BBC (again)

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 111 of 435 < 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 1.15pm
Originally posted by Spiderman “ reporter was clearly SPECULATING on suggestions they had heard! Heard from who? So wasn’t 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. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 1.15pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

“ reporter was clearly SPECULATING on suggestions they had heard! Heard from who? So wasn’t 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.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 1.21pm
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. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 1.21pm

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.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 18 Dec 21 1.47pm
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 a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 18 Dec 21 1.47pm

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)

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 18 Dec 21 2.29pm
One time national Treasure, John Cleese, now an enemy of the woke. [Link] Edited by georgenorman (18 Dec 2021 2.29pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

18 Dec 21 2.29pm

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

Edited by georgenorman (18 Dec 2021 2.29pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 18 Dec 21 2.33pm
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. Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 18 Dec 21 2.33pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 18 Dec 21 2.36pm
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. I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 18 Dec 21 2.36pm

Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly

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.

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 3.42pm
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. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 3.42pm

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.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 3.48pm
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. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 18 Dec 21 3.48pm

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

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.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops CR3 18 Dec 21 4.17pm
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 it’s 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 a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops

CR3 18 Dec 21 4.17pm

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 it’s 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 a moderator to this post

georgenorman 18 Dec 21 4.40pm
Originally posted by Eaglecoops Just watched that interview. The interviewer had no interest in what it’s 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 a moderator to this post

georgenorman

18 Dec 21 4.40pm

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

Couldn't agree more.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 18 Dec 21 4.59pm
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 a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

18 Dec 21 4.59pm

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 a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 18 Dec 21 6.22pm
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 a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 18 Dec 21 6.22pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

A rude arrogant self-obsessed old bore.

And he ceased to be funny many moons ago.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 111 of 435 < 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

BBC (again)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors