BBC BLOGS - The Editors
« Previous | Main | Next »

Faces of the Year

Post categories:

Giles Wilson Giles Wilson | 11:30 UK time, Thursday, 29 December 2011

It's become a tradition on the BBC News website that at the end of each year we look back at some of the faces that have been in the news, and in choosing a face for each month of the year we try to reflect a range of the different kinds of subjects that have been covered. We generally produce a list of women and a list of men, and since we regard it as part of our job to make the list interesting and engaging, we try to include some choices which are not obvious or predictable.

This, after all, is not a definitive list of the most important or influential people. It's not based on people's achievements, their popularity or their contribution to society. And it's not a celebration of either gender's role in humanity - it's just a selection of some of the faces from the headlines from the past year.

No one was more surprised than us, then, to see the phrase "pandagate" trending on Twitter on Wednesday, or the coverage in several newspapers on Thursday.

The inclusion on the list of Tian Tian, one of the pandas who arrived with such fanfare at Edinburgh Zoo, led some people to claim that we were not recognising the accomplishments of women. Tian Tian, being female, had been included in our list of women. However, as we pointed out yesterday, she was not the first non-human to be included on these lists - last year there was Peppa Pig who had got mixed up in a political wrangle. The year before there was Benson, a poisoned prize carp. Peppa was on the women's list, and Benson on the men's, though of course like Tian Tian they are not technically men or women.

One thing is at least clearer today. If Tian Tian hadn't justified her place on the list of newsmakers based on her arrival in Edinburgh, she would have done after this.

Giles Wilson is features editor of the BBC News website.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Rather annoyed to see that Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish Parliament and voted "Briton of the Year" by the Times was not even given a mention on the Scottish news site - why this censorship of positive Scottish-related news items ?

  • Comment number 2.

    I believe it would be nice to add a slide after the one for Dan Wheldon comemorating Marco Simoncelli, former motorcycle racer who lost his life after a horrible accident on 23rd October this year during the Malaysian Grand Prix at Sepang. May he rest in peace.

  • Comment number 3.

    So the award is for thsoe women and men who have made the headlines this year? And the inclusion of Tian Tian may be light hearted and entertaining. However, can we assume that we need to take the Courage of Pauline Pearce, in the same way? And the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords the same? And the rape of Eman al-Obedi, in the same light hearted and entertaining vein?

    Get your act together BBC - if it's humourous and light-hearted, choose the right forum in which to provide the 'award', don't denigrate the experiences and achievements of brave and courageous people.

  • Comment number 4.

    There are four big issues with the list of female faces;

    The first was the inclusion of a panda - a non-human - which implied that there was no human female that did anything as note during December. How about Hilary Clinton, with her landmark "It should never be a crime to be gay" speech. Easy, huh?!?

    The second was focus on women as sex objects. Two of the women picked had simply got married, one had a date, two were (possibly) raped, and one made a wedding dress (50%). Compare that to the men; only one of the men was featured because of his love-life (8%). If you wanted to pick women for their love life then why not feature Marissa Gaeta for December - another easy choice, no?

    The third issue with the selection was the marginalisation of women as sex objects. Only two of the women picked had actually done something themselves that wasn't love or sex related (17%). Compare that to the men; seven were picked for things they themselves did that weren't love or sex related, whilst two were people who had died after making notable achievements (75%).

    The fourth issue with the selection was how it completely side-lined the world political stage, in a year when the news has focused on the financial crisis, NotW scandal, and other massive stories.

    Apart from Hilary Clinton, where was Angela Merkel, who has filled so much of the news over the past few months? Even the BBC admits that the Eurocrisis has dominated the news, so why was she omitted? Where was Rebekah Brooks, the most recognised face of News of the World? Where was Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Christine Lagarde, or Jill Abramson, for that matter?

  • Comment number 5.

    A Panda is a bearlike mammal.
    A Woman is an adult female human ... often miss-understood by men!

    This grumpy face recommends you change your incorrect title
    from [ Women that made the headlines ] to [ Female Faces of the Year]

  • Comment number 6.

    Giles, seriously - I read the Guardian article about the uproar about including Tian Tian and really think it's much ado about nothing. Those interpreting the selection as anything other than a light-hearted addition to a range of faces I believe, are simply taking life far too seriously.

    Given the scale of events that occurred over the course of this year, with the death of Osama bin Laden, Muammar Gaddafi and Kim Jong-il to mention but a few, I think the world deserves a break with something less serious at this time of year. So what if some of the faces of the year are not human? I came across an article on a satirical South African blog last week about human rights for drug mules and thought it really drew the analogy between man and beast quite cleverly in their cartoon. No doubt there are plenty of additional parallels that can be drawn between the two kingdoms - if only readers would try to draw them instead of whingeing.

    If anything, the only aspect that may need some looking into is the BBC gender classification when determining the faces - apparently Benson the carp listed under the male faces is in fact female. And Tian Tian, according to Wikipedia at least is supposed to be a 275-pound male panda! ;)

    Sizwe

  • Comment number 7.

    Where was Sir Jimmy Saville in the list of well-known people who have died in 2011. Surely he merits a mention.

  • Comment number 8.

    I just think it is strange that a large, glorified racoon, albeit an interesting and lovely creature in its own right, would become a topic of such debate when there are so many more serious issues to be aired. Turkey, which together with the BBC virtually skinned Israel a year and a half ago when a number of Freedon Flotilla members were killed, injured or arrested, has admitted to killing 35 civilians inside the sovereign territory of Iraq. Yet they are getting a pass in terms of editorial criticism. I cannot understand why Turkey's (and the BBC's for that matter) hypocrisy is being supplanted by discussion of a Panda.

  • Comment number 9.

    No wonder you've engendered controversy. Your selection criteria are weak and woolly - whatever you feel is "interesting and engaging". Complete subjectivity, no other qualities required. Many of those on your list fulfill neither criterion, which helps to explain the antipathy you have generated. You always select men for the male list, but the panda, cartoon character and fish are all female. Yet you stuck the poor fish on the men's list. Major fail Giles. Your research is as inadequate as your thinking. D minus.

  • Comment number 10.

    You did not mention Hitch. Shame on you!

  • Comment number 11.

    Would have thought you would have given prominent picture to someone different.

  • Comment number 12.

    Larks. The Graun gets in on the act and a market rate rushes to broadcast-only another 'we got it about right' 'defence' here. Again.

    '... WE look back at some of the faces that have been in the news, and in choosing a face for each month of the year WE try to reflect a range of the different kinds of subjects that have been covered. WE generally produce a list of women and a list of men, and since WE regard it as part of OUR job to make the list interesting and engaging, WE try to include some choices which are not obvious or predictable.

    What YOU regard YOUR job to be, in the face of input from the paying public that it is not hitting the mark too well any more, is kinda part of the problem. One presumes this will be another post and run job?

    Don't forget to pull this thread before it gets embarrassing.

  • Comment number 13.

    Why isn't this a more definitive list of the most important or influential people + a brief explanation as to choice?
    It's not based on people's achievements, popularity or contribution to society.
    It's not a celebration of either gender's role in humanity.
    It's just a selection of some of the faces from the headlines from the past year.
    If you don't mind me saying so, this seems rather lackadaisical on the part of BBC. I could list names without rhyme or reason too...but to carefully select names from each month, specifying my rationale would take time, thought & effort...and it would invite more meaningful debate.
    In other words, I think your listing are irrelevant and were sloppily compiled - men and women. Perhaps you will reconsider your approach for 2012.
    Angela Merkel should have surely made your female list...Probably "Sweetie" was your best and most recognizable female choice.
    Wael Ghonim should have made your men's list. He embodies the youth who constitute the revolutionary majority of Egyptian society...Probably Rory was your best and most recognizable male choice.
    If your selections are the choices for "Faces of the Year", it was an effort almost totally wasted, and certainly an opportunity missed.

  • Comment number 14.

    Giles Wilson wrote: soothing and inconsequential pap -- just what's needed to keep our collective small-minds at ease.

  • Comment number 15.

    Given the number of global elections taking place in 2012, no doubt there are going to be some seriously ugly mugs making the faces list next year. Hey, perhaps if the communist party falls in China in 2012, the Tian Tian selection might be even more justified this year.. LOL Come on guys, it was meant as a light-hearted addition - don't take it all so seriously!

  • Comment number 16.

    15. At 10:02 31st Dec 2011, Toonman LOL Come on guys, it was meant as a light-hearted addition - don't take it all so seriously!

    Maybe best directed at the BBC Editor moved to write a long piece in justification, stung mostly by the Guardian accusing its sister medium of losing the plot.

    Between twitter and almost every posting on The Editors, the 'talents' of the market rates the BBC employs using public funds are laid bare for all to see.

  • Comment number 17.

    I suspect that if the BBC went on their own TV viewing figures (excluding presenters and soap actors), then Pippa Middleton's face would easily be in the top 10.
    And not just her face.

  • Comment number 18.

    17. At 13:17 31st Dec 2011, thefrogstar

    Cheeky:)

    Until next year....

  • Comment number 19.

    Given that Angela Merkel has recently been declared "the most powerful woman in the world", by Forbes magazine, then perhaps she might have merited an entry. [Like Thatcher, she was a Chemist!]

    But the BBC article was a light-hearted piece, or so I understood it. It might have been interesting though, to speculate where she thought Silvio Berlusconi's face should have been put, given his well publicised views about her. Still, Italian bonds have gone up recently, so perhaps Italy has not suffered unduly.

    18. At 17:06 31st Dec 2011, JunkkMale
    Yes, it's not often one comes across a bridesmaid's dress as memorable as that but assuaging all points of the compass seems to be part of the BBC'c job. And I'm sure plenty of people love Chinese pandas just as much as crouching tigers.
    May the Kinases be with you in 2012.

  • Comment number 20.

    This morning BBC World programmed a documentary about the Tsunami in Japan, believe or not to the top right of the screen is was under the name: the best of the year?? Is that normal? My concern is that they will show it a few time during the day.
    Anyone could call the right department and fix it?
    Bruno

  • Comment number 21.

    It's shaping up a storm already on the 'we get it, in our own unique way, about right' front.

    I just had an enquiry dismissed on some odd stealth headline adjustments as follows:

    'Headlines also have more than one version for reasons of length'

    The one in question went from:

    'Thatcher told abandon Liverpool'

    to

    'Toxteth riots: Howe proposed 'managed decline' for city'

    I was also informed 'It is our practice to shut down comments after a period of time as all comment threads need to be moderated

    Worrying precedent, especially as the thread in question -http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16355281 - was pretty recent, and active.

    Nothing to do with the most liked ratings on comments, with seemed to be factually concerned about accuracy and integrity.

  • Comment number 22.

    Can't help noticing that the list is now called Faces of the Year rather than Faces of the Year - the women. Could the BBC be backtracking? It would be really refreshing for a major organisation to admit that they got it wrong and, instead of defending their position, perhaps apologise for offence caused. Fat chance!

  • Comment number 23.

    I have never felt so let down by the BBC as when I saw this list. I completely agree with two truths comments. After the sports personality of the year failure to recognise women's achievements completely, how on earth could this list have been compiled? Compared to the men's list you have appeared to show women as trivial, with nothing of worth to contribute. Was this list compiled by men only (complete with sniggers as it was formed?). My two daughters have just asked what I am doing - I have had to explain that in this world men and women are still not viewed as equal and they will have to battle that as they grow up. Please think very carefully about how women are portrayed in the future - your mother/sister/daughter will thank you for it.

  • Comment number 24.

    Speaking of faces, and women-related issues, there may be a few red ones around today.

    http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2012/01/truth-about-that-charlotte-church.html

    Possibly this may lead to a 2012 with a smidge less exclusive BBC reliance on 'quality' press 'twitter to news' complements from 'quality' papers and their employees, chosen for 'integrity' in 'speaking for the public' at odds to ABC representation (apols for all those 'quotes', but it does seem a new BBC 'thing' to litter them around, especially when trying to infer the reverse of 'facts').

    It's a trust thing.

    Had to love this: 'The initial news stories I read, and based the piece on, appeared to suggest that the existence of the countdown was known fact rather than unconfirmed'

    That seems to appear a lot on this thread as a reason, if not excuse. Will you be adding this girl to the 'reporting' roster soon? Like, qualified... totally.

  • Comment number 25.

    To Femaleforfairness #23

    Many people can't agree when media should report:

    facts or
    widely held cultural opinions with little supporting evidence.

    "in this world men and women are still not viewed as equal"

    In this case then the BBC was wrong to reflect this current generally held cultural view and should have reflected more aspirational or evidence-based views of equality.

  • Comment number 26.

    Having read all the above, it seems to me that poor old Beeb is done for whatever happens.
    Women: BBC still fighting the fight which womens Lib instigated in the 60s?
    News: Can you prevent all newsies chatting amongst themselves please. News IS the priority after all. Also please define "news", as with "rolling news", what is the point of labelling as news exactly the same (recorded) piece every hour on the hour, which can last as "news" for over 2 days!!
    Also, there is now an established Mickey Taking precedent where the news dollies use a mild put down of the male species at every opportunity.
    Can we establish an indentically formatted put down of the female (for balance), as this mild practice seems to have taken the issue of women`s rights a little too far.
    Weather: Can you get all weatherpeople to be aware that the "Northwest" includes Liverpool and Manchester????Please.
    Weatherpeople regularly say Northwest England and then describe Scotland...which is perhaps taking the Devolution issue too far.
    Whilst on the Weather, we have noticed that the broad introductory weathermap, includes the "Capitals" of UK.
    These regularly include: Newcastle. (North East) Birmingham (Midlands) Glasgow AND Edinburgh (Scotland).
    Alas, NO mention of Liverpool OR Manchester for the North West!!!
    I can confirm, having visited BOTH places this weekend, that they indeed still exist, (even if your story ref Thatcher/Howe does give a partial explanation!!!).
    Keep up BBC, remember the M25 is NOT a recognised border but just a recognised congestion hotspot!!

  • Comment number 27.

    Some posters here need to remember, The BBC choice for "Faces of the Year" is of course subjective not objective.
    A bit of fun.
    But it is worth considering what message the BBC is trying to get over with its choices.

    Giles - a link to the list would have helped.
    It seems emasculation of the Blogs with the 400 Character limit appears to have successfully blocked, in some cases eliminated, sensible reasoned debate - well done

  • Comment number 28.

    27. At 14:01 4th Jan 2012, GlynT
    It seems emasculation of the Blogs with the 400 Character limit appears to have successfully blocked, in some cases eliminated, sensible reasoned debate - well done


    There are some glorious outposts, as can happen on this thread, well, occasionally.

    Also the Newsnight blog.

    For around 3 weeks one thread stayed open (and still does) as the BBC audience somehow managed without the editorial team's 'looking at', discussing and analysis as they vanished for the school hols.

    And now they have returned. Oddly, along with them have returned mods who see almost all comment as referable if not house rule-outable. I predict a closing.

    It's what makes so much hereabouts so... 'unique'.

  • Comment number 29.

    i also moan about something

  • Comment number 30.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 31.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 32.

    I think the colourful and frequently disappointing African leaders alone in the last year could have provided plenty of content in terms of interesting faces for 2011 - many of whom we'll be glad to see less of in 2012!

    @GlynT (#27) - I agree with you, the list is subjective but one wonders about the point the BBC is trying to make with its selection! Ditto on your point about including a link to the list - am sure it would have made for more informed comments!

    FYI, the relevant link is 2011 BBC faces of the year

  • Comment number 33.

    Giles,

    So a Scottish-themed blog, hidden away in the depths of The Editors. And what is it about - the trivia of a couple of captive bears.

    Please let us comment on important Scottish matters, starting with reistating this option on Brians Blether and the Business equivalent.

    I find the lack of opportunity to comment on Scottish stories on the BBC utterly bewildering.

  • Comment number 34.

    Not worth coment.the blog was rubbish so are the coments,

  • Comment number 35.

    '34. At 10:34 8th Jan 2012, maverick256 wrote:
    Not worth coment.the blog was rubbish so are the coments,


    Not a fan elsewhere, and hence pleased it has yet to grace this thread, but that really is worth a massive 'Like' on so many counts.

  • Comment number 36.

    As one who has the honour of being one of them, may I suggest that the face of one of the heroes who braved the "risk and rigour" of a convoy to Russia be entered in this piece. From this side of the "Pond", in Florida, I read about the stupid remarks of Defence Minister Andrew Robathan, which illustrates his complete ignorance of the perils we endured on that awful journey. I felt so irate that I wrote to Prime Minister Cameron asking him to revisit this subject and order a medal struck and awarded to those of us still on this mortal coil, and who thoroughly deserve this recognition.

  • Comment number 37.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 38.

    I think someone needs to look at the creative side of ICT education Programming OMG Boring!!!!

    While every one jumps on the band wagon of crap ICT lessons and curriculum and how much we need to change things you should be looking at are BCS digital creator as an example of curriculum enhancement. Using this qualification as a replacement for year six ICT curriculum, this would be an ideal replacement for QCA units 6A - 6d and furthermore give a child a chance of a qualification of grade B GCSE when leaving primary education this be an excellent opportunity for schools to develop transition through ICT then move forward to level two at high school a great foundation in ICT to move to high school with.

  • Comment number 39.

    I wasn't happy about the BBC list of women.

    But I'd rather you explain your pitiful coverage of the report published on Monday about the Welfare Bill.
    And why other media sites have given much greater prominence to the defeat in the Lords today.

    There are around 10 million people in the UK with disabilities, yet you've barely covered the issues over the last few months except to publish government spin and incorrect figures about the WCA.

    (I wrote in 3 times asking your site editors to correct these - no response, no correction, even though they were blatantly wrong.)

  • Comment number 40.

    '39. At 22:04 11th Jan 2012, Tig
    (I wrote in 3 times asking your site editors to correct these - no response, no correction, even though they were blatantly wrong.)'


    The level of trust that garners 'the world's most respected news broadcaster' appellation is not easily won.

    I too am awaiting 'feedback' via the BBC interactive system on a few issues.

    Such as why the Newsnight Economics Editor feels it is fine to to describe the actions of the elected government as 'throwing its toys out of the pram', when the majority of the UK was supportive. Rather goes to the 'speaking for the nation' claim.

    Or how another editor feels it is fine to claim allow the claim that all Israelis are Zionists. Rather goes to enhancing the narrative... a bit too far notions abounding

    Or why it was felt necessary to first of all write an incorrect headline about Mrs. Thatcher's actions over Liverpool, then change it, shut down the thread asking why, and then denying that such a thing had happened. Facts are so last rating, it seems.

    'Unique' is not looking the positive description it once was.

  • Comment number 41.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 42.

    The introduction to the lists specifically say:
    'This, after all, is not a definitive list of the most important or influential people. It's not based on people's achievements, their popularity or their contribution to society. And it's not a celebration of either gender's role in humanity - it's just a selection of some of the faces from the headlines from the past year'

    So why do individuals in here feel the need to moan and whine and express how disapponted they are about these lists being trivial or not as they though it should be! gee these are merely some names worth mentioning that's all! Chill pill needed for some...

  • Comment number 43.

    42. At 14:26 13th Jan 2012, Dave
    Why do individuals in here feel the need to moan and whine and express how disapponted they are...


    Well, the topic was raised by Mr. Wilson, and unless you are advocating BBC blogs are merely Emperor's New Clothes-cheerleading squads, there may be counter views...

    Plus the introduction to this blog specifically says: all you need do is add a comment.

    Doesn't say 'to Dave's satisfaction'.

    Methinks someone took the blue one.

  • Comment number 44.

    well done JunkkMale, now that you have clarified all those tedious details I feel much better to: Dave's satisfaction! ;)

  • Comment number 45.

    With this leaders how is our economy going to improve?

  • Comment number 46.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 47.

    Hi, was really disappointed not to be able to post a contribution to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16536598 before it was closed.
    I wanted to add something no one else seemed to have predicted for 2112 (and I am not going to make any Rush related references).

    I believe that by then we will have received some form of telecommunication from outside of our solar system from some 'other' civilisation. Currently the radius of our communications window (send and reply from a SETI prespective) is (2012-1933)/2. About 36 light years. By 2112 this will have more than doubled to 85 light years, a distance I believe sufficient to find a voice capable of replying to us.

  • Comment number 48.

    Why does the BBC seem to be making an issue over Mitt Romney's religion see the extract below from the BBC news website

    Mitt Romney: Ex-Massachusetts governor and Mormon; presumed front-runner though doubts remain for some over his conservative credentials

    Ron Paul: Texas congressman and, at 76, oldest in race. Libertarian-minded, with a band of devoted followers

    Rick Santorum: Ex-Pennsylvania senator and social conservative. Nearly written off, but saw a surge that helped him come second in Iowa

    Newt Gingrich: Ex-House of Representatives' speaker; Briefly led the field, but support collapsed amid a fusillade of attacks ads

    Rick Perry: Texas governor; once seen as a conservative alternative to Mr Romney, his campaign has been damaged by a series of gaffes

    In none of the references regarding the other Republican candidates do you make any reference to their religion but you do make a big reference to Mitt being a Mormon , lets leave religion out of this and focus of the candidates ability to govern and their potential to make a good President or treat each one the same and focus on the religious beliefs of the other candidates.

    Mitt Romney being Mormon should have no effect on his ability to govern even though I know some voters may take that view, the BBC should do better than this

  • Comment number 49.

    Are the editors back from their xmas hols yet?

  • Comment number 50.

    Giles- "It's become a tradition....." is the only part of the blog I don't agree with. Call me anal, but I can't help but notice simple grammatical errors. "It has become a tradition...." Otherwise, I love reading your posts.

  • Comment number 51.

    In case anyone is interested - the effect of my Blog No. 36 having so far had no response - I had an acknowledgment of my letter to PM Cameron regarding the award of a special medal to those who served on Russian convoy duty. The correspondence "clerk" said that the contents of my letter are "under consideration". Anyone want to predict the outcome of this controversy, which is an insult to those who went on those perilous voyages?

  • Comment number 52.

    Dear BBC the premise of HYS and debating is surely to promote disscussion of IMPORTANT issue's that your customers wish to disscuss, and in turn your site aims to provide the forum and a fair means of free expression. The rule book is lengthy and we accept this but if we are going to bother turning up and consuming your news before we debate then surely we must have debates that have importance regarding the state of the nation and its future direction and as a democratic country we expect to be able to debate any issue with freedom of expression.
    The fact that such lightweight meaningless debates as the 80mph limit in wales is chosen ahead of the Immigrant claimant count which is your main story frankly beggars belief and this is but one of many instances which I am sure you are aware of as a selection process must be in place.
    If it is a case of a lack of moderators available then please sort the wheat from the chaff in choosing debates and then we will have something worthy to turn up for, or employ more staff so all stories can be debated.
    Your selections to date seem to deny your customers a say on certain topics and one could infer that the BBC is attempting to skew opinion or control what we think is important by not giving certain topics a hearing. Manipulation of the reported news and our access to it is not something I would expect to see in the UK but in other nefarious regimes where democracy is feeble.
    Basically if you are going to do something do it right and leave your political baggage at home as the BBC is supposed to be an objective representitive of the UK population which I may add pays for your objectivity and fairness.

  • Comment number 53.

    Re 52 Pitchforksout,

    Strongly agree with and support your comment.
    Also;
    The 400 character limit prevents proper debate, allowing BBC's comments and reporting to avoid critical review, it seems part of the BBC's attempt to control opinion and expression.

    The ranking of stories, how they are written/spun, as well as what is open for comment , (and closed when a debate is developing in the wrong way) can be interpreted as the BBC news editors attempting to shape opinion and develop an agenda.
    Have you noticed how few topics are open for comment on HYS.

    The 80MHP Welsh story is simply BBC Wales, once again, helping the Welsh Government divert attention from its failure to deal with the proper delivery of Welsh public services and rebuilding the Welsh economy.

    As you rightly ask in your last paragraph - BBC
    " leave your political baggage at home as the BBC is supposed to be an objective representative of the UK population which I may add pays for your objectivity and fairness."
    The BBC should give us facts, where it presents opinion, or promulgates minority views, it must be prepared to be reviewed and criticised in open forum.

  • Comment number 54.

    I have noticed for the last 24 hours or so, the BBC Yahoo main page does not include UK home news. I can only get into Have your Say by typing it in the Google box. Is there a breakdown and if so when will it come back to a normal page.

  • Comment number 55.

    '52. At 09:53 20th Jan 2012, pitchforksout
    Your selections to date seem to deny your customers a say on certain topics and one could infer that the BBC is attempting to skew opinion or control what we think is important by not giving certain topics a hearing'


    Sadly, Mr. Wilson, and others posting topics on this thread, seem programmed only to broadcast, not receive (much less reply), so I fear this will fall on deaf ears, no matter how valid.

  • Comment number 56.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 57.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 58.

    The BBC's series 'The Estate' set in Ballysally, Coleraine has raised the hackles of our Focus on Family Writing group in Ballysally. We had hoped that the documentary would be a fair representative account of life on the estate. However, from the first episode it seems as if we are being portrayed in a far from fair light. People are struggling in these hard economic times, perhaps more here than most places. But there is a community spirit here that should be allowed to come through. I hope following episodes will allow that aspect to appear. Otherwise much that is good on the estate will be ignored at the change of providing dirt raking entertainment at the vulnerable expense.

  • Comment number 59.

    EGGHEADS

    Can you please display the actual question that is being asked above the answers. As this show is aired over teatime we often are in the middle of an evening meal and you miss the actual question, it really is a nuisance

  • Comment number 60.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 61.

    Dear BBC, a looming disaster hungs over the children of post conflict northern Uganda districts, where over 3000 chidlren are suffering from the nodding disease. Communities are desparate for solutions. To date, no cause or treatment exists for this monstrous ailments claiming more and more of it's victims. As a mother and a paediatrician, the dilema is that the affected young stars nod violently at the sight of food and hence give up with eating then eventually get malnourished. Any one with the English version of the Russian work and management of similar ailments should share it with us.

  • Comment number 62.

  • Comment number 63.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 64.

    '58. At 18:15 25th Jan 2012, BeatriceStringer -
    We had hoped that the documentary would be a fair representative account of life on the estate."


    The phrase 'enhancing the narrative' springs to mind. Again, not in a good way.

    Your estate is no more than a tool to be shaped to suit an agenda with a claim of reality in vindication. The edit suite can conjure in, or out, anything, to order.

    Few are deceived any more. Especially with an entity that can reverse the reigning monarch's direction of travel to assist said narrative.

  • Comment number 65.

    Glad to hear Fred the Shred has had his Knighthood stripped from him but why doesn't the Government also strip him of his outrageous pension deal - surely he is the least deserving person in the country to have so much money at the taxpayers' expense. In any other business, if it fails you lose big time. So many pensioners like me have seen their pots dwindle in value because of the outrageous and unbridled gambling of the banking fraternity. It's tiime to restore the balance

  • Comment number 66.

    Including a panda in the list for Faces of the Year is an indicative statement actually. I'm not surprised at all. Was it funny? It definitely wasn't. Looking at humans is the last thing many do these days.

  • Comment number 67.

    Citing only Mr Mueller in articles as "Apple overturns Motorola's iPad and iPhone sales bans" may give the impressing of bias. Many people see him as now very biased for Apple's and other big company's interests. And see him even not much as a legal expert in patent matters with so many wrong predictions. And even avoiding dangerous citations may look unbalanced if never the available views of well trained lawyers are also available.

  • Comment number 68.

    Definitely can't make a definitive list and you certainly won't be able to appease everyone that thumbs it over. If I could add one name or face to the list it would be Michael Savage; his continued battle to have his name removed from the list of individuals banned in Britain has been a long, unfair and rarely spoken of.

    Scott
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

  • Comment number 69.

    I think, the prson on the year is me. Why: watch this and you will understend my comment.
    This all is on my Chanel devicamm:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHOIvy7duK4

    http://youtu.be/iweFIx12bp4

    http://youtu.be/tmpldRejY_o

    http://youtu.be/xEqzDpqqgLU

    Thanks

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.