You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)
January 29 2022 2.13pm

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 111 of 132 < 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 >

 

View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 1.15pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Spiderman

ď reporter was clearly SPECULATING on suggestions they had heard! Heard from who? So wasnít accurate reporting it was speculation

They reported what they had heard and then speculated on what it might imply. It's a reasonable way of posing questions. The very fact that people are now trying to answer them proves that.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 1.21pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

If the reporter had eye witness's who heard this it is reasonable to report. However as you said yourself he speculated that is not journalism. Since the incident the BBC has failed to produce any evidence to back this up which is why the Jewish community is upset.

Shoddy reporting.

I don't think so. I think it has opened up a debate which might otherwise not have happened. So long as the journalist was genuinely reporting what they heard, and there is no reason to doubt that, then speculating what the implications may, or may not, be, is perfectly reasonable. Not leaving any stone unturned is good journalism. In my opinion.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 18 Dec 21 1.47pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I don't think so. I think it has opened up a debate which might otherwise not have happened. So long as the journalist was genuinely reporting what they heard, and there is no reason to doubt that, then speculating what the implications may, or may not, be, is perfectly reasonable. Not leaving any stone unturned is good journalism. In my opinion.

I ask again from who? Who did this reporter hear it from or is it the Blue Peter school of journalism "here's one I prepared earlier".

This is about the quality of the reporting on a subject the BBC must know is controversial "victim blaming jews".

If the BBC had said we have an eye witness who does not want to be identified for fear of reprisal so we have hidden their face and voice or their words are read by an actor I would accept that as good journalism. There will be an investigation so we will see what if any evidence the BBC produces.

Edited by Badger11 (18 Dec 2021 1.47pm)

Edited by Badger11 (18 Dec 2021 2.10pm)

Edited by Badger11 (18 Dec 2021 2.10pm)

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 18 Dec 21 2.29pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

One time national Treasure, John Cleese, now an enemy of the woke.
[Link]

Edited by georgenorman (18 Dec 2021 2.29pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 18 Dec 21 2.33pm Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I don't think so. I think it has opened up a debate which might otherwise not have happened. So long as the journalist was genuinely reporting what they heard, and there is no reason to doubt that, then speculating what the implications may, or may not, be, is perfectly reasonable. Not leaving any stone unturned is good journalism. In my opinion.

people looking for an evenhanded and vaguely balanced News have all migrated away from the BBC. In my opinion.

 


Pay for a BBC TV license ? yeah, right.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Forest Hillbilly's Profile Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 18 Dec 21 2.36pm Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I don't think so. I think it has opened up a debate which might otherwise not have happened. So long as the journalist was genuinely reporting what they heard, and there is no reason to doubt that, then speculating what the implications may, or may not, be, is perfectly reasonable. Not leaving any stone unturned is good journalism. In my opinion.

Here's the problem I have with that train of thought.
Many journalists (for example) in areas of conflict, where direct information is difficult to obtain/unreliable, have been known to discuss issues amongst themselves, after a hard days work, perhaps over a few beers/wines, to reach a coherent and similar report to each other. Perhaps utilising the phrase "information from a reliable source", etc.
The conception that a journalist might seek to publish untruthful/controversial information and accusations in order to gain publicity and income££ should be ignored.

 


,.,.,..,

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 3.42pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

people looking for an evenhanded and vaguely balanced News have all migrated away from the BBC. In my opinion.

Where on earth do you think anyone can find a better balance?

I wait with great anticipation.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 3.48pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

Here's the problem I have with that train of thought.
Many journalists (for example) in areas of conflict, where direct information is difficult to obtain/unreliable, have been known to discuss issues amongst themselves, after a hard days work, perhaps over a few beers/wines, to reach a coherent and similar report to each other. Perhaps utilising the phrase "information from a reliable source", etc.
The conception that a journalist might seek to publish untruthful/controversial information and accusations in order to gain publicity and income££ should be ignored.

If that proves to be the case, then they should lose their job, and I am quite sure they would.

We need to be able to trust our national broadcaster and if, and when it goes wrong, as inevitably it does, know they will take strong action.

I trust them, above any other source, and feel ashamed that others don't. They are one of the very few things that we have left we can take any genuine pride in, and it makes me angry to read some of the views expressed here.

Those who think of themselves as "patriots" are often no such thing at all.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 18 Dec 21 4.17pm Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

One time national Treasure, John Cleese, now an enemy of the woke.
[Link]

Edited by georgenorman (18 Dec 2021 2.29pm)

Just watched that interview. The interviewer had no interest in what itís original discussion was supposed to be about. Very similar technique to Kuenessberg or whatever her name is who is basically only interested in her own agenda. Cleese saw straight through it and I applaud him for stopping the interview.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 18 Dec 21 4.40pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

Just watched that interview. The interviewer had no interest in what itís original discussion was supposed to be about. Very similar technique to Kuenessberg or whatever her name is who is basically only interested in her own agenda. Cleese saw straight through it and I applaud him for stopping the interview.

Couldn't agree more.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 18 Dec 21 4.59pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

One time national Treasure, John Cleese, now an enemy of the woke.
[Link]

Edited by georgenorman (18 Dec 2021 2.29pm)


While obviously I'm completely with him on the woke stuff. I've got to be fair and say that after I watched it I thought Cleese was pretty unfair to her. I didn't think she was unreasonable at all and he was very grumpy.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View steeleye20's Profile steeleye20 Online Flag Croydon 18 Dec 21 6.22pm Send a Private Message to steeleye20 Add steeleye20 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


While obviously I'm completely with him on the woke stuff. I've got to be fair and say that after I watched it I thought Cleese was pretty unfair to her. I didn't think she was unreasonable at all and he was very grumpy.

A rude arrogant self-obsessed old bore.

And he ceased to be funny many moons ago.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 111 of 132 < 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)