First | < Previous 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next > | Last
|
| |
|
Message 1 - posted by Bob Loblaw
(U1536107)
, Aug 9, 2005
The article on the BBC Three website entitled 'Beware of the DOG' www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthr... is extremely patronising and downright offensive. How dare the BBC take an issue that some licence payers are concerned about and try to turn it into a laughing matter. How dare they assume that anyone who complained about the new BBC Three DOG is not concerned about recent events in London nor any other world issues. The BBC will be lucky if they have not insulted someone who has recently lost a friend, relative or neighbour in the London attacks. They should be absolutley ashamed of themselves and apologise to everyone for airing such degrading opinions. The BBC is there to serve the viewers that pay for it and should take every viewers opinions into account. They should be taking the DOG issue seriously, and they should know that for every one person concerned enough to complain, another ten will sit back and wait for someone else to sort it out. Come on BBC you were defeated on this issue once before when you tried to deface programmes on BBC One and Two, so just give up now because the Great British public do not want THEIR programmes defaced like this.
|
|
|
|
|
Message 2 - posted by Ken Smart
(U1158196)
, Aug 9, 2005
The article on the BBC Three website entitled 'Beware of the DOG' www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthr... is extremely patronising and downright offensive. How dare the BBC take an issue that some licence payers are concerned about and try to turn it into a laughing matter. Quoted from
this message
I must confess to being similarly astonished at these opening remarks. I can only assume that it is the work of some half-wit just out of college and anxious to make a statement. The same argument would excuse the BBC (or anyone else) from every conceivable situation. It's ignorance on a breathtaking scale. On the other hand - it is BBC3 that is being discussed, and perhaps we should accept that this is where the thickos hang out.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 3 - posted by CuckooFarm2007
(U1794420)
, Aug 9, 2005
Yes, I'm so angry,, I could crush a grape.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 4 - posted by Reg_Pither
(U1161173)
, Aug 9, 2005
I'm no big fan of DOGs, but can see how if (as the article states) everyone else is using them, they have no choice but to join in. However, I certainly agree that the dismissive, patronising and even insulting tone of this article is going too far. Very 'un-BBC', and I would hope that its author is shown the error of their ways.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 5 - posted by Bob Loblaw
(U1536107)
, Aug 9, 2005
If everyone else is using them, then perhaps the BBC would make more of a statement by not having a DOG, and in the multichannel world of junk on screen, perhaps people would quickly identify BBC services by the non appearance of junk on screen.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 6 - posted by BooBoo
(U1534068)
, Aug 9, 2005
How about the last paragraph? "If you agree that DOGs are a serious issue, there’s even an online petition you can sign. 7,587 people already have. Perhaps though, on reflection, you might conclude that there are more important things to get cross about." Now THAT'S what I call patronising! 
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 7 - posted by Bob Loblaw
(U1536107)
, Aug 9, 2005
I don't know about everyone else but I can be cross about 2 or more things at once.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 8 - posted by Seurat
(U1158192)
, Aug 9, 2005
"In a world where international terrorism, indiscriminate murder and global poverty are facts of life, you might think [the BBC] would have more important things to worry about than..."
...patronising a great many of those who pay their wages.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 9 - posted by BooBoo
(U1534068)
, Aug 9, 2005
lol - I think we are unanimous on this one - rarely have I seen such harmony of views on a thread 
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 10 - posted by dj gordy (U000001)
(U563314)
, Aug 9, 2005
lol - I think we are unanimous on this one - rarely have I seen such harmony of views on a thread  Quoted from
this message
I'd just loke to say how much I disagree with everyone else.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 11 - posted by Sprey
(U561166)
, Aug 9, 2005
RunningDog3 Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? Woof Woof 
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 12 - posted by alan gee
(U1158644)
, Aug 9, 2005
An example of the increasing arrogance of the people who are employed with our money at the BBC.
Who do these people think they are?
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 13 - posted by Doghouse Riley
(U1224289)
, Aug 9, 2005
What amazes me is that my digital remote controller (and I presume everyone else with digital has the same facility), has a button which immediately flashes up on the screen;
The number and name of the channel I am watching.
The current programme with its start and finish time.
What is on next plus its start and finish time.
The current time.
If I can strain myself to press another button I can see what's on other channels.
Why do I need any station idents?
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 14 - posted by Bob Loblaw
(U1536107)
, Aug 9, 2005
The writer of this article should be sacked. How dare he/she use the deaths of 57 people to poke fun at concerned viewers.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 15 - posted by The_Phazer
(U815970)
, Aug 9, 2005
It's probably a good job I don't work for the BBC, or there would be lots of articles like this. Certainly, I think the tone of it fits BBC Three's stated target audience. Rather than the people who seem to tune in for the specific purpose of being annoyed so they get to complain.
Phazer
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 16 - posted by mrh2
(U589884)
, Aug 9, 2005
The article is a clear breach of BBC editorial guidelines, being insulting and biased.
To attack licence fee payers as "geeks" and to connect this issue in anyway with "international terrorism, indiscriminate murder and global poverty" is puerile.
At several points in the article, including the conclusion, the views of those complaining are mocked: "Perhaps though, on reflection, you might conclude that there are more important things to get cross about."
This 'report' ought to be removed without any delay and an apology posted in its place. Utterly disgusting.
Frankly I think it says much about the quality of the channel that "In a world where international terrorism, indiscriminate murder and global poverty are facts of life," their idea of a major news feature is one which talks about their own channel and belittles their viewers.
Amazing how emails to the Head of BBC news and Controller of BBC Three go unanswered.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 17 - posted by Peta
(U24)
, Aug 9, 2005
Hi We're sorry to hear that you're unhappy about this content on the BBC3 website. Please make a complaint about this issue via the BBC Complaints website here: www.bbc.co.uk/compla...The complaints site allows you to send a complaint to the BBC on any aspect of our organisation. You can also search and read through some of the responses to previous complaints - the issue that concerns you may already have been raised and responded to. If you go via the complaints site your complaint will reach the relevant team and managers and will be logged; it's more effective than trying to email people directly.
This is a reply to this message
|
| |
|
|
|
Message 18 - posted by Be The Change You Want To See
(U1156331)
, Aug 9, 2005
Im shocked and disapointed, I didn't think anybody was watching BBC3.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 19 - posted by cifpower
(U536261)
, Aug 9, 2005
It might be more effective e-mailing Media Guardian, Broadcast, Daily Mail and The Sun because these media outlets would be more likely to give the BBC a kick up the ass.
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 20 - posted by Emmerdale stationmaster Keith556
(U1650147)
, Aug 9, 2005
"If you agree that DOGs are a serious issue, there’s even an online petition you can sign. 7,587 people already have.Quoted from
this message
Been there. Signed the petition: www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-bin/petition.php
This is a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
First | < Previous 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next > | Last
|