The BBC  permalink

Twitter

Messages: 1 - 50 of 50
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by pyanaman (U2905997) on Wednesday, 22nd January 2014

    I'm going to get shot down here...... but it seems to me that Twitter serves virtually no useful purpose apart from making it very easy for Trolls to make people's lives a misery, and even drive some young people to suicide. Most of the people (like the Speaker's wife) are air heads that have nothing of interest to say. Twitter, like most social media sites, are here today, gone tomorrow. It's just the current flavour of the month. So WHY does the BBC promote it above email? Email is a grown up, responsible, sensible way of communicate but the Beeb play it down, frequently not giving email addresses. So people like me who won't entertain Twitter, of who there are millions, are kind of 'disenfranchised'. The BBC, both radio & tv have spent the whole day showing how rubbish Twitter is, then keep promoting it.

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Wednesday, 22nd January 2014

    The other day there was a stabbing outside my son's flat in Islington and the only way we could find out any news about it was via Twitter. Complaining about Twitter is like complaining about motor vehicles because occasionally they kill people when driven by drunken idiots.

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Wednesday, 22nd January 2014

    Twitter is instantanous communication and in a public forum - not really all that different from these message boards.

    With the very BIG exception that they are direct links to the celebrities, programmes, programme makers.

    Mostly them just tweeting about their goings on - but sometimes directly interacting with the public.

    You can still reach the BBC via email or posting your thoughts here of course.

    But Twitter and Facebook are much more expediant.

    And open 24 hours a day. smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) ** on Thursday, 23rd January 2014

    Most of the people (like the Speaker's wife) are air heads that have nothing of interest to say. 
    Who you choose to follow on Twitter is pretty important in shaping how it appears to you. Most of the people I follow came from a messageboard I'm part of, along with some celebrities I actually want to listen to. Sally Bercow's tweets I only know from the newspaper articles.

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Ceiderduck (U14588518) on Thursday, 23rd January 2014

    The other day there was a stabbing outside my son's flat in Islington and the only way we could find out any news about it was via Twitter. Complaining about Twitter is like complaining about motor vehicles because occasionally they kill people when driven by drunken idiots.  I use it for similar reasons, breaking news, weather warnings, traffic etc etc.

    I can't defend this though, BBC trending blog:

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/b...

    YOLO? Sod off....

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by beerhead (U15819967) on Thursday, 23rd January 2014

    Most of the people (like the Speaker's wife) are air heads that have nothing of interest to say.  Yep, beats me too. WHy I'd me interested in what a "celeb" had for breakfast or what they think about politics, I have no idea. Same goes for Facebook, I don't really need people "liking" me to know I am a worthwhile person, and I'm not the least bit interested in the VERY average thoughts of the average person.

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Thursday, 23rd January 2014

    I don't do Twitter at all but had to laugh, in amazement, at Linda Robson from Birds of a Feather and Loose Women telling the story about how she missed 2, yes 2, internal flights to appear on stage because she was so busy tweeting she didn't hear the flight call or notice the other passengers getting up and leaving. Can it really get that obsessive?

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by BothXP (U6274173) on Thursday, 23rd January 2014

    Twitter, like most social media sites, are here today, gone tomorrow. It's just the current flavour of the month.  
    How long are your months ? Twitter has been around for over 7.5 years now.

    Email is a grown up, responsible, sensible way of communicate  
    I have run large scale e-mail systems and have seen e-mail abused in the exactly the same way as twitter can be.

    Like many things in life, twitters usefulness comes down to how you use it. If you enjoy following lots of celebs then fine follow away but no one is forcing you to. It can be a very fully communication tool. Just make "grown up, responsible, sensible" use of it and ignore the rest.

    From my e-mail admin roll I am seeing a drop in e-mail usage as younger generations are now growing up with 'social' websites being the norm.
    So I don't have a problem with the BBC keeping up to date with their use of communication tools.

    Lack of direct communication methods is another matter, most likely tied to the expense of employing staff to have to deal with it all.

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Thursday, 23rd January 2014


    Yep, beats me too. WHy I'd me interested in what a "celeb" had for breakfast or what they think about politics, I have no idea.
     


    You dont have to. Joining Twitter or Facebook are not complusory. Your posting on this message board is proof that you can share your point of view about the BBC and its programmes without having to joing Twitter or Facebook.

    That being said, there are no doubt many people who would not understand why anyone would want to join a message board like this one. To type their thoughts out in a public forum for all to see and would only use email or old fashioned letter sent to the BBC in the post.

    To each their own.

    The BBC has pages on Facebook and Twitter because it makes sense to. There are hudrends of millions of people around the world they can reach on a daily basis through those social media sites.

    This message board has a membership of maybe a few hundred total posters and maybe around 80 or 100 regular posters.

    Maybe 30 or 40 who post every day.


    Same goes for Facebook, I don't really need people "liking" me to know I am a worthwhile person,
     


    Me either. I am a Facebook member because it allows me to keep in contact with family who live on the other side of the country and friends I have overseas. I can keep up to date with what is going on in their lives, their kids, see photos etc. It makes the world a much smaller place.


    I'm not the least bit interested in the VERY average thoughts of the average person.
     


    Again, joining facebook is not compulsory. And even if you were a member you would only see the postings of people in your friends list and even then, you can switch off their live feed if you choose.

    No one is going to come to your house and force you to sign up.

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Thursday, 23rd January 2014

    it always gets me that people who use one section of social media....are always snobbish towards other forms of social media....

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Thursday, 23rd January 2014

    it always gets me that people who use one section of social media....are always snobbish towards other forms of social media....  And judgemental of the people that use other forms of social media.

    Such as the other poster saying that people use Facebook because they lack self-worth.

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Permtong (U15934379) on Thursday, 23rd January 2014

    I'm going to get shot down here...... but it seems to me that Twitter serves virtually no useful purpose apart from making it very easy for Trolls to make people's lives a misery, and even drive some young people to suicide. Most of the people (like the Speaker's wife) are air heads that have nothing of interest to say. Twitter, like most social media sites, are here today, gone tomorrow. It's just the current flavour of the month. So WHY does the BBC promote it above email? Email is a grown up, responsible, sensible way of communicate but the Beeb play it down, frequently not giving email addresses. So people like me who won't entertain Twitter, of who there are millions, are kind of 'disenfranchised'. The BBC, both radio & tv have spent the whole day showing how rubbish Twitter is, then keep promoting it.  I think you could be right. I spent about a year trying to work through the BBC labyrinth on some technical issue, including emails to their head of technical, the DG and Chris Patten (these latter just to tell them how useless their system is). Then I tweeted about it to POV and got a reply in seconds! I may say it still didn't solve the problem but it was a bit of an education. Could be just that an older person doesn't understand how things work as most of this is driven by relatively young people, (dunno about your case obviously!). Maybe email is pretty old hat? I think the only people who ever followed me on Twitter were a firm of financial advisers; not quite sure how Justin Bieber manages 48 million.

    It all leads to the same unanswered question....."what IS going on".

    Time was when one wrote to the DG on headed notepaper and got back a reply which always ran to two and a quarter pages, thanking one most politely for writing and pointing out why ones argument was wrong in every particular.

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Thursday, 23rd January 2014

    You may a good point Permtong.

    I am 100% certain that there was a time when viewers were upset that every BBC programme had a tag line that said "visit us at www.BBC.com..."

    They were complaining "why am I expected to lay out money to buy an expensive computer and pay for internet service just to be able to communicate with the BBC. What is wrong with pen and paper or a telephone call."

    Now that most people have computers and are comfortable with email and/or using message boards like this one, some are very upset with the BBC moving forward to make use of different types of social media.

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by cricket-Angel Baratheon (U3382697) on Friday, 24th January 2014

    No doubt people complained about the online stuff when it first happened. Some people still don't like it/use it/know it exists.

    But I think Twitter and Facebook are a bit different. They are outside of the BBC, and licence-fee payers are being directed to these commercial social media sites to commet on the BBC.

    The BBC is understandably trying to communicate with its audience through different and popular mediums, but I can see why people would be frustrated at being directed to these kinds of social media when they feel should be able to communicate with the BBC on the BBC pages.

    Added to that: the BBC website has a deserved reputation for quality and online safety, whereas both Facebook and Twitter have had issues in these areas.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Friday, 24th January 2014

    Yes but the point is that some people are making it seem that Twitter and Facebook are the ONLY ways to contact or communicate with the BBC.

    This is simply not true.

    The very fact that we are having this discussion on this message board is proof of that.

    In addition if you go to any BBC website, there is a "contact us" tab that offers a variety of ways to contact the BBC that are NOT Twitter or Facebook.

    As for Twitter and Facebook being "commercial", they are completely free of charge to use. It costs nothing to join or be a member. I have been a member of Facebook for about 5 or 6 years and I have never once clicked on any of the ad banners.

    The fact that Twitter and Facebook also host and maintain these sites results in a huge cost savings for the BBC.

    If anyone is not comfortable with using Facebook or Twitter, again it is NOT compulsory to do so. They can communicate with/about BBC programmes through the various other contact methods - such as this message board, BBC hosted blogs, the news page, the sport page, the complaints section etc.

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by BothXP (U6274173) on Friday, 24th January 2014

    But I think Twitter and Facebook are a bit different. They are outside of the BBC, and licence-fee payers are being directed to these commercial social media sites to commet on the BBC. 
    It's interesting that people see the use of 3rd party services such as Twitter & Facebook as being bad when I expect that most people will be making use of a 3rd party e-mail provider to generate their e-mails to the BBC. Gmail, Outlook.com, Yahoo or an ISP provided webmail service.
    Are some people concerned about having to make use of the Royal Mail to send their letters to the BBC ?

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by AKA-47 (U15972830) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    You may a good point Permtong.

    I am 100% certain that there was a time when viewers were upset that every BBC programme had a tag line that said "visit us at www.BBC.com..."

    They were complaining "why am I expected to lay out money to buy an expensive computer and pay for internet service just to be able to communicate with the BBC. What is wrong with pen and paper or a telephone call."

    Now that most people have computers and are comfortable with email and/or using message boards like this one, some are very upset with the BBC moving forward to make use of different types of social media. 
    But the BBC never said, "Buy a Dell computer and sign up with Talktalk". Other social media companies do not receive publicity in the same way as Twitter.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by dayraven (U13717520) ** on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    But the BBC never said, "Buy a Dell computer and sign up with Talktalk". Other social media companies do not receive publicity in the same way as Twitter. 
    Facebook, and back in the day, Myspace? There is also the practical issue that Facebook and Twitter are the big two social networks, and the dropoff in popularity after that gets even sharper if you exclude specialists like LinkedIn. Social networks aren't really interoperable the way email and ISPs are, either.

    (And, though it's a while back now, the BBC did put their name to a line of Acorn computers for several years....)

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    You don't have to "buy" anything to view Facebook or Twitter.

    You don't even have to join Facebook or Twitter to read the BBC pages.

    You only have to sign up if you want to post.

    Same as you had to do to join this message board.

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by AKA-47 (U15972830) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    You don't have to "buy" anything to view Facebook or Twitter.

    You don't even have to join Facebook or Twitter to read the BBC pages.

    You only have to sign up if you want to post.

    Same as you had to do to join this message board. 
    You're being disingenuous. You know perfectly well that Twitter's revenue comes from advertising and that their goal is to get as many people as possible viewing their advertisements.

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    So what?

    You don't have to click on any of the ad banners.

    You don't have to pay a penny to join Facebook or Twitter.

    You don't even have to join Facebook or Twitter to view the BBC pages.

    You don't have to use Facebook or Twitter to contact the BBC. You can still email or send a letter in the post.

    You don't have to use Facebook or Twitter to comment on the BBC. You can use other social media - like this message board you are posting on now.

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Red Horizon (U1719289) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    I'm going to get shot down here...... but it seems to me that Twitter serves virtually no useful purpose apart from making it very easy for Trolls to make people's lives a misery, and even drive some young people to suicide. Most of the people (like the Speaker's wife) are air heads that have nothing of interest to say. Twitter, like most social media sites, are here today, gone tomorrow. It's just the current flavour of the month. So WHY does the BBC promote it above email? Email is a grown up, responsible, sensible way of communicate but the Beeb play it down, frequently not giving email addresses. So people like me who won't entertain Twitter, of who there are millions, are kind of 'disenfranchised'. The BBC, both radio & tv have spent the whole day showing how rubbish Twitter is, then keep promoting it.  I just think it's a great shame that the BBC never promoted it's message-boards abit more - i think they're far more appealing and user-friendly than 'Twitter', or, 'Facebook', and, never seem to attract any controversy.

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    I think it comes down to numbers - money and peoole.

    Facebook and Twitter have hundreds of millions of members globally.

    This message board has probably a few hundred members. Maybe 30 or 40 who post daily.

    Facebook and Twitter operate, host and maintain their sites. And they are open 24hours a day, every day of tthe year.

    The BBC has to operate, host and maintain its own message boards at great expense. They are open limited hours and occasionally are on lock down - like during elections or the death of someone notable - like when Nelson Mandela died and everyone was in premod for a few days.

    So considering the maths - using social media sites that do all the hosting and IT maintenance, are open 24 hours a day and can reach hundreds of millions.

    Vs.

    A site you have to host, maintain, staff, is open limited hours and is used by less than a 1000 people.

    It explains why most of the other message boards were shut down and why its probably fortunate this one still exists.

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Red Horizon (U1719289) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    I think it comes down to numbers - money and peoole.

    Facebook and Twitter have hundreds of millions of members globally.

    This message board has probably a few hundred members. Maybe 30 or 40 who post daily.

    Facebook and Twitter operate, host and maintain their sites. And they are open 24hours a day, every day of tthe year.

    The BBC has to operate, host and maintain its own message boards at great expense. They are open limited hours and occasionally are on lock down - like during elections or the death of someone notable - like when Nelson Mandela died and everyone was in premod for a few days.

    So considering the maths - using social media sites that do all the hosting and IT maintenance, are open 24 hours a day and can reach hundreds of millions.

    Vs.

    A site you have to host, maintain, staff, is open limited hours and is used by less than a 1000 people.

    It explains why most of the other message boards were shut down and why its probably fortunate this one still exists. 
    Which is a great shame, because, what i'm saying is: had the BBC promoted it's message-boards abit more, then, perhaps numbers would have risen, therefore, making it more and more viable to keep them open.

    I'm sure 'Facebook' and 'Twitter' have had small beginnings, but, i bet hardly any of the users on those sites are even aware that BBC message-boards exist, to which, they might find is more suitable to their needs.

    These boards have even gone international when people overseas have become aware of them, but, who cares if there's the occasional 'lock down' because of elections or somebodies death?

    - i consider that a price worth paying if it helps keeps harmony and steer clear of trouble.

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    I'm not sure, but isn't there reference to a "Graf Report" that in some way forced the BBC to close their messageboards no matter how popular they were and this could be why the BBC now give as many options like Facebook and Twitter as well as this last remaining board for the POV programme, for people to be able to contact them?
    I don't personally use either Facebook or Twitter, but if you want to contact the BBC and none of the links to the right of this screen help then at least if you use either Facebook or Twitter then that is another way to go, apart from snailmail - pen and paper or straightforward email.
    I admit to not understanding about "advertising" - I see it as ways to contact and communicate with the BBC.

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    <quote postid='118524028'>
    It explains why most of the other message boards were shut down and why its probably fortunate this one still exists.</quote>Which is a great shame, because, what i'm saying is: had the BBC promoted it's message-boards abit more, then, perhaps numbers would have risen, therefore, making it more and more viable to keep them open.
    </quote>

    The BBC message boards were closed down as a result of the Graf report.. where it was decided that certain BBC online activities were duplicating what others were doing and thus were not value for money (what is now a PVT) ... and or were an abuse of the BBC market powers ( what is now an MIA) ..... and thus should be closed!!
    it was entirely a regulatory matter!!!

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Red Horizon (U1719289) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    <quote postid='118524079'><quote postid='118524028'>
    It explains why most of the other message boards were shut down and why its probably fortunate this one still exists.</quote>Which is a great shame, because, what i'm saying is: had the BBC promoted it's message-boards abit more, then, perhaps numbers would have risen, therefore, making it more and more viable to keep them open.
    </quote>

    The BBC message boards were closed down as a result of the Graf report.. where it was decided that certain BBC online activities were duplicating what others were doing and thus were not value for money (what is now a PVT) ... and or were an abuse of the BBC market powers ( what is now an MIA) ..... and thus should be closed!!
    it was entirely a regulatory matter!!!</quote>

    Well, i suppose, that draws a line under that then tech, 'cept, you're talking to someone here who's been on these MB's for 16 years, and, who's never been even tempted to go on 'Facebook', or, 'Twitter', because, frankly, i've found the BBC message-boards basically superior to them in what they offered and the way they were run - it's a site that's certainly met my needs entirely!

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by AKA-47 (U15972830) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    So what?   So it's a commercial site funded by advertising and you were trying to compare it to this message board. You don't have to click on any of the ad banners.  Of course you don't. In fact I block ads, although that too is not the point.

    It's a numbers game. Everything from the most trivial radio programme to the heaviest political discussion can't wait to tell you all about their hashtags Twitter would pay a small fortune to have all this traffic directed to their site because that's what generates advertising revenue, yet the BBC ostensibly does it free.

    In comparison, I have never heard a programme inviting its listeners or viewers to join them in their Google+ hangout, and today I listened to a radio presenter going to great lengths to avoid mentioning Skype by name because that would somehow contravene the BBC's regulations.

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Sunday, 26th January 2014

    I didn't compare them at all.

    I clearly said that no one was compelled to view the BBC Twitter or Facebook pages to comment on, discuss BBC programming with other viewers and/or contact the BBC.

    For people who are not comfortable with using those social media sites they can use other social media sites - such as this message board, the BBC blog sites or email, snail mail.

    That is not comparing them as like to like, its just mentioning them as they many various options you have at your disposal where the BBC is concerned.

    Use whichever one suits you best.

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by BooBoo2 (U1168789) on Monday, 27th January 2014

    I'm going to get shot down here...... but it seems to me that Twitter serves virtually no useful purpose apart from making it very easy for Trolls to make people's lives a misery, and even drive some young people to suicide. Most of the people (like the Speaker's wife) are air heads that have nothing of interest to say. Twitter, like most social media sites, are here today, gone tomorrow. It's just the current flavour of the month. So WHY does the BBC promote it above email? Email is a grown up, responsible, sensible way of communicate but the Beeb play it down, frequently not giving email addresses. So people like me who won't entertain Twitter, of who there are millions, are kind of 'disenfranchised'. The BBC, both radio & tv have spent the whole day showing how rubbish Twitter is, then keep promoting it.  Totally agree.

    I have tried my best to join the social media hysteria and have opened a Twitter account with the hope to follow certain erudite and usually interesting celebrities (e.g. Stephen Fry) but alas it just strikes me as utter tripe.

    To me its serves to massage further those who are self-centred and egotistical enough to believe they have something interesting to say on a second-by-second basis and it also provides endless gawping opportunities for the sycophantic followers who hang on every musing from their demi-gods. “Just made a cup of tea” or “put my feet up for a few minutes” are neither remotely interesting or enlightening irrespective of who delivers it. And showing interest in such dull contributions is rather reflective of the void many have in their day-to-day existence (both physical and intellectual). Whatever happened to creative entertainment? #SUCKMYBRAINOUT

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Monday, 27th January 2014

    Perhaps rather than follow the Twitter sites of individual celebrities Boo Boo you might want to take a look that the main BBC Twitter pages or the individual programme pages.

    Or the Facebook pages of BBC1, BBC News, BBC Sport ect.

    Individual celebrity pages are of course going to be rather central focused on that particular person.

    Whereas the BBC network pages are more broadscope.

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by BooBoo2 (U1168789) on Monday, 27th January 2014

    Perhaps rather than follow the Twitter sites of individual celebrities Boo Boo you might want to take a look that the main BBC Twitter pages or the individual programme pages.

    Or the Facebook pages of BBC1, BBC News, BBC Sport ect.

    Individual celebrity pages are of course going to be rather central focused on that particular person.

    Whereas the BBC network pages are more broadscope. 
    GZ I will give it a go, thank you for your suggestion.smiley - ok

    Perhaps the company sites I have followed are simply not that good. Will look at the BBC though on your recommendation.

    BTW Despite my comments I still love Mr Fry on such things as QI.

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Monday, 27th January 2014

    With regards to celebrities, I personally like Katty Kays Twitter page.

    But being based in Washington she will often Tweet very insightful bits of information about the goings on in DC, and it has a sense of depth and immediacy that you cannot get in short bits on the news.

    At the same time she does talk about personal things - such as last night she was talking about enjoying being in Arizona and enjoying the warm weather, sitting down with her favourite comfort food to watch the Grammy Awards, talking about them as they were happening, the live music performances, her favourite perfomers etc.

    You get an insight it Katty Kay the journalist, and Katty Kay the person.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Permtong (U15934379) on Monday, 27th January 2014

    I'm not sure, but isn't there reference to a "Graf Report" that in some way forced the BBC to close their messageboards no matter how popular they were and this could be why the BBC now give as many options like Facebook and Twitter as well as this last remaining board for the POV programme, for people to be able to contact them?
    I don't personally use either Facebook or Twitter, but if you want to contact the BBC and none of the links to the right of this screen help then at least if you use either Facebook or Twitter then that is another way to go, apart from snailmail - pen and paper or straightforward email.
    I admit to not understanding about "advertising" - I see it as ways to contact and communicate with the BBC. 
    Graf didn't have that much to say about messageboards although he noted that they were becoming quite significant (his report coincided with the early days of development). Overall his attitude was supportive but he wasn't aware of how important they would be.

    The BBC developed the best set of forums on the net, but they were too good. Thanks to long posting hours they were used by people from around the world to vilify Tony Blair and George Bush in their pursuit of their illegal war in Iraq. I also spent hours doing the same thing. I wrongly assumed, being quite new to computers, that such activity would replace marching in the streets eventually, as the latter is likely to get a tad impractical on environmental grounds.

    It is unlikely that the government had no influence in the wholesale closure of what had been a brilliant and successful experiment. We can take it that the government told them to stop. One must remember that the BBC is and always has been the propaganda arm of the government. This was never questioned in the days of Lord Reith when the whole thing came under the governments umbrella via nationalisation of the British Broadcasting Company.

    Now governments lie about the independence of the BBC with the charade of the BBC Trust. The methodology is that of Hitler's propaganda minister Dr Goebbels - "tell the big lie and tell it often". It works! Perhaps one should credit Hitler himself for coining it because there is a reference in "Mein Kampf". [To the big lie, not the BBC Trust].

    Governments can't have ordinary people communicating with each other if they can avoid it, so all that work of all those good and farsighted people at the BBC who set the thing up was wasted.

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Permtong (U15934379) on Monday, 27th January 2014

    <quote postid='118524279'><quote postid='118524079'><quote postid='118524028'>
    It explains why most of the other message boards were shut down and why its probably fortunate this one still exists.</quote>Which is a great shame, because, what i'm saying is: had the BBC promoted it's message-boards abit more, then, perhaps numbers would have risen, therefore, making it more and more viable to keep them open.
    </quote>

    The BBC message boards were closed down as a result of the Graf report.. where it was decided that certain BBC online activities were duplicating what others were doing and thus were not value for money (what is now a PVT) ... and or were an abuse of the BBC market powers ( what is now an MIA) ..... and thus should be closed!!
    it was entirely a regulatory matter!!!</quote>

    Well, i suppose, that draws a line under that then tech, 'cept, you're talking to someone here who's been on these MB's for 16 years, and, who's never been even tempted to go on 'Facebook', or, 'Twitter', because, frankly, i've found the BBC message-boards basically superior to them in what they offered and the way they were run - it's a site that's certainly met my needs entirely!</quote><quote>
    It explains why most of the other message boards were shut down and why its probably fortunate this one still exists.</quote>Which is a great shame, because, what i'm saying is: had the BBC promoted it's message-boards abit more, then, perhaps numbers would have risen, therefore, making it more and more viable to keep them open.
    </quote>

    The BBC message boards were closed down as a result of the Graf report.. where it was decided that certain BBC online activities were duplicating what others were doing and thus were not value for money (what is now a PVT) ... and or were an abuse of the BBC market powers ( what is now an MIA) ..... and thus should be closed!!
    it was entirely a regulatory matter!!!</quote>

    Well, i suppose, that draws a line under that then tech, 'cept, you're talking to someone here who's been on these MB's for 16 years, and, who's never been even tempted to go on 'Facebook', or, 'Twitter', because, frankly, i've found the BBC message-boards basically superior to them in what they offered and the way they were run - it's a site that's certainly met my needs entirely!</quote><quote>

    It explains why most of the other message boards were shut down and why its probably fortunate this one still exists.< x quote>Which is a great shame, because, what i'm saying is: had the BBC promoted it's message-boards abit more, then, perhaps numbers would have risen, therefore, making it more and more viable to keep them open.
    < x quote>

    The BBC message boards were closed down as a result of the Graf report.. where it was decided that certain BBC online activities were duplicating what others were doing and thus were not value for money (what is now a PVT) ... and or were an abuse of the BBC market powers ( what is now an MIA) ..... and thus should be closed!!
    it was entirely a regulatory matter!!!< /x quote>

    Well, i suppose, that draws a line under that then tech, 'cept, you're talking to someone here who's been on these MB's for 16 years, and, who's never been even tempted to go on 'Facebook', or, 'Twitter', because, frankly, i've found the BBC message-boards basically superior to them in what they offered and the way they were run - it's a site that's certainly met my needs entirely!< /x quote>
    </quote>.................

    ...........-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    STARTS HERE

    Not sure who is quoting what up there......

    I ran through the whole Graf report some time ago using that 'Find' thing under 'Edit' on the IE browser - with the keyword "message boards". I was surprised to see how little reference there was to them. What he said was broadly supportive of messageboards which he considered to largely be within the remit of the BBC. He did object strongly to a lot of other things the BBC were doing online on the grounds that they might damage the interests of other people {In fact there is no evidence with hindsight that they did.} He seemed more concerned with competition than costs. Competition has nothing to do with message boards although cost might have.

    The timeline for all this is:

    Government approves BBC Online 1998

    Graf Report out July 2004 ( he started work on it about a year earlier at more or less the exact moment that the government decided to join the Americans in the illegal war in Iraq.)

    2004, Tessa Jowell as Minister for Culture Media and Sport uses the report to express 'concern' about BBC Online [And lean on the BBC Board of Governors?]

    More or less from Christmas 2003 the message boards used to vilify the governments of both the UK and the USA on a daily and nightly basis about the impending war.

    The message boards disappear one by one "on the grounds of cost"

    At the peak the "whole" of BBC Online which was extensive, was costing about £70 million a year. The BBC probably had a total income at the time of £3 to 4 Billion and has just wasted £100 Million on a failed IT project. (To give an idea of the scale.)

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    Can it really get that obsessive? 
    You have the gall to ask that while doing exactly the same thing?
    How do you know your house isn't burning down right now?
    Communication is inherently more interesting than being on a conveyor belt. Which is why people get distracted by it. It matters more to them.
    I thought we were supposed to be in favour of education and improved literacy skills.
    Practice makes perfect.

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    smiley - laugh

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    Can it really get that obsessive? 
    You have the gall to ask that while doing exactly the same thing?
    How do you know your house isn't burning down right now?
    Communication is inherently more interesting than being on a conveyor belt. Which is why people get distracted by it. It matters more to them.
    I thought we were supposed to be in favour of education and improved literacy skills.
    Practice makes perfect. 
    Because I don't live in a house? The rest of your post - woosh!

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    But you do seem to be as obsessive about this board as you seem to accuse others on twitter...

    People on this part of social media do seem to look down on other sections of social media...

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    I am aware - constantly of what is going on around me. I have to be - even as I type this I'm also watching the TV or sometimes catchup TV. Sometimes I read stuff while I'm cooking my dinner, Reading and typing a message does not prevent me from hearing the ping of the timer, or knowing when the washing machine or dishwaher have finished. That's why I asked how tweeting can be so obsesive in that someone doesn't notice the call to go to a flight or notice the people leaving.
    I don't look down on any other social media - I just don't do them. Are you trying to wind me up again wolfie?

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    Its not the activity that deems obsessiveness..but the person concerned...

    People can become as obsessive on here not to notice things around them as they can on twitter...

    Its the person that's the important thing...

    You are obviously not an obsessive sort of person...

    Reply to this message 41

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    I imagine that hundreds of thousands of people have missed flights, buses, trains, for all sorts of reasons because they were focused on something else.

    I dont think that would indicate that they are necessarily "obsessive". Just people who missed flights, buses, trains for all sorts of various reasons.

    We live in a multi-tasking world, and some people can juggle their focus better than others.

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by wolfie (U15842015) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    I don't know. About others...but time does seem to fly by when I'm on a computer of any sort...

    I say I'll go on for ten minutes...and in no time I've been on for thirty minutes...

    Its a strange experience....

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    Did you see Pauline Quirke dropping Linda Robson in it on live TV and forcing her into having to tell the story GZ? It was so funny. I suppose it's because I don't Tweet or do Facebook and only have a basic mobile phone for emergencies that I can't fathom how important it can be to people. Maybe absorbing would have been better than obsessive, it was only the way it came accross in the programme I saw.

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    woosh! 
    Is that the lofty height of your towering intellect, from which you look down on the masses using Twitter?
    'Woosh!'?

    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    woosh! 
    Is that the lofty height of your towering intellect, from which you look down on the masses using Twitter?
    'Woosh!'? 
    Definitely not. I don't look down on anyone or anything - only that I didn't understand the post. No need to be rude.

    Reply to this message 46

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    Facebook turned 10 on February 4.

    It has 1.2 billion active members as of September 2013.

    Twitter will turn 8 this year and has 200 million active users.

    That would seem to indicate that these social media sites are no "flash in the pan" and are in fact a very powerful communication and marketing tools and it would make perfect sense for the BBC to make use of them as a resource.

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    Again I don't understand - I don't see them as a flash in the pan or ever said they were - I said I don't use them and thought that Pauline Quirke pushing Linda Robson to tell the story was really funny - especially that Linda missed two flights and her live theatre appearance because she was tweeting.

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by GZ (U5310554) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    That wasnt meant directly to you. That was meant to get the conversation back on track to why the BBC uses Twitter and Facebook. Which are usually referred to by detractor on these boards as flash in the pans.

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Dai Digital (U13628545) on Thursday, 6th February 2014

    Can you then try to articulate some coherent response which indicates your attitude?

    Reply to this message 50

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. 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.