The BBC website no longer deserves the title "News"

[tkingdoll]

The quality of reporting on the BBC news website has been in gradual decline for a few years. However, recently (the past year) they've taken to reporting on absolute crap. The sort of thing that you expect to see in your local paper or on a Sunday early evening 'comedy' magazine-style TV show (British readers will remember the show 'That's Life').

Complete drivel. Stuff that is not news. It's not even human interest. A few months ago, they decided to shove it all into a new section called 'Also in the news', but stupid inane stories (often about woo stuff) make it to the front page as signposts pretty much daily now.

And today they finally lost their right, in my eyes, to call themselves a news site.

Today they are reporting, with pictures, on...

...a dog that can balance yoghurt pots on its feet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7267871.stm

I'm removing them from my Bookmarks and sticking with the Guardian Online.

[NobbyNobbs]

My favorite quote...

You don't do the dog any favours if you leave it as a dumb mutt.

I wonder what favors you are doing it by teaching it to balance yogurt containers on all four paws?

[gtc]

There is also this story from the Telegraph about the BBC producer (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/27/nterror227.xml) who knew an associate of the July 21 bombers but didn't share her information.

The Times also covered this story (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3001102.ece).

[tkingdoll]

Man, I wish I could share some of the horror stories from BBC TV land. Damn those confidences!

Suffice to say, Patrick Moore may have been more right than we realised...

[monoman]

Man, I wish I could share some of the horror stories from BBC TV land. Damn those confidences!

Suffice to say, Patrick Moore may have been more right than we realised...

Enough about Patrick 'Whoever', that dog can balance an object on each of his paws....all at the same time!!!!!!

[Puppycow]

Aw, but the doggie is so cuuute!

[WildCat]

You got to admit, that is one hell of a trick! I have a cat who fetches, and one that will sit and stand up on 2 legs on command, but the balancing thing is spectacular!

[El Greco]

It looks like the BBC site has lost tkingdoll but won several readers from here. The new approach is working.

[Ian Osborne]

Suffice to say, Patrick Moore may have been more right than we realised...

What are you referring to here? Surely not this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6634255.stm)? I love Patrick Moore when he's got a telescope in his hand, but he can be an incorrigible bigot at times.

[cgordon]

Heya Teek,

BBS is still better than most of the crap coming across American airwaves that masquerades as news. Thanks her Pinkness for NPR.

[Soapy Sam]

Did they say what flavour of yoghurt?
Could it do Fromage Frais too?

[a_unique_person]

The quality of reporting on the BBC news website has been in gradual decline for a few years. However, recently (the past year) they've taken to reporting on absolute crap. The sort of thing that you expect to see in your local paper or on a Sunday early evening 'comedy' magazine-style TV show (British readers will remember the show 'That's Life').

Complete drivel. Stuff that is not news. It's not even human interest. A few months ago, they decided to shove it all into a new section called 'Also in the news', but stupid inane stories (often about woo stuff) make it to the front page as signposts pretty much daily now.

And today they finally lost their right, in my eyes, to call themselves a news site.

Today they are reporting, with pictures, on...

...a dog that can balance yoghurt pots on its feet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7267871.stm

I'm removing them from my Bookmarks and sticking with the Guardian Online.

I showed my family and they were all really impressed. My son wanted to know if you could do that. :boxedin:

[AgeGap]

Not just their website. Watchdog (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104684) sucks, Horizon (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3473560)sucks and BBC's 10 o'clock news sucks. Pluses though are Mitchell and Webb (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_Uvg56U_o).

[richardm]

I'm removing them from my Bookmarks and sticking with the Guardian Online.

... who have on their front page such gripping stories as:

Python stalked family pet before swallowing it whole (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/australia.animalbehaviour)
and
Our Flatmate won't do his washing up (http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/privatelives/story/0,,2260412,00.html)

If they can just find a cat who can juggle Yakult bottles I think they'll be taking the lead ;)

[tkingdoll]

What are you referring to here? Surely not this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6634255.stm)? I love Patrick Moore when he's got a telescope in his hand, but he can be an incorrigible bigot at times.

I was, but not entirely seriously. It is true that the BBC is now run by women, and it is true that many of those women are staggeringly stupid individuals (yes, I am basing that on experience, those are the anecdotes I'm not allowed to repeat, sadly), and it is also true that standards at the BBC have dropped, but those things are not entirely connected. The fact that they are now running many channels on the same budget they used to have for two is the biggest factor in the decline. The gender of the bosses is irrelevant. An idiot is an idiot whatever undies they wear.

[Furi]

The gender of the bosses is irrelevant. An idiot is an idiot whatever undies they wear.

And I think we have discussed this before, I wear them purely for comfort reasons.

I have noticed that on the most emailed any story with "am it be fluffeh tiem yet" tendencies will reach number the number 1 slot regardless of world news.

this is not the Beeb's fault it is merely the result of the WWF's (World Wide Furrydom) plans to dominate the interwebs with kittens and skwyrls.

(a data screening survey we did back in 2k1 when I worked for XO communications in regards to Net traffic, ~75% email, ~10% P2P/File xfer, ~10% Http + %remainder misc, out of HTTP searches and xfer, the Bulk was divided roughly equally between Porn Warez and Furry, it's sort of reassuring to be part of a majority :p )

[Ian Osborne]

those are the anecdotes I'm not allowed to repeat, sadly

You need a sock puppet. Or maybe a stocking puppet... :D

[Beerina]

...a dog that can balance yoghurt pots on its feet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7267871.stm


Sweet!




























































Ummm, I mean I'm disturbed at the baseless pandering to the jejune proclivities of the plebeian masses.

[Cuddles]

The quality of reporting on the BBC news website has been in gradual decline for a few years. However, recently (the past year) they've taken to reporting on absolute crap. The sort of thing that you expect to see in your local paper or on a Sunday early evening 'comedy' magazine-style TV show (British readers will remember the show 'That's Life').

Complete drivel. Stuff that is not news. It's not even human interest. A few months ago, they decided to shove it all into a new section called 'Also in the news', but stupid inane stories (often about woo stuff) make it to the front page as signposts pretty much daily now.

And today they finally lost their right, in my eyes, to call themselves a news site.

Today they are reporting, with pictures, on...

...a dog that can balance yoghurt pots on its feet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7267871.stm

I'm removing them from my Bookmarks and sticking with the Guardian Online.

In all fairness, I think a big part of the problem is that not only do people want information RIGHT NOW, but that they can actually get it. When the news was only shown a couple of times a day in half hour slots, it had to be filtered down so that only the useful stuff was there. Now, however, all you need to do is write an article, put it on a website and anyone who wants to can instantly read it. This means there is no longer any need for filtering, anything that is reported can have an article up in just a few minutes, whether it's the death of a world leader or a dog balancing yoghurt. To add to the problem, it really doesn't take that long to write up a short article, esopecially when it can be easily edited and added to, so there isn't even any need for the kind of quality control which is (or at least should be) present in printed media.

The thing is, all the useful news is still there. In fact, there's really a lot more of it than there used to be, since you are no longer limited to a few headlines that can fit into a news slot or a paper, but can focus on whatever interests you. The problem is, all the crap is there as well, not that it's pushing out the real stuff.

That said, I'm generally not too impressed with the quality of reporting either. There are far too many obvious mistakes and typos, often ones which would be caught by a simple spellcheck, as well as things like multiple copies of the same or similar stories, that make it look like they really just don't care what they're putting on the site.

As for the TV news, I think the BBC is still far better than the alternatives, which mostly seem to be more concerned with what the presenters look like than what they are saying. Sky is running adverts at the moment which, as far as I can tell, are simply saying that they have a new presenter who will be starting soon. The BBC at least try to show news, rather than mindless gossip and popularity contests.

[LostAngeles]

Currently the, "Live developing Story," on CNN is: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/28/prince.afghanistan/index.html

Prince Harry talking about being deployed to Afghanistan.

[dudalb]

The BBC website is not the only misnamed "News" outlet.
I get really annoyned that they still call CNN Headline News "Headline News" since has stopped being a channel where you can get the Main News items every half hour for some time. It has become a obnoxious farrago of some of hte most annoyning Talk Show hosts on the planter with Glenn Beck.who has become a raving loon in the past few months, Nancy Grace,who shows with her offensive personality why she was fired as a Prosecutor,and "Entertainment Tonight" which takes the cake for mindless,stupid, Celeb gossip.

[tkingdoll]

AUGH!!!

They did it again!! This time by employing what appears to be a twelve year old to write about a tragic and sensitive issue.

While murder on a first date is extremely rare, Kate Beagley's death will still serve as a terrifying reminder of the dangers of dating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7276754.stm

:hb:

[BPSCG]

Here in the U.S., Time was once a respected and respectable news magazine. Over the years, it has degenerated into a slightly more intellectual version of People magazine (put out by the same publisher). Just under the title of the magazine, it used to say "The Weekly News Magazine," but that has vanished - I guess they were too embarrassed to keep it up there when literally half the magazine is devoted to entertainment stories, a quarter is advertising, and the rest is actual news, sharing space with big color photos.

In 1989, they named Mikhail Gorbachev "Person of the Decade," inexplicably bypassing Ronald Reagan, the man who peacefully destroyed Gorbachev's evil empire. That was the start. In the last three years, they've named as Person of the Year, Bono, me (yes! really!), and last year, Vladimir Putin, relegating Hu Jintao to fourth place behind Al Gore and J.K. Rowling. This is clearly no longer a serious magazine.

Also inexplicably, Mrs. BPSCG still subscribes to it. I have to attribute that to the fact that she's been putting in a lot of 60-hour work weeks lately and doesn't have time to read The Economist. You can zip through Time in about fifteen minutes these days and not break a sweat.

[tkingdoll]

Hey! In 2006, I was Time person of the year!

[UnrepentantSinner]

BBC World Service does a pretty good job providing a news and public interest alternative to the radio I have to listen to from midnight to 5am. I don't hear much about election unrest in Armenia, the Africa Cup or non-Christian chaplains in the British Army on other media outlets here.

In 1989, they named Mikhail Gorbachev "Person of the Decade," inexplicably bypassing Ronald Reagan, the man who peacefully destroyed Gorbachev's evil empire.

Yeah, because it was Ronald Reagan who inititated Glasnost and Perestroika. :rolleyes:

(just for the record, my person of the decade of the 80s was Bill Gates)

[baron]

The fact that they are now running many channels on the same budget they used to have for two is the biggest factor in the decline.

Yep, channels paid for by an archaic enforced tax on the British public which is comparable to robbery. (For those who are not aware, in the UK you must pay an annual charge of £135.50 to the BBC even if you never use their facilities or watch their channels; if you don't pay, you go to jail).

To add insult to injury the quality standards of the BBC are appallingly low and getting lower by the day.

[BPSCG]

Yeah, because it was Ronald Reagan who inititated Glasnost and Perestroika. :rolleyes:So Gorbachev gets Person of the Decade because he failed in his attempt to keep a corrupt, murderous theology alive.

[Ocelot]

I was, but not entirely seriously. It is true that the BBC is now run by women, and it is true that many of those women are staggeringly stupid individuals (yes, I am basing that on experience, those are the anecdotes I'm not allowed to repeat, sadly), and it is also true that standards at the BBC have dropped, but those things are not entirely connected. The fact that they are now running many channels on the same budget they used to have for two is the biggest factor in the decline. The gender of the bosses is irrelevant. An idiot is an idiot whatever undies they wear.

heh that made me chucklle. Undies...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/how_it_works.png

[Ian Osborne]

So Gorbachev gets Person of the Decade because he failed in his attempt to keep a corrupt, murderous theology alive.

Or Reagan gets person of the decade because he went to Nicaragua and succeeded in doing exactly that?

[Kiosk]

The dog is clearly dead, and those objects are being balanced on its stiff limbs.

[Worm]

They didn't show the picture where the owner threw her over a cliff...

[tkingdoll]

Yep, channels paid for by an archaic enforced tax on the British public which is comparable to robbery. (For those who are not aware, in the UK you must pay an annual charge of £135.50 to the BBC even if you never use their facilities or watch their channels; if you don't pay, you go to jail).

To add insult to injury the quality standards of the BBC are appallingly low and getting lower by the day.

Unfortunately for your rant, that's not entirely true. You only need a licence if you set up your equipment to receive broadcast channels.

If your equipment doesn't receive broadcast channels (for example a television with no aerial, which has been 'detuned' so it can't even pick up fuzzy air signals, you don't need to buy a licence. If you're just using your TV as a monitor to play DVDs and games, you don't need a licence.

However, the BBC operate a 'guilty until you prove yourself innocent' policy if you are one of these people, and try and tell you that they are allowed to send a person into your home to check. They are not entitled to do any such thing and you can simply ignore them. Similarly, they try and tell you that you have to contact them to inform them that you don't require a licence. Again, they don't actually have the power to enforce this, you can simply ignore them.

[Kiosk]

The problem with the BBC is that they charge the licence fee - the one thing saving British TV from an all-out race to the bottom - then join that race to the bottom regardless.

[DoubtingStephen]

The dog is clearly dead, and those objects are being balanced on its stiff limbs.

It's not dead, it's merely pining for the fjords.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So Gorbachev gets Person of the Decade because he failed in his attempt to keep a corrupt, murderous theology alive.

Nice twist there Rush. I know you think it's a crime that Reagan hasn't been added to Mt. Rushmore yet, but how about you answer me this question first - What happened in 1956, 1968 and 1980 that didn't happen in 1989 and who was responsible for it not happening?

Think about it for a minute before you respond with the usual talking points.

[Ocelot]

What happened in 1956, 1968 and 1980 that didn't happen in 1989 and who was responsible for it not happening?

Erm, they were all leap years except 1989 thanks to Pope Gregory XIII

[Cuddles]

I was thinking of this thread just the other day when I read an article on the BBC website in which they'd managed to spell someone's name three different ways in one paragraph.

As for license fees, I'd be willing to pay far more than currently just to make sure we still have at least a few channels that actually have more programs than adverts. On most channels it's honestly hard to tell if I'm watching the Simpsons or a show about pizza and cars.

[Big Les]

Unfortunately for your rant, that's not entirely true. You only need a licence if you set up your equipment to receive broadcast channels.

If your equipment doesn't receive broadcast channels (for example a television with no aerial, which has been 'detuned' so it can't even pick up fuzzy air signals, you don't need to buy a licence. If you're just using your TV as a monitor to play DVDs and games, you don't need a licence.

What about all of the other (subscription) TV channels? Or even just the non-BBC freeview ones (ITV, Ch4, Five etc)? Why should we have to pay the BBC to receive all of those, whether or not we watch BBC channels?

[baron]

Unfortunately for your rant, that's not entirely true. You only need a licence if you set up your equipment to receive broadcast channels.

Well, yes, but it's sensible to assume that TVs are used for the purpose that they're constructed. I may buy a TV to watch Sky (for some reason). Therefore I must pay the Sky fee and the BBC fee, even though I may never watch BBC and have no intention of doing so.

In order to validly not purchase a license I would have to not only forego watching other channels that I might have paid for, I would need to render my TV set incapable of receiving a signal. I think I'm right in saying this could only be done via physical modifications to the set which, under the terms of your warranty, you are not allowed to perform. I don't think that simply not having an aerial or cable is enough.

However, the BBC operate a 'guilty until you prove yourself innocent' policy if you are one of these people, and try and tell you that they are allowed to send a person into your home to check. They are not entitled to do any such thing and you can simply ignore them. Similarly, they try and tell you that you have to contact them to inform them that you don't require a licence. Again, they don't actually have the power to enforce this, you can simply ignore them.

That's correct. However, I believe the inspector can obtain a warrant of entry simply by stating to a magistrate that they believe the house contains a working TV. No evidence is required. They might say they heard it, or saw it through the window, or it was detected by one of their magical detector vans. Essentially, they'll get you and force you to pay the fee. If you don't, and you fail to pay the fine, you go to jail.

[Francesca R]

Yep, channels paid for by an archaic enforced tax on the British public which is comparable to robbery. (For those who are not aware, in the UK you must pay an annual charge of £135.50 to the BBC even if you never use their facilities or watch their channels; if you don't pay, you go to jail).It would not be that hard to reform the Communications Act and cancel the BBC Charter if public opinion was strongly in favour of that. It's "robbery" in the sense of tyranny of the majority but so are other taxes.

[BPSCG]

Nice twist there Rush. I know you think it's a crime that Reagan hasn't been added to Mt. Rushmore yet, but how about you answer me this question first - What happened in 1956, 1968 and 1980 that didn't happen in 1989 and who was responsible for it not happening?

Think about it for a minute before you respond with the usual talking points.Uhm, I was going to say, "They had U.S. presidential elections," and blame James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, but then I saw Ocelot's answer and liked it better because it had a more obscure historical context.

Ooh, I know! A non-California team won the World Series! And the San Francisco Giants and Oakland A's were responsible for it not happening!

Do I get a star?

[666]

...a dog that can balance yoghurt pots on its feet.
I reckon they're nailed-on. Just look out for the next BBC exclusive... "Dog found with stigmata".

[Ian Osborne]

Great headline from today's Six Nations Rugby...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8847d2cafc52342.png