aunty Beeb's telly channels.

Anonymous said...

Blacks and Muslims are the current leftist-approved victim groups, which makes a change from Irish Catholics.

This means that the BBC will never report anything negative about them unless it has to, and even then will try and conceal or elide the truth as much as possible.

Bias by omission or commission is the BBC's modus operandi, and everyone who owns a television set is forced by law to pay for it.

Anonymous said...

I don't mean to get all Paul Masony but why hasn't Europe revolted? Are their universities just filled with Mekons, is proportional representation the shrowd of the charlatan?

When all evidence supports the fact that the EU is fucked from the top down, why are our neighbours so passive? Tusk on Poland offers a nice little vignette upon group-think and the corresponding herd mentality - it's 'unacceptable' apparently. No foreplay there.

I'm sure many of this parish are aware of Mr Raedwald's excursions in Alpine climes and their own parochial efforts. As an overpaid government bureaucrat for most of my life I struggle to comprehend the complexities of trade deals. Here was me thinking copy & paste and asking 'anyone got any whinges?' would do the trick but Cleggy told me otherwise so i'll bow to his erudition.

DtP

Y Ddraig Goch said...

BQ @ 12:24

Interesting post. When you wrote that, Evans' conviction hadn't been quashed
and the whole thing was still quite recent and heated. With the benefit of
hindsight, perhaps it's understandable that your point about employing an
offender was over-shadowed. In my comment above I completely ignored the fact
that Evans was eventually acquitted. Thinking about it now I realise that the
"impartial" BBC systematically vilified a man that the courts eventually found
innocent while embracing and promoting a woman that the courts found guilty.

I picked Pryce and Evans as one example of the malicious bias and hypocrisy of
the BBC, but they would make an equally good test case for your 2015
post. Presumably the people who were then claiming that Evans "got what he
deserved" (and similar) also think that Pryce should now be an unemployable
pariah as well.