GBeebies

[newfhouse]

A joyously snarky piece from Marina Hyde. Kick your shoes off for a few minutes, sit back and enjoy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/14/gb-news-britain-channel-andrew-neil-tv

 

[Pale Rider]

Newsrooms have always been a nest of vipers.

It takes a certain strength of character to survive in one for very long.

That Ms Hyde tells us some Guardian hacks are still prosecuting feuds from 20 years ago tells us her organisation is the same as all the rest.

It's just that no one is terribly interested in what goes on in wherever they are based these days.

All journalists have always taken a perverse joy in reporting murky goings on elsewhere - I could give you dozens of examples.

Whether the general reader gives much of a stuff about any of it is another question.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I know about the ex-Conservative-party member journalists but personally I noticed it had veered to the right from the ridiculing of George Osborne and embracing of Nigel Farage.

Of course, GB has embraced Farage far more than the BBC ever did, but it's also a smaller voice.

I am not sure they embraced him, rather than giving him a lot of publicity because of his notoriety.

 

[Beebo]

See also the blatant threat to Channel 4.

Reading comments about the recent tennis match shown on channel 4 was enlightening.
People moaning about it not being shown on BBC, whilst being unaware of the ownership status of C4.

 

[Pale Rider]

The launch of a news channel by Rupert Murdoch may be further bad news for GB News.

Being a Murdoch project, it will be well financed and almost certainly very professional from the start.

Piers Morgan has made the headlines as a star presenter, but Murdoch's ability to use the journalists and news gathering from his other newspapers will play a greater overall role in the channel's success.

Some speculation GB News backers, particularly new chairman Paul Marshall are happy to fund it as a vanity project, in which case it will continue.

I'm not keen on the direction it's taken post-Neill, but of course the key question is audience reaction overall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58586493

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...scenes-of-andrew-neils-departure-from-gb-news

 

[Rusty Nails]

I'm not keen on the direction it's taken post-Neill, but of course the key question is audience reaction overall.

Or you could admit that its detractors were right from the start.

The channel is all fur coat and no knickers.

 

[Pale Rider]

Or you could admit that its detractors were right from the start.

No they were not, the channel has changed direction since Neil left, which is why he left.

In any case, the detractors were merely squawking at their idea of GB News.

It was obvious none of them watched it, so they will continue in the same stupid vein whichever direction GB News takes.

 

[Rusty Nails]

No they were not, the channel has changed direction since Neil left, which is why he left.

In any case, the detractors were merely squawking at their idea of GB News.

It was obvious none of them watched it, so they will continue in the same stupid vein whichever direction GB News takes.

While its supporters will parrot that they never foresaw its Damascene conversion.

It always walked like a duck, looked like a duck and quacked like a duck. Surprise, surprise, it was a duck.

It was badly conceived and it has done Andrew Neil's journalistic reputation no good at all to have been involved in it, however briefly.

 

[Pale Rider]

While its supporters will parrot that they never foresaw its Damascene conversion.

It always walked like a duck, looked like a duck and quacked like a duck. Surprise, surprise, it was a duck.

It was badly conceived and it has done Andrew Neil's journalistic reputation no good at all to have been involved in it, however briefly.

How many of hours of programming did you watch, or are you relying on all the stupid stunts on twatter to 'inform' your view?

Neil's reputation, of which I care little, has if anything been enhanced because he's shown he won't be pushed about by the money men.

It's cost him his job, as so often happens.

Editorial v the bean counters/senior directors is a battle which goes on in every news media organisation to a greater or lesser extent.

Journalists will respect Neil for his principled stance.

 

[FishFright]

While its supporters will parrot that they never foresaw its Damascene conversion.

It always walked like a duck, looked like a duck and quacked like a duck. Surprise, surprise, it was a duck.

It was badly conceived and it has done Andrew Neil's journalistic reputation no good at all to have been involved in it, however briefly.

Any one who expected otherwise is probably quwackers... chuckle

 

[Rusty Nails]

How many of hours of programming did you watch, or are you relying on all the stupid stunts on twatter to 'inform' your view?

Neil's reputation, of which I care little, has if anything been enhanced because he's shown he won't be pushed about by the money men.

It's cost him his job, as so often happens.

Editorial v the bean counters/senior directors is a battle which goes on in every news media organisation to a greater or lesser extent.

Journalists will respect Neil for his principled stance.

I am not on Twitter, and have no interest in ever being so, and have probably watched GBeebies half a dozen times in all, and not at all for the past few months, although the time spent is probably less than a couple of hours in total.

I found it rather unprofessional and prefer to get my political news from the papers (inc. occasionally the Mail and the Guardian), BBC, and even Al Jazeera, so decided that it was not worth spending more time on it. As I understand it its viewing figures show that I made the right decision.

I bow to your superior professional knowledge that journalists will respect him for admitting he made a gigantic balls-up and got out while he still had some dignity left. It was clear from the start he was too professional for the channel.

 

[Pale Rider]

I am not on Twitter, and have no interest in ever being so, and have probably watched GBeebies half a dozen times in all, and not at all for the past few months, although the time spent is probably less than a couple of hours in total.

I found it rather unprofessional and prefer to get my political news from the papers (inc. occasionally the Mail and the Guardian), BBC, and even Al Jazeera, so decided that it was not worth spending more time on it. As I understand it its viewing figures show that I made the right decision.

I bow to your superior professional knowledge that journalists will respect him for admitting he made a gigantic balls-up and got out while he still had some dignity left. It was clear from the start he was too professional for the channel.

It's nothing to do with anyone making a balls up.

Neil had a clear editorial vision for GB News, which presumably the backers shared per-launch, given they let him get on with it.

They changed their minds soon after launch, Neil refused to change his.

Going against your backers is rarely a good career move, but anyone in journalism will understand why Neil made a stand on this key topic.

As a skilled editor he could easily have given the backers what they wanted, but he chose not to.

 

[mjr]

Neil had a clear editorial vision for GB News, which presumably the backers shared per-launch, given they let him get on with it.

They changed their minds soon after launch, Neil refused to change his.

I thought one of his backers left and that was the beginning of the end for him.

Never mind, GBeebies and *a*kTV can fight over the lanterne rouge of rolling news soon.

 

[Milkfloat]

No they were not, the channel has changed direction since Neil left, which is why he left.

In any case, the detractors were merely squawking at their idea of GB News.

It was obvious none of them watched it, so they will continue in the same stupid vein whichever direction GB News takes.

Changed direction, Neill lasted two weeks, it was always rotten, he got out quickly.

 

[Pale Rider]

Changed direction, Neill lasted two weeks, it was always rotten, he got out quickly.

It's not rotten as such now, so certainly wasn't always rotten.

The change of direction happened a couple of months after Neil made his last scheduled broadcast.

I'm not keen on the new direction, and as an opinion, don't think it will work.

My view in isolation doesn't matter, but whoever is currently directing the station presumably thinks the approach will find more supporters than detractors.

Those with closed minds who slagged off GBNews before it even started are a lost cause - they will never change their fixed view - so they really don't matter at all.

You wouldn't expect Manchester City to base a business strategy on attracting supporters of Manchester United.