It is already difficult for sceptics to get a hearing on the BBC. But if the Trust has its way, BBC science journalism will become as bent as a corkscrew.
As published today:
Why mention his houses? What has that got to do with the award? Why not mention his doctorate because he is a guy with intelligence? Why not mention that it was for good deeds? Or that he married the EastEnders actress? or “as seen above in a less than flattering photo”? Any of those are more relevant than his houses. (If you want the actual article which shows that indeed his houses are irrelevant, it’s here. And I’m sure the BBC are rejigging their urls. They used to be much weirder.)
A Briton facing execution in China does not yet know he is to be killed later this week and will only find out 24 hours in advance, it has emerged. BBC
I do not recall the BBC ever reporting an execution in the USA and using the word ‘killed’ for the person about to die. It’s always execution. A more clinical way of writing ‘put to death’ and saying ‘killed’ is far more emotive despite the act being the same. Amnesty use the term all the time but they do it evenly, they apply it to everyone. The linked article? It’s about a mentally ill person about to be killed by the state. The BBC article? It’s about a mentally ill person about to be killed by the state. Was the former front page news? Hell no – because it was our friends the Americans who were killing a mentally ill man. In fact they do so many such killings it’s almost a non-story over there. Many countries kill / execute / put to death those with a mental illness. It’s not that this person should or should not but that the BBC has yet again failed to present the facts in an unbiased fashion – something it lays claim to. It would have the World believe that only it has the balls and the integrity to report as it is. The fact we have to pay a tax to support a State Broadcaster is annoying. What we have is no better than any other state you could mention.
At the New Year celebrations by the Thames.
An excellent TV broadcast:
A very good TV broadcast:
There are several thousand here on the banks of the river…
Wonderful atmosphere despite the cold ….
HI YES, You join me here with thousand of people watching the fireworks – very prett – ooh look at that red one, and the green! – and we are all really cold but it’s great fun and people have been here for hours to see this, let me talk to one … “HI MUM!!!” – now back to the studio.
And there we have the display and if the camera can just move away from the crowd and look at the fireworks.. the display was designed by a Frenchman who was also responsible for …… and there we have it. All gone for another year. Glad I don’t have to clean that up!”
On the Obama Inauguration:
An excellent TV broadcast:
A very good TV broadcast
Dick Cheney in a wheelchair
Bill Clinton chatting to one of the aides there..
And there is Dick Cheney in a wheelchair. This is a surprise as normally he walks. We will find out what may be affecting him and how this might impact the incoming President. Of course you will remember that Dick Cheney is seen as the hawk in George W Bush’s government and had a lot to do with Guantanamo. He was also involved in a strange shooting incident a couple of years ago – not that this will be connected with the wheelchair of course, he has been seen walking after that ha ha ha. And his being in a wheelchair reminds me of the great Franklin D Roosevelt who was also seen as a great president and someone who Obama may well want to emulate. Let’s cross to our US Correspondent who may have more insights into what is affecting my Cheney….
And everyone else seems to be there now and Barack Obama has taken the stand. He has hand on the book and he has started taking the Oath of Office. The crowd is silent as they listen to every word he is now saying the oath which of course is unchanged in years of course and once complete he will formally be President of the USA. And there we go, he has said it. Not sure if you heard that slight faltering in there….
To the BBC: Shut up.
Warning over youth mental health
This is a terrible article.
One in 10 youngsters questioned in a survey disagreed that “life was really worth living”. Those not in work or education were less likely to be happy.
This is not necessarily a mental health issue.
Of those questioned, 29% said they are less happy now than they were as a child and one in five said they felt like crying “often” or “always”.
Fair enough, this fits with depression scales. But ‘less happy when they were a child’? So they were happier without bills, without money worries, without boyfriend/girlfriend issues, without responsibility? That would seem to fit that statistic.
Almost half (47%) said they were regularly stressed.
Means nothing. What precisely were they stressed about?
The Prince’s Trust says it plans to train all its frontline staff to recognise mental health problems
Which means over-diagnose probably.
And listen to the video there. The girl says that people need to be told what to think (!!) and that she was helped by talking about how lucky she was. Did she mention cognitive behaviour therapy? No, so she probably did not have that. What she says is she was reminded of what was nice so she doesn’t need her meds. Great. (This of course means her GP mis-diagnosed her or she had very mild depression.) Some parent or spouse somewhere is telling someone they are not depressed, they should be grateful for all the nice stuff in their life and they will expect this person to ‘snap out of it’. This is hugely damaging and to expect a kid who has had the narrowest experience to answer for anything but her is stupid in the extreme.
The BBC gets worse and worse both in what they are posting on their site and the nonsense shows like Breakfast put out.
Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas 
the Hamas militant movement 
When Hamas free a British journalist they are described by the BBC in a set of words very different to when they are attacked by a country the British government wants to support.
The word ‘Islamist’ does not appear at all in the second article. The word ‘militant’ does not appear in the first.
I thought journalism was meant to be objective – obviously the BBC do not. But we knew that .. and this provides yet more proof that the BBC is controlled by the political machine.
BBC : Fraudsters’ website shut in swoop
A website used by criminals to buy and sell credit card details and bank log-ins has been shut down after a police operation, the BBC has learned.
The Register : DarkMarket carder forum revealed as FBI sting
Leaked documents have confirmed that carder forum DarkMarket was actually an FBI sting operation.
The BBC just gets worse and worse. Police PR now – this to distract attention from something else maybe?
This is how BBC News deals with an unexpected event:
Normal news chatter
– event starts to break
Normal new chatter
Then the presenter tell you something is breaking
Yes, they are sure it is breaking
There may be pictures in a moment
Confirmation of the thing that is breaking
They will take you there in a moment
– the picture switches to the breaking news. You can see things happening
The presenter starts saying things like “There you are, and he is .. and he is talking about .. and we reported this then .. and as you can see .. and this is all about something we reported earlier .. and I do like the sound of my own voice .. and if the presenter who looks like a schoolboy is on he will have interrupted his colleague by now to make himself look more important .. and here we go straight to the event”
– event takes the screen
Presenter says “I do apologise, we seem to have missed the first part of that” or “We missed that but we hope to get a report soon”
And THEN they wheel in some person who has just as much of an idea as any random person across the globe and they sit and spout lots of “if, maybe, possibly, think, what could” and any other words that are there simply to fill space and keep this “expert” (remember the taxi driver?” from going to Sky or some other new network. (Actually, could I have a job like that? Have laptop, know where wikipedia is, can nod knowingly, sigh deeply, blame the left / the right / the unions / modern technology / the failure of the nuclear family…)
We can cope, honestly. Thrown a caption or scrolling message up (make it fast though, not quite Network 7 speeds but faster than you go currently) but please just let us see it. Just because you are in a studio does not mean you have more a clue about a breaking event and lots of events are self-contained. So just switch.
Whenever you get the chance, do not tell me the news.
Show me the news.
Is there anywhere that lists what programmes can be watched online? No.
Why? The main listings are atrocious, the navigation terrible, the design is dire and you cannot find, in a convenient list, what can be watched in full online. Why? Don’t they think people want to? Or should be stick to just what we know? I’d complain to them but it’s waste of time – I complained once about a reported Digging stuff and he got really annoyed. Didn’t change anything either – who the hell is going to Digg a TV show?
Time to find somewhere else to watch while working.
Who arrived, what they arrived in, who spoke, the music that was heard, who left, when they left, what message was on the Order of Service. And toward the end of the article:
The McRae family had asked that their privacy be respected with regard to the funeral.
What extra detail would the BBC have provided if that request had not been there? They could argue about where they define ‘funeral’ but for most I’d say it’s from when they leave their home to when they return.