BBC sucks as badly as the US tv coverage

[kittynh]

I'm in Europe watching a BBC news show. They are coving the touching story of the happy children of Cairo that aren't
"at home playing video games, but instead are out in the fresh air flying home made kites".

Seems these kids make kites, they get the bamboo and collect old used trash bags for covering (so they basically hunt through the dumps - the BBC refered to this as "recycling"). Then they talked to the "father" and he refered to the fact that with the childrens "help" he could make up to 60 kites a day. The BBC did not say why the happy children needed 60 kites a day.

At the end of the segment the BBC showed the children flying the kites in what appeared to be a trash infested field with power lines and lots of traffic. It was the most unsafe place to fly a kite I'd ever seen.

I'm thinking Charles Dickens workhouse child labor. The BBC was thinking Charles Dickens child labor is fun.

I was glad to see that poor reporting was an international problem.

 

[epepke]

I'm thinking Charles Dickens workhouse child labor. The BBC was thinking Charles Dickens child labor is fun.

The BBC have always drawn a little happy face around the rest of the world. This has made them popular and fair-seeming to people who wanted to see that message, who wanted to believe that the West is the source of all evil.

I think maybe it's just that the appeal has grown weaker in recent years.

I remember listening to the BBC World Service late at night. There was a show where a DJ would play requests of pop songs for kids who wrote him from Kenya and Bangladesh so that they could listen to them on their shortwave radios. At the time, I thought it was kind of cool. Now I find it a bit patronizingly saccharine.

 

[Reginald]

Don't generalise will you.

I think in the vast majority of cases, (I watch a lot of BBC news, not just the odd article) the items are well presented and genuinely even handed.

Yes there is the odd piece of questionable reporting, but these often fall into the "opinion piece" category.

So despite the unpopularity that this may bring (or indeed enhance) I completely disagree. Which is the BBC way of saying that on this issue, I feel most strongly that your generalisation is quite frankly crap.

I am proud of the BBC news service.

Edited to soundly insert an "a".

 

[epepke]

Don't generalise will you.

Why not? You're generalizing. You just happen to like your generalization which you admit is associated with pride on your part, and you dislike other generalizations.

You can disagree with the generalization as much as you like, but objecting to it qua generalization is quite frankly crap, and slimy crap as well.

I have gotten quite tired of this in recent years. It's quite OK to generalize about "the American media" or whatnot, but when it comes to the BBC, all of a sudden it's "eheu, eheu, don't generalize!"

That having been said, IMO the BBC is a reasonably decent source of news, about on par with PBS and the Christian Science Monitor. But they do have a noticeable smiley face when it comes to developing nations.

 

[Reginald]

Why not? You're generalizing. You just happen to like your generalization which you admit is associated with pride on your part, and you dislike other generalizations.

You can disagree with the generalization as much as you like, but objecting to it qua generalization is quite frankly crap, and slimy crap as well.

I have gotten quite tired of this in recent years. It's quite OK to generalize about "the American media" or whatnot, but when it comes to the BBC, all of a sudden it's "eheu, eheu, don't generalize!"

That having been said, IMO the BBC is a reasonably decent source of news, about on par with PBS and the Christian Science Monitor. But they do have a noticeable smiley face when it comes to developing nations.

I'm, not making any comment on the American news, I don't see enough of it. I have seen two weeks worth in the last 10 years. I am commenting on making a general statement about the BBC news services based on a few hours of viewing.

I'm sorry if that was not clear.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kittynh At the end of the segment the BBC showed the children flying the kites in what appeared to be a trash infested field with power lines and lots of traffic. It was the most unsafe place to fly a kite I'd ever seen.

Then when you think about it you realize the reporter went there, met these children, talked with these adults and stood on that trash infested field and still made a conscious choice to put that story together with that ridiculous spin on it. What was he thinking?

 

[epepke]

I'm, not making any comment on the American news, I don't see enough of it. I have seen two weeks worth in the last 10 years. I am commenting on making a general statement about the BBC news services based on a few hours of viewing.

Thanks for the clarification. To clarify my point, you're dealing with an audience that it pretty much constantly bomarded statements about how sucky the American media is. Which it isn't; it's just that you have to choose your sources.

I stand by my generalization, however, which is the result of hundreds of hours of the BBC World Service. However, it only necessarily applies to the BBC World Service.

 

[Reginald]

Thanks for the clarification. To clarify my point, you're dealing with an audience that it pretty much constantly bomarded statements about how sucky the American media is. Which it isn't; it's just that you have to choose your sources.

I stand by my generalization, however, which is the result of hundreds of hours of the BBC World Service. However, it only necessarily applies to the BBC World Service.

I'm sure the quality of news varies worldwide and within each country. We do get American news here via the BBC and from what I have seen of it, it seems sound and reasonable.

Your many hours of listening to the world service make you more qualified to comment on that than I and I will yield on that particular aspect of this discussion.

I would certainly agree with you about choosing your sources, a brief view of the British daily newspapers and their openly stated agendas and political biases only serves to highlight (to me at any rate) the impartiality and quality of the BBC news service. There really are only three major TV news providers in the UK. BBC, ITN and well........Sky (I can't comment on that I don't subscribe). ITN and BBC are both excellent IMO. ITN produce the news for our channel 4 and that is a truly splendid news service, somewhat more detailed and often more controversial and probing than the regular ITN news.

 

[epepke]

I'm sure the quality of news varies worldwide and within each country. We do get American news here via the BBC and from what I have seen of it, it seems sound and reasonable.

I shudder to think what that might consist of. For a while, instead of BBC World Service, we got what they called "BBC with an American Accent." It was truly execrable. I've also spent considerable time in the UK, and the American shows they air are far from the best. I can almost see a committee thinking, "Let's send to the UK all the shows with lots of people shooting guns all the time." On the other hand, it's fair comeuppance for the endless home-improvement shows and soap operas that you send us.

There really are only three major TV news providers in the UK. BBC, ITN and well........Sky (I can't comment on that I don't subscribe).

I've heard something about Sky, but not much. I think they air some shows that we normally get on cable, such as Farscape. Is it a satellite thingie?

For television, we have the major networks for news: NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, and Fox News. ABC is my favorite of these. NBC seems to air a lot of highly commercial newstainment shows. CBS has tanked due to Dan Rather and the Memo controvery. Fox News, the brainchild of an ex-pat Australian, is quite right-wing. Then there are the specialty channels. CNN and its condensed counterpart, HNN provide generic news. FNN, the financial channel, roughly corresponds to your pink pages. C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 are quite interesting, as they show largely unedited coverage of happenings in Washington. Sometimes it's Congress; sometimes it's an author giving a lecture. They even occasionally air tapes of the House of Commons for variety. Then there's the Daily Show which is a political comedy show, but somehow they manage to have substance comparable or even better than the non-comedy news shows and have great guests, including President Clinton and Senator McCain, who are almost regulars. And, of course, every local television station has at least a half hour of local news.

In general, I think the quality is probably lower than in the UK, but there is enough to choose from that one can easily acquire enough high-quality news.

Yes, this is long and probably unneccessary, but I'm bored and am trying to get sleepy.

 

[circuit slave]

I'm in Europe watching a BBC news show. They are coving the touching story of the happy children of Cairo that aren't
"at home playing video games, but instead are out in the fresh air flying home made kites".

Seems these kids make kites, they get the bamboo and collect old used trash bags for covering (so they basically hunt through the dumps - the BBC refered to this as "recycling"). Then they talked to the "father" and he refered to the fact that with the childrens "help" he could make up to 60 kites a day. The BBC did not say why the happy children needed 60 kites a day.

At the end of the segment the BBC showed the children flying the kites in what appeared to be a trash infested field with power lines and lots of traffic. It was the most unsafe place to fly a kite I'd ever seen.

I'm thinking Charles Dickens workhouse child labor. The BBC was thinking Charles Dickens child labor is fun.

I was glad to see that poor reporting was an international problem.

I like the BBC news. I watch it on PBS before The News Hour. Actually, I just like that British accent especially whenever they use that term, "throughout the civilized weld" hehe "weld".

 

[Lothian]

Seems these kids make kites, they get the bamboo and collect old used trash bags for covering (so they basically hunt through the dumps - the BBC refered to this as "recycling"). Then they talked to the "father" and he refered to the fact that with the childrens "help" he could make up to 60 kites a day. The BBC did not say why the happy children needed 60 kites a day.

Well, they were not making the claim, the father was. Perhaps it is him not the BBC who should be asked the question.

 

[fsol]

I've heard something about Sky, but not much. I think they air some shows that we normally get on cable, such as Farscape. Is it a satellite thingie?

Sky is a Murdoch owned company. They do Entertainment, Movies, Sport and News. Their news channel is good and seems to pick up plenty of awards over here. A lot of people preffer it to the BBC News 24 channel. It is unrecognisable from the programming I have seen on FOX news. I only get to watch it when I go and see my folks as I don't have a subscription either.

Sky comes bundled with a load of other channels depending how much you want to pay, which show things like Farscape, Crossing Over and all the kind of stuff you would be likely to find on cable in the states.

 

[BPSCG]

For television, we have

You left out MSNBC and CNBC,* but that only makes your point more valid - we have a wide selection of TV news sources, while the BBC is a taxpayer-financed monopoly. I wonder what would have happened to the phony documents story if CBS hadn't had a host of competitors (including the net and the blogosphere) out there? You have to assume the BBC occasionally drops the ball, too, but with little broadcast competition to fact-check their butts, how often does it get caught?

* I deliberately left out local newscasts, since they are uniformly horrible.

 

[kittynh]

well, I always get the BBC is so fair and accurate compared to the US news. And I'm thinking, "Fox News? PBS? NPR?" I listen to NPR in the mornings for my news. It was just funny to see some over the top reports, especially when the BBC reporter would go on and on about how much happier the little children making kites in Egypt are than the kids in the nasty old UK with their electricity for video games.

I've travelled a bit, and I'm not saying that the lack of video games causes unhappiness among children. Even working hard as a child isn't a bad thing (Amish children work very hard on family farms from an early age, and only attend school through the 8th grade). It was just the danger in collecting trash (in bare feet) and working all day making kites instead of schooling being made into a utopia for youngsters.

WHen my daughter was in Jordan she really loved the culture and the people, so much so she would like to return back and is learing ARabic at school. But when she returned she was interviewed by several newspapers and gave some talks. When she would mention that her Jordanian family ( and indeed most of the families) routinely beat their servants (the servants were Phillipino), she was told not to mention it again. It never showed up in print, and she was encouraged to only say happy upbeat things. It was a very happy experience, but the few "bad" aspects were to be ignored!

 

[a_unique_person]

You left out MSNBC and CNBC,* but that only makes your point more valid - we have a wide selection of TV news sources, while the BBC is a taxpayer-financed monopoly. I wonder what would have happened to the phony documents story if CBS hadn't had a host of competitors (including the net and the blogosphere) out there? You have to assume the BBC occasionally drops the ball, too, but with little broadcast competition to fact-check their butts, how often does it get caught?

* I deliberately left out local newscasts, since they are uniformly horrible.

I think the BBC used to be a taxpayer-financed monopoly.

As to the BBC, I bet you won't see anything like this on it.

Not that Fox neglects the sharp end of the business. They love bombs on Fox.

‘Should they have used more? Should they, you know, use the MOAB, the Mother of All Bombs and a few Daisy Cutters. You know, lets not just stop at a couple of Cruise Missiles.’
‘Only 40, huh?’
‘I want to see them use that MOAB. We all want to see them use that MOAB.’
- Fox News, 25 March 2003

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s826188.htm

complete with grainy video

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/video/070403_s2c2.ram

 

[John de Combe]

the BBC is a taxpayer-financed monopoly.

Yeah, right. And Uri Geller bends spoons with mindpower alone.

 

[BPSCG]

Yeah, right. And Uri Geller bends spoons with mindpower alone.

Okay, then I'm misinformed. What are the facts?

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: BBC sucks as badly as the US tv coverage

Well, they were not making the claim, the father was. Perhaps it is him not the BBC who should be asked the question.

A person who makes 60 kites a day probably isn't doing it just for the joy of it. It's more likely what he does for a living.

 

[John de Combe]

It was 49 years ago today that the BBC lost it's monopoly over British television, to not one but two companies; Associated-Rediffusion and Associated TeleVision Ltd. (the company that made The Saint and The Muppet Show).

Since 1982 the BBC has not even had the monopoly on being the only state-owned broadcaster in the United Kingdom. UK Coast to Coast network "Channel Four Television" - completely separate to the BBC - is a publicly owned corporation, funded entirely by advertising, that gives it's profits to the Government. Then there is the state owned Sianel Pedwar Cymru (S4C) in Wales.

In a home equipped with a TV antenna (common in England) then the situation is you get BBC1, BBC2, Channel Four, Channel 5 (owned by Bertlesmann and MAI) and ITV.

ITV (funded entirely by advertisers and privately owned) was originally a federal system made up of regional contractors, like the US networks, but is now a single company in England and Wales with only the Scots, Ulster and Channel Island franchises run by small contractors.

So in other words, the BBC has two national networks, Channel Four has one, and there are two commercial networks.

If you have digital satellite or digital cable, you have a plethora of Channels to choose from, which hugely outnumber the offerings from the BBC.

The BBC is funded largely by the licence fee (set at a guaranteed level for a fixed number of years in a Royal Charter), which is a regressive form of taxation. However licence fee money is earmarked soley for and is collected by the BBC - the Government cannot touch it.

However, in other countries, with state broadcasting funded directly from general taxation, the state owned broadcasters can be and are held to ransom by the sitting government and have to either be non-controversial or actively supportive of the government.

The BBC funds British orchestras, British Film, regional and national television and radio, does R&D into broadcast technology, has an incredible web presence, produces an incredible range of programming and cost the same a day as a daily newspaper.

I think it's a good deal personally, though increasingly people do not - precisely because of the number of other media outlets available.

 

[kittynh]

Yeah, a few people have been confused by the "TV tax" in the UK. In the US our Public stations (the ones that show a lot of the BBC shows) are funded by fundraising and grants. I have to cough up a few items every year for their tv auction fundraisers. As options have opened up though (there is now a BBC USA channel) more and more people don't feel the PBS donation is worth it. In fact, the PBS audience seems to be made up of 2-3 year olds watching Seasame Street and the Telletubbies, and much older people watching ,"The Bucket residence! The lady of the house speaking!"