BBC Blog Network

User Profile

MutantFriend

Listed below are comments made by MutantFriend between Thursday, 11th September 2008 and Monday, 16th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Social media focus 4:45pm on 16 Nov 2009 Please don't use this type of input unless it really does add to our understanding of the situation. Recently you made repeated use of some poor quality, shaky video of an armed robbery at a London jewellers which did no more than induce nausea.

I am also concerned at the number of times you repeat very short segments of amateur film taken during protests which appear to show police aggression, when in fact they have been under intensive and orchestrated provocation designed to capture that 5 second loop of an 'innocent' protester being pushed. Context is vital.

Make sure you know the source or you will be manipulated. If in doubt, leave it out. Be different from commercial broadcasters or you lose your purpose.
Michael Jackson coverage 10:00am on 30 Jun 2009 Mary, you can add me to the list of complainers. Please note that I am giving up watching BBC News, even though I pay for it, because it has lost all perspective on what is important. I agree the story can't be ignored, but what have I learned? What real information have you provided? I find it hard to believe you have actually watched your output for the last 4 days.

This isn't a one off failure of judgement. The gross over reporting of poor Jade Goody is a recent example of how you get carried away with celebrities and how people feel about them. Your viewing figures might be up, but does that fulfil your public service obligations? These tributes can surely find a more appropriate outlet in your bloated organisation.

You constantly boast about how widely based your news gathering teams are but when do we get to see any meaning output from them? News is about what has just happened or is happening now, not about what might happen. News is primarily about facts, not mostly opinions and feelings. When BBC News has the same look and feel as all other news channels, you have to wonder what is the point.
Swine flu coverage 10:13am on 30 Apr 2009 I want to register my appreciation for the way your science editor has presented his segments in your news coverage. He seems a lone voice of calm, presenting useful facts in a clear manner that actually helps the public. What a contrast to the rest of the output with the giant graphics of viruses, endlessly repeated pictures of face mask wearing travellers, endless use of buzz words, (phase 5, global pandemic, H1N1 etc); that feeds the fear and boosts your audience.

This isn't bubonic plague or ebola, it's flu! We have effective treatment and well developed plans. It shouldn't be ignored, but the key advice is being swamped by your obsession with exploring the unknown.

Like it or not, your reporting inFLUences behaviour. Please make sure the facts are given due prominence, and the official advice is highlighted.
Displaying data 11:18am on 17 Dec 2008 A few observations:

1. 2008 isn't over yet.
2. Where is the context. Comparisons to previous years, comparisons to other countries.
3. Hardly surprising London has the most murders, the population is 7.5 million. Population related statistics are usually compared using rates per 100,000.
4. I'm glad I don't know a teenage murder victim as the constant use of their picture in news items would really upset me.
Establishing the facts 10:05am on 17 Oct 2008 This kind of blog entry is confirmation that the BBC has surrendered to commercialism and turned into a tabloid.

How did this news enrich my life? In what scary universe does this information rank with global financial meltdown?

You do realise that the media is a plaything to these attention seeking celebrities. Even so, I felt your expression that this was 'fantastic', came over as mind-numbingly callous. What about the children?

Your assessment of relevance and priority is warped. Please take note of the comments so far which expose how immature your approach is to public service broadcasting. You are not providing what people want.
Covering all the angles 11:34am on 09 Oct 2008 I am a UK taxpayer, concerned at the current financial situation and the potential long term effect of the weakness of our banking system.

I can understand the public anger directed at the banks for contributing to the mess and affecting their lives.

However it is clear to me that the media are making a very poor job of explaining the cost of the bail out to the banks. The BBC has been reporting through a number of different outlets that the banks are being given billions of pounds of taxpayer money. NO THEY ARE NOT.

If, and only if, a qualifying bank requests a capital injection by way of preference shares will it receive an investment of taxpayers money for which it will pay a dividend and accept a range of restrictions.

If the bank borrows from the taxpayer to refinance commercial debt it will pay a commercial rate.

For years banks have been savaged in the media for earning substantial profits. Rarely were the scale of those profits put into meaningful context. The public have been brainwashed into thinking that all the profit was stolen from their back pocket and now the banks are in trouble they have returned to mug them again.

I suspect that most people know at least one person who works in a bank and several more employed by companies with major bank contracts. I further suspect that people would consider the banker they know as a typical human being who, among other things, pays taxes. However, such is the contempt for banks as institutions that we see calls to 'let them fail', 'hang them all' etc. Not sure that helps anyone but probably makes you feel good.

I know my attempt at a introducing facts will meet a chorus of derision but I do ask you to consider life without a banking system. No way to buy except barter, a breakdown in international trade so no goods in the shops, no way to pay workers so even basic services break down. Don't believe me, then look at Zimbabwe.
Graphic images 11:07am on 25 Sep 2008 Peter #31, thanks for referring to my post. You might like to read it again as I think you totally misunderstood my point.

No I don't want trivial local news to push out important international events.

Yes I do want my fellow Brits to have the opportunity to learn about foreign affairs, which is why I specifically mentioned the EU.

I agree that a study of the Finnish or Dunblane shootings might help to understand the motivations, but this isn't going to come from news coverage. I'm not sure what I learned from the extensive coverage beyond the fact that a shooting had occurred in Finland which could be conveyed in moments once the event was over and the facts known. Breaking news events are run to try to keep an audience watching as the story unfolds which tends to produce misleading information and speculation rather than useful analysis. Commercial broadcasters feel they have to adopt this approach. I don't see why the BBC do.
Graphic images 10:14am on 25 Sep 2008 I agree with the general thought process that produced your decision.

What seems to be lacking is any assessment of the relevance of this story to your main audience in the UK.

Even with 24 hour news there is a limit to the number of stories and amount of detail that can be provided. That is why I get so upset by the celebrity following and survey promotion that pushes out 'real news'.

A couple of posters seem to feel you must show everything. Oh look, a bird flew past the window, breaking news if I ever saw it. I would prefer that you are more selective with your subjects and feature events that are relevant to most people and have an impact on most people. An obvious example is coverage of the EU, which is almost absent from your bulletins even though it affects all of us.

Please stay different to the rest. Stick to facts, ignore celebrity self promotion, cover relevant stories to promote understanding and avoid sensational stories just because you have pretty pictures. Quality is the only justification for your existence.
Queues or no queues 11:46am on 22 Sep 2008 There is nearly always a queue at my local Post Office. I don't expect that to be reported by the BBC.

It isn't the existence of a queue that is important. It is the reason why people are in the queue that requires investigation.

Are queues normal at those branches? Was there a technical problem?

This blog reflects how shallow BBC reporting has become. You shouldn't need to be in doubt about whether to report or not. If you identify a potential story, do the research. If the facts support your position then make the report.

I would suggest that the initial investigation should be low key. Don't underestimate the effect the presence of a film crew has on human behaviour.
Political relaunch 10:46am on 11 Sep 2008 Oh goody, another relaunch.

Does this mean an end to the usual tactics:

1. Produce a one sided report about something.

2. Ask a studio guest to respond to the report.

3. Immediately interrupt any answer that might provide a useful explanation for the viewers.

4. Cut short the interview just as it gets interesting because you run out of time.

5. End the segment with some glib comment because you always have the last word.

Serious political discussion is an important part of public sector broadcasting. It loses its value when you present it as entertainment.

More POLITICS, less SHOW.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

MutantFriend