Let’s talk about BBC

[briantrumpet]

This is the danger with badly-worded headlines. Even GB News would blush, given that the actual press conference announcing it won't happen till tomorrow, and so that £50bn is uncosted at the moment.

 

[BoldonLad]

Average age of 50.
One of the oldest demographics.
So loads of pensioners. Who aren’t entitled to in work benefits anyway.

If they are "savvy" pensioners, they may well be receiving so called "in work benefits", by getting themselves on them before Pension age, they then retain them into retirement.

In my experience, it is quite amazing how clued up on "the rules" even the apparently most ignorant can be.

 

[Pross]

Why do they insist on moving a programme that is already on to a different channel half way through so another programme can start? Just watching Breakfast and it got switched to BBC2 for (a repeat of) MOTD to start on BBC1, both are planned programmes so why not just put MOTD on BBC2?

 

[Dorset Boy]

Why do they insist on moving a programme that is already on to a different channel half way through so another programme can start? Just watching Breakfast and it got switched to BBC2 for (a repeat of) MOTD to start on BBC1, both are planned programmes so why not just put MOTD on BBC2?

Agree, never understood that.
They could move Eastenders to BBC2 and the audience would follow it, but no, it has to always be on BBC1, as an example.

 

[AndyRM]

Why do they insist on moving a programme that is already on to a different channel half way through so another programme can start? Just watching Breakfast and it got switched to BBC2 for (a repeat of) MOTD to start on BBC1, both are planned programmes so why not just put MOTD on BBC2?

It's an agreement/rights thing (for football at least). BBC 1 is still viewed as the flagship channel so MOTD has to be shown on it, regardless of whether it's a repeat or not.

 

[Pross]

It's an agreement/rights thing (for football at least). BBC 1 is still viewed as the flagship channel so MOTD has to be shown on it, regardless of whether it's a repeat or not.

Seems such an old-fashioned view in the days of multi channel TV and streaming. It’s weird watching something like Wimbledon where on a long match you can change channels twice.

 

[AndyRM]

Seems such an old-fashioned view in the days of multi channel TV and streaming. It’s weird watching something like Wimbledon where on a long match you can change channels twice.

Aye, the Wimbledon (and to a lesser extent athletics) channel hopping is pretty annoying.

 

[Psamathe]

(Sorry if already discussed and I missed it) An interesting report from a few months ago I'd missed.

Whilst I appreciate steps to try to address mis-information through social media particularly in relation to news items I wonder if pushing the video based platforms to bias their algorithms favouring named providers is actually going to help. eg my impression (not being a social Media user) is that things like riots are spread through the nearer realtime text platforms like Twitter.

UK plans to give established media more visibility on YouTube and TikTok​

Plans to hand established broadcasters and media companies greater prominence on digital platforms such as YouTube and TikTok have been unveiled, as ministers warned online misinformation risked becoming “existential for our democracy”.

In proposals that set up a new clash with global tech companies, content from the likes of the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 would have to be awarded more promotion by their algorithms – with special rules considered for times of social unrest or crisis.

Maybe more "worrying" (from the same article) is

A government consultation on the issue, published on Tuesday, signals that greater prominence for news coverage could be extended to local and national newspapers, labelling them as “trustworthy providers”.

It sets up the delicate task of defining which outlets count as trustworthy providers – a definition that is likely to be fought over fiercely by news outlets, broadcasters and content creators.

ie our Government (or bodies appointed by our politicians) get to decide which of press are "trustworthy providers" and thereby get greater prominence.

 

[Pblakeney]

(Sorry if already discussed and I missed it) An interesting report from a few months ago I'd missed.

Whilst I appreciate steps to try to address mis-information through social media particularly in relation to news items I wonder if pushing the video based platforms to bias their algorithms favouring named providers is actually going to help. eg my impression (not being a social Media user) is that things like riots are spread through the nearer realtime text platforms like Twitter.


Maybe more "worrying" (from the same article) is

ie our Government (or bodies appointed by our politicians) get to decide which of press are "trustworthy providers" and thereby get greater prominence.

I don’t think they understand how the algorithms work. You get fed what you click on, not what the government approves.
While acknowledging that the companies can skew the algorithms.
Right wingers are going to use X and GB News (just as an example) regardless of what the government approves.

 

[Psamathe]

Right wingers are going to use X and GB News (just as an example) regardless of what the government approves.

And were Conservatives (or worse Reform) get into power they'd be officially classing such sources as to be artificially promoted as "trustworthy providers". Even if the "trustworthy providers" classification is through some "independent body", it would be politicians who appoint members of that body eg Robbie Gibb and his position and power within the BBC.

And, were BBC to become "trustworthy providers" that would mean Chris Mason's Reform PR would also be "trustworthy providers".

 

[Pblakeney]

And were Conservatives (or worse Reform) get into power they'd be officially classing such sources as to be artificially promoted as "trustworthy providers". Even if the "trustworthy providers" classification is through some "independent body", it would be politicians who appoint members of that body eg Robbie Gibb and his position and power within the BBC.

And, were BBC to become "trustworthy providers" that would mean Chris Mason's Reform PR would also be "trustworthy providers".

Yeah, it’s all bollocks.

 

[briantrumpet]

I suspect you've all seen footage from the catastrophe in Nepal. The first bits I saw I thought were bad AI, then I saw the other clips.

Well, you'd have thought that the BBC might have given a bit more context than 'flash flooding'. What TF are they so afraid of? This is the kind of avoidance of the bleedin' obvious context that could well be the work of Reform. "Don't mention global warming!!"

 

[Psamathe]

Well, you'd have thought that the BBC might have given a bit more context than 'flash flooding'. What TF are they so afraid of? This is the kind of avoidance of the bleedin' obvious context that could well be the work of Reform. "Don't mention global warming!!"

Whereas C4 News this evening had a professor specialist on glacial lakes discussing this disaster and the mechanisms as to how climate change affects the glaciers, permafrost, etc. at this site.

 

[briantrumpet]

Whereas C4 News this evening had a professor specialist on glacial lakes discussing this disaster and the mechanisms as to how climate change affects the glaciers, permafrost, etc. at this site.

Apparently World At One was a bit better. But avoiding the subject even in passing must be a conscious editorial decision.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Apparently World At One was a bit better. But avoiding the subject even in passing must be a conscious editorial decision.

I suspect there may be a What happened before Why and How character to breaking news. BBC News went into detail about the environmental whys and hows this afternoon, presumably once they'd managed to get TV experts to give advice.