is the bbc the new sun?

davoxx

Takeaway dishes high in illegal colourings, says study


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14768096

has the bbc gone to crap?

the only bit of information that is relevant is:

Analysis of 11 sauces of the sweet and sour chicken meals found one contained illegally high levels of the colourings.

not illegal colourings just the levels.

the rest of the article talks about salt, fat and nuts all very legal.

I for one now include the BBC as non quotable crap as the SUN was.

mike65

Its about the standard across the interweb of "prestige" organs these days, The Irish Times can't do simple maths (see other thread) and so on.

flogen

davoxx wrote: »

I for one now include the BBC as non quotable crap as the SUN was.

Because of one article/headline?

mike65

I contacted the BBC and they changed the headline.

davoxx

flogen wrote: »

Because of one article/headline?

they've had more than several bad articles, but this seems that best/clearest example to use.

davoxx

mike65 wrote: »

I contacted the BBC and they changed the headline.

fair enough, hope you got paid for the editorial changes you suggested

though they still say:

Two of the nation's favourite Indian and Chinese takeaway dishes can contain illegally high levels of certain colourings, a snapshot study suggests.

when they mean only 1 in the 11 sampled was over the limit.


anyway .. i'll post back (maybe) if more articles annoy me

flogen

davoxx wrote: »

they've had more than several bad articles, but this seems that best/clearest example to use.

Do you have links to any others? It must be something I'm missing when I read the site.

davoxx

flogen wrote: »

Do you have links to any others? It must be something I'm missing when I read the site.

not off the top of my head ... i stopped reading their articles because of it.

i think i'll keep posting them to this thread as and if i come across them now ...

flogen

davoxx wrote: »

not off the top of my head ... i stopped reading their articles because of it.

i think i'll keep posting them to this thread as and if i come across them now ...

Do, I'd be interested to see more examples.

Batsy

is the bbc the new sun?

No. The Sun is way better than the BBC.

easychair

The BBC some years ago made the decision that it had to chase ratings, rather than provide a high quality news service.

Consequently, it's now more important for the BBC to compete in the ludicrous race for who is first with a news story, and in competing for viewer figures, rather than concentrating on the quality and accuracy of a story, or in digging deeper and giving better analysis than anyone else.

As the newspaper industry shrinks and comes under more pressure, we can see the same things in the broadsheets, where they all regurgitate press releases virtually word for word, and the qulaity aspects are lost to articles such as "the 10 things you didn't know about Kate Middleton's family" type articles, which used to be the preserve of the Sun but now appears regularly in such broadsheets as The Telegraph.

mike65

easychair wrote: »

The BBC some years ago made the decision that it had to chase ratings, rather than provide a high quality news service.

Consequently, it's now more important for the BBC to compete in the ludicrous race for who is first with a news story, and in competing for viewer figures, rather than concentrating on the quality and accuracy of a story, or in digging deeper and giving better analysis than anyone else.

As the newspaper industry shrinks and comes under more pressure, we can see the same things in the broadsheets, where they all regurgitate press releases virtually word for word, and the qulaity aspects are lost to articles such as "the 10 things you didn't know about Kate Middleton's family" type articles, which used to be the preserve of the Sun but now appears regularly in such broadsheets as The Telegraph.

If that was true they fvcked up with the rebels entering Tripoli, where SKY news was live and interactive and the BBC man was stuck in a hotel room.

easychair

If you coinsider someone who loses one race out of hundreds is not competing, then thats your judgement.

davoxx

sorry, have not seen any shockingly bad headlines recently ... the last few were on wikileaks, but they had been changed.

davoxx

not a wrong headline .. but a misleading statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15051554

Inspired by urban occupations in cities including Madrid, Cairo and Tunisia, they have said they will camp out in Zuccotti Park, a private park near the financial district, until their demands are met.

while Zuccotti Park is a privately-owned public park.

and the BBC failed to report on this protest for over a week ...

also they missed the part about anonymous organising it ..

Corsendonk

They should have never have left London, standards have slipped with the recent cost cutting and move to the North.

easychair

I'm not sure I agree that standards have slipped as a result of moving "up north".

I haven't watched TV news for years ( I haven't had a tv for many of those years) and any time I do get to watch the news I cringe with embarrassment, as it's now more entertainment dressed up as news. "Celebrities" ( defined by those, often nonentities, who are desperate to be on the telly) abound, with most of the rest of the time given over to that new form of celebrity, the politicians, jostling to outdo each other in the battle to get more coverage of themselves.

All this happened before the BBC moved "up north", and it makes the BBC into an organisation whose news coverage is just embarrassing.

Corsendonk

easychair wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree that standards have slipped as a result of moving "up north".

I haven't watched TV news for years ( I haven't had a tv for many of those years) and any time I do get to watch the news I cringe with embarrassment, as it's now more entertainment dressed up as news. "Celebrities" ( defined by those, often nonentities, who are desperate to be on the telly) abound, with most of the rest of the time given over to that new form of celebrity, the politicians, jostling to outdo each other in the battle to get more coverage of themselves.

All this happened before the BBC moved "up north", and it makes the BBC into an organisation whose news coverage is just embarrassing.

It did cause a talent drain of people unprepared to move North due to family and quality of life.

Guardian

"Salford or **** it" was the not very subtle title of the BBC Breakfast team's farewell party held at a candlelit wine bar near White City. Presenter Sian Williams and more than half of the 86 programme staff have decided not to make the move 180 miles north – but the BBC still says that is a victory in its contentious £200m move out of the capital.
Employees have been offered relocation packages worth £45,600 (£1,900 a month over two years) but only 861 jobs of 1,500 moving north have been filled – while Breakfast, Radio 5 Live and Blue Peter will all have to battle to persuade the likes of David Cameron or Keira Knightley to appear in the studio.
Of the BBC Breakfast staff, 46% are relocating – as are similar proportions of Radio 5 Live and BBC Sport teams. The BBC said these numbers were "significantly higher" than hoped. BBC executives, trying to manage expectations, had indicated that if a third of the employees agreed to go, that would be seen as a "strong result".
Some big names appear keen to at least present their shows from the north-west, such as 5 Live presenters Nicky Campbell and Richard Bacon, but others less so. Gary Lineker, whose current contract with the BBC expires after the Olympics, is unenthusiastic about commuting from his west London home to present Match of the Day.
And Lineker is not someone whose BBC duties are so intense that he would have to move house.
Nevertheless, the BBC does not want all of its existing people to move. Former BBC chairman Lord Grade said it was "essential" that the Salford move be completed because "otherwise the BBC can't be a national broadcaster".
He added: "It's good news if not everybody goes up because then new people can come in. You'll even get some vacancies at the top."
However, some BBC Breakfast employees are dissatisfied about how the transfer is being handled. Breakfast was a late inclusion in the Salford plan because the BBC had to send extra posts north to meet the requirements of a seven-figure grant from the Northwest Regional Development Agency.
The most repeated criticism at an organisation where "most people don't see the point or expense of the move" is – in the words of one veteran journalist – that the man in charge, BBC North director Peter Salmon, is only renting a house and not moving his family. Nor is Five Live controller Adrian Van Klaveren initially relocating to Salford full-time.
One source at BBC Breakfast said there are still reservations about the move: "There is much cynicism over an email from Peter Salmon welcoming Breakfast to 'this exciting opportunity' considering he is not initially moving his family."

easychair

Corsendonk wrote: »

It did cause a talent drain of people unprepared to move North due to family and quality of life.

Guardian

Which might be seen as another vindication of my decision to give up Tv all those years ago. It's hard to see how a talent drain can make the BBC Tv News any worse, and they can't possibly give any more time to talent-less "celebrities" and their fascinating attempts to get on the telly at any cost.

Corsendonk

easychair wrote: »

Which might be seen as another vindication of my decision to give up Tv all those years ago. It's hard to see how a talent drain can make the BBC Tv News any worse, and they can't possibly give any more time to talent-less "celebrities" and their fascinating attempts to get on the telly at any cost.

BBC website updates has gone to hell and its like Groundhog day some weeks when the BBC News digs up the same story again and again as a newsfiller. It should be interesting next year when most of the budget will likely be spent on covering the London Olympics.

davoxx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0YoKLFckJQ

copying the video from the below post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74525916&postcount=2

easychair

It's interesting you say the BBC "failed" to report something for over a week. By definition, anything the BBC does not report on they "fail" to report.

It's an unusual word to choose, as it implies they more or less conspired to prevent the story being reported for over a week, rather than the more likely explanation which was in the limited time available they had other things to report which they judged to be more important.

davoxx

easychair wrote: »

It's interesting you say the BBC "failed" to report something for over a week. By definition, anything the BBC does not report on they "fail" to report.

no.
anything relevant that they do not report on, they failed to report on.
anything irrelevant that they do not report on, they did not report.

given the link to Anonymous and the recent uprisings and protests elsewhere in the world, i'd say it was very relevant.

given that that this was organised for over a month (i think), seems to me that the failed at their mandate of providing news.

easychair wrote: »

It's an unusual word to choose, as it implies they more or less conspired to prevent the story being reported for over a week,

it's a word, it's not an unusual word to use. it does not imply that they made a concious decisions, alll it means was they they failed.

now if they knew about it and decided to withhold it, which is possible, but not what i am claiming here (hence bbc is the new sun) then they would not have failed but would have deliberately not reported on it.

you are reading too much into the choice of one word.

easychair wrote: »

rather than the more likely explanation which was in the limited time available they had other things to report which they judged to be more important.

so either they made a bad call ie failed
or the cut corners, ie also failed.


i don't see how your explanation means they did not fail?

also do you remember what 'they judged to be more important news that' they reported that week?

davoxx

They forced us to lay the landmines but we refused because we thought they were forbidden and they caused damage to civilians.

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15136157

seems like a forced line ... forbidden? by whom?

both usa and libya have not signed up to The Ottawa Treaty or the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_Treaty

davoxx

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511

i'm sure they have a point buried in there somewhere ...

killing native americans, legal
breaking away from england, illegal
there are some things that bbc can report on,
but for everything else there is wikipedia ...

its as random as that link above ...