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

Welcome to The Editors

Host Host | 10:32 UK time, Friday, 12 May 2006

This blog aims to explain the editorial decisions and dilemmas faced by the teams running the BBC's news service - radio, TV, and interactive. It will feature contributions from BBC editors, along with your comments and questions.

The BBC wants to be open and accountable, and so this site is a public space where you can engage with us as much as the medium allows. We're happy for you to criticise the BBC in your e-mails and comments, and to ask serious, probing questions of us - we'll do our best to respond to them.

Comments on this blog will be moderated. When you submit a comment, we will read it and decide whether to publish it. We aim to include as many comments as we can, but we won't publish any which are abusive, are inappropriate on the grounds of taste and decency, or which appear to be part of a concerted lobbying attempt. There's more on our moderation policy in these BBC Online House Rules.

Comments should be based around the original post and subsequent discussion. If you want to make a general comment, then please e-mail us instead. We can't promise to respond to every e-mail, but we'll do our best to read them all.

You should also bear in mind that e-mailing us, or leaving a comment on the blog, is not the same as making a formal complaint. If you want to do that, this website will help you - and this way, you're guaranteed to receive a formal response.

For comparison purposes, here are links to some of the rules applied by our contemporaries - ABC News, NBC News, and CBS News in the USA, and The Guardian in the UK.


  • 1.
  • At 06:17 PM on 09 Jul 2006,
  • Alex Swanson wrote:

"this way, you're guaranteed to receive a formal response."

No, you're not. I complained formally half a dozen times last year, and got one response quickly, and one response after months of phoning, which, when it arrived, showed that the person who wrote back clearly hadn't read the complaint properly. For the others, I got no response at all.

Your complaints system is a joke.

  • 2.
  • At 06:43 PM on 14 Jul 2006,
  • Chris F J Cyrnik wrote:

I am watching the six o'clock news, with two female presenters, why? What is wrong with using just one presenter to read us the news, do you think we would get bored listening to one presenter? And then we have them moving round the studio. So, how about this. Glue them both together, and put them on a giant castor wheel, so that they can be moved easily around the studio, eh?

  • 3.
  • At 08:15 PM on 22 Jul 2006,
  • KEITH WEBB wrote:

Why do so many in the BBC use the phrase "It looks like ---" where "It looks as if ---" would be so much better grammar?
It looks like - should only be used to describe appearance.EG.
That car looks like an old Ford BUT
it looks as if it will not last much longer!

  • 4.
  • At 04:27 PM on 26 Jul 2006,
  • Patrick wrote:

Why do some newsreaders/reporters try to pronounce place names in a "foreign" way instead of an "English" way. I wonder if local residents really do pronounce them in such a way. So instead of the English "Baghdad" ("Bagdad") they say "Bugdad". And "Bassra" instead of the English Bazra. And "Bungladay-ish" instead of "Bangladesh." There was a tragic earthquake a couple of years ago in a place called Bam, and newsreaders insisted on pronouncing it "Barm". What's wrong with English?? (OK, I say Ma-Yor-ka, not "Ma-Jor-ka" so I suppose I'm as bad!)

  • 5.
  • At 07:48 PM on 28 Jul 2006,
  • jim quinn wrote:


It is interesting to read your frank and open comments on the language of war. I have just read John Pilger's
"Freedom next time", in which he is scathing in his opinion of the stance generally apopted by the main media players; that of highly biased comentary in favour of, say, Israel (we live in the Gulf so do understand some of the issues.)
Similarly, there are countless documented occasions (Robert Fisk - The great war for civilisation) of just the type or reporting you claim to oppose.
How would you reconcile your comments with the day to day occurences of this that appear?

  • 6.
  • At 09:09 PM on 22 Aug 2006,
  • Catherine Grosso wrote:

A number of recent articles on the war in Gaza have included the following paragraph: "Israel has been conducting an offensive in Gaza since Palestinian militants seized an Israeli soldier in a cross-border raid on 25 June."

In fact, Israel began escalating its attacks on Gaza in early June, before the kidnapping. Pre-June 25 attacks included the weekend shelling of a beach that killed 8 Palestinian civilians, including 7 members of the same family, and injured a further 32 civilians, including 13 children (9 June); a missile attack on a Gazan highway that killed eleven and injured 30 (13 June); and another missile attack that killed 3 children and wounded 15 others (20 June).

The June 25 starting point inappropriately labels Palestinians as the initiators of this round of fighting. A more accurate picture would note that there has been an ongoing exchange of fire since the Israeli withdrawal, but that Israel escalated its attacks in early June.

  • 7.
  • At 09:00 AM on 27 Aug 2006,
  • C Jones wrote:

The BBC's accuracy and attention to even basic detail is one again called into question this week. Once again a London based news team is so ill informed about where citys and counties are in the UK The Grangemouth spillage map showed that the plant had moved to the Humber and was now in Hull and Sundays Breakfast reported that a little boy had been assualted in Hessle on Humberside. There is no such place and has not been for 10 years a fact that was very obvious when the news report showed a sign with East Yorkshire very clearly.
Why should anyone believe the accuracy of the news when basic facts are wrong

  • 8.
  • At 01:16 PM on 01 Sep 2006,
  • Nicola Johnston wrote:

I am a regular viewer of BBC News 24 and usually find the programme to be informative and impartial. However, I believe that this morning's interview with the older brother of Molly/Misbah Campbell did not warrant live broadcast. I am certain that I am not the only viewer who feels that the emotionally-charged comments made by Mr. Rana during the interview in relation to his family's difficult situation and his personal feelings towards his mother were not in the public interest and should have remained private, except perhaps as evidence during a custodial hearing. In this modern society, BBC viewers expect to be presented with accurate, factual reporting and expert opinion from both sides of an argument but we definitely do not wish to dragged so deeply through the intimite details of the private, persomal affairs of ordinary families.

  • 9.
  • At 02:53 PM on 01 Sep 2006,
  • Sarah wrote:

Why does Huw Edwards keep saying "err" when he's reading a story off the autocue. It's put me off watching the 10 O'Clock News...

  • 10.
  • At 05:04 PM on 03 Sep 2006,
  • Greg wrote:

Having watched other newscasts from various parts of the world, out of the channels I have seen, I would say that the BBC is the most unbiased. As to Huw Edwards saying "err", perhaps he should replace it with "O.K. Yah!", reducing the credibility of the BBC to that of a number of satelite stations which I won't mention. If he want's to say "err", that's O.K. by me and I assume a host or other people who watch the 10 O'Clock News, though I must admit I prefered it when it was the 9 O'Clock News. But then I'm a TOG!

  • 11.
  • At 11:28 AM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • A Lakin wrote:

When is the 6 o'clock news not the 6 o'clock news? When it spends 10 minutes on the often trivial, opening item, a few noteworthy items are then squeezed in, followed by a reporter going round the British Isles reporting on places of absolutely no interest to anyone who does not live there. THIS IS NOT NEWS. We are supposed to be part of the EU - where is all the European news?? Does nothing happen across the channel? Talk about dumbing down and broadcasting to the lower masses - who probably don't even bother watching "the news".

  • 12.
  • At 07:00 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Chuck Wolffe wrote:

Please don't air "The Path to 9/11" on BBC Two. I'm fine with works of fiction, but not with works of fiction posing as a "docu-drama" that is completely one-sided and outraged many involved. I will boycott BBC if you air these lies.

Accounts of advance screenings indicate that this program places primary responsibility for the attacks of 9/11 on the Clinton administration while whitewashing the failures of the Bush administration. This assertion is not supported by the 9/11 Commission Report upon which the program is purportedly based. This partisan misrepresentation of history is not surprising given that the movie was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, an avowed conservative.

- Chuck

  • 13.
  • At 07:18 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Mary, NY wrote:

Please tell me the BBC doesn't plan on airing "The path to 9/11"???

Those of us here in America with a functioning brain are outraged over this farce of a documentary-- why in the world would the BBC replay it??

And here I always thought the BBC was so much better than our pathetic television networks- guess not!

  • 14.
  • At 08:39 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Ellen Dunthorne wrote:

How can you justify planning to run such a right wing Bush/Neocon piece of lying propaganda as "Path to 9-11". The following is a quote from the NY Times on its spurious claim to be based on the 9-11 commission:

"But Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said genre confusion would not be a problem for commission members, several of whom saw part of the miniseries last week.
“As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commission’s finding the way that they had,” Mr. Ben-Veniste said. “They gave the impression that Clinton had not given the green light to an operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden,” when, in fact, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that Mr. Clinton had."

Are you all brainwashed by Blair?

  • 15.
  • At 10:08 PM on 06 Sep 2006,
  • Ellen Dunthorne wrote:

How can you justify planning to run such a right wing Bush/Neocon piece of lying propaganda as "Path to 9-11". The following is a quote from the NY Times on its spurious claim to be based on the 9-11 commission:

"But Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said genre confusion would not be a problem for commission members, several of whom saw part of the miniseries last week.
“As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commission’s finding the way that they had,” Mr. Ben-Veniste said. “They gave the impression that Clinton had not given the green light to an operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden,” when, in fact, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that Mr. Clinton had."

Are you all brainwashed by Blair?

  • 16.
  • At 01:26 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • Graeme wrote:

As so many have said before me, and I can only add to their many voices. Sort that weather map out! Southern England is so HUGE everybody else in the United Kingdom is wondering where this house building problem is coming from, you've got tons of space! Have a look at that wee squashed blotch at the top of the screen and think "How can they accomodate a population of 5 Million!?" and its green on the BBC map, if 5 Million people live there the map should be ginger from all their tightly packed heids!

  • 17.
  • At 11:31 AM on 07 Sep 2006,
  • David Davies wrote:

Can I ask a favour regarding the 'drama' The path to 9//11 that is due to be shown on BBC in the next few days. Can you make clear to all viewers that it is a drama and not a documentary.

Many scenes in this film have been found to be false, including ones in which a CIA agent asks for permission to kill OBL from Pres. Clinton. As stated in the 9/11 Commission Report, this did not talk place.

The whole slant of this film is very right-wing. Preview copies were denied to Clinton, Albright and others depicted in the film, yet right-wing bloggers in the US and the likes of Bill O'Rielly had them given to them.

If the BBC allows this film to be shown, can you give room for a countering view-point?

I expected better from the BBC than this. If I wanted TV this 'fair and balanced' I would move the USA and watch Fox News.

  • 18.
  • At 09:49 PM on 13 Sep 2006,
  • K Rogerson wrote:

What is the point of having a complaints procedure when having made a complaint about the content of a programme I have not even had my complaint acknowledged!!!!

I am sure the BBC would be quick enough to contact me if I did not pay my TV licence!!!

Common courtesy cost no-one anything the last time I looked.I am still waiting for a response yet.......

  • 19.
  • At 10:15 AM on 14 Sep 2006,
  • E Moorhouse wrote:

The standard of English in your website news reports continues to decline.

For example, in the story about the resignation of an Israeli general you write:

"Israel has launched a probe on the role of government and military in the war."

What you actually mean (and should have said) is that "Israel has launched an inquiry into the role of . . . " etc.

Is there anyone checking the news you place on the website? If so, does this person have complete command of the English language?

If not, give me a call. I'm sure I could do better.

Leprosy may not yet have gone completely, but it is going away, and apparently much faster than the BBC seems to realise (Karen Rollins, “Leprosy is not dead”, . Karen mentions than 500,000 new cases were detected in 2005 but a box on the same page gives a figure of around 307,400. If Karen would have checked the WHO website she would have seen that the latest official statistics for global new case detection for 2005 stands at around 296,500, which is a 27% decrease on the previous year, and all indications are that this declining trend will continue.

To give inflated figures only perpetuates the stigma attached to this disease and helps to line the pockets of some religious NGOs who use leprosy as a means of raising money from the general public, more to fund their evangelical and proselytising activities than the control of leprosy, amongst the poor and disadvantaged in the developing world.

  • 21.
  • At 01:57 PM on 15 Sep 2006,
  • andy thompson wrote:

Reporters / Correspondents
once upon a time correspondents had specialised knowledge of a certain field. they tended to stay in that position for some time and could comment on news stories as well as report on them. these days reporters seem to have disappeared to be replaced by a whole host of 'correspondents' with no expertise in their advertised fields. One moment someone is 'Europe' correspondent, then a few weeks later they are 'Foreign Affairs' correspondent. All with no more expertise than that posessed by anybody with basic current affairs knowledge.

  • 22.
  • At 11:52 AM on 19 Sep 2006,
  • bob wrote:

I thought that the path to 9 11 was superb. The direction was brilliant and yes it's not all true and it says this in the drama (at the beginning and end), but this is a wake up call to everyone in the west that democracy is not the answer!!!

Jesus is the only answer.

  • 23.
  • At 07:29 PM on 19 Sep 2006,
  • Peter Brodie wrote:

"Quarder final", 'liddle bidder rain", "moder car", 'Bridish", etc..
Please suggest to your numerous News24 presenters who mispronounce their "t"s in this posturing way to revert back to proper sharp "t" 's.

This affectation seems to have started some time ago on TV and radio with motor racing/motor trade types ("a very nice liddle moder car"), politicians needing to plump up their feathers and the endless chain of mediocre sport presenters who need to do this, presumably, in an attempt to hike up their importance before the news gods and goddesses.

(Sophie Raworth has ideal diction and her speech is free of this irritating affectation.)

  • 24.
  • At 09:25 AM on 20 Sep 2006,
  • Jim wrote:

I thought the path to 9 11 was really good and was moving as well as eye opening. The makers of the show actually said that some of the drama is fiction based on fact. Why are so many of you writing it off-You're not all even American!!!

These kind of dramas may seem controversial, but people need to see the truth in the programme and realise what these extremists are fighting against.

  • 25.
  • At 07:26 PM on 27 Sep 2006,
  • W.S.Becket wrote:

If you judge a company by the way in which it deals with complaints, any judgement on the BBC would be unprintable. Tonight, for example, I rang 0870-010-0222 to ask a question regarding what seemed to be an instance of bias. I was told that no answers could be given in less than 5 working days (e-mail) or 10 by letter. When I pointed out that such timescales made complaining pointless - in 5 days I should have forgotten about it - I was told by the clerk that he was too busy to deal with me and goodnight.
How would you judge a company like this?

  • 26.
  • At 11:28 AM on 28 Sep 2006,
  • harrison phiri wrote:

i would like to express my disappointment regarding the your silence on the ongoing elections in zambia.the elections are being done in peaceful and mature manner.BBC(tv) is not talking about this important event in african politics.this election can be used to teach other african nations that it is possible to conduct elections in the fashion they are being conducted even in a developing nation like zambia.
on the other if these elections were characterised by violece like it has been the case with congo DR, BBC would have been interested to cover the always want to associate africa with voilence, poverty, war etc.
tell it to the would that our democracy is worth talking about.

harrison phiri,luanhya,zambia.

  • 27.
  • At 09:41 AM on 30 Sep 2006,
  • Susan Mary Robertson wrote:

There is so much bad news reported that people become sick of it and even desensitised. Why not find more good news eg if there are over a million unemployed there are also 26 million people in work, or if 1 in 4 children cannot read, write or do sums by the time they leave school, 3 out of 4 of them can. Panda babies and dead donkeys are supposed to cheer people up at the end of some very bad news.

  • 28.
  • At 03:25 PM on 05 Oct 2006,
  • Myles Coleman wrote:

Another complaint BBC. Lets see how fast you deal with this one. I wanted to know the current spot price for oil and looked up the BBC commodities page. This is showing a price of 36.55 dollars and was last updated on 8th June 2004 at 22.51. What is going on?

  • 29.
  • At 01:26 PM on 10 Oct 2006,
  • Abdul Malik Khan Achakzai wrote:

I am Abdul Malik Khan Achakzai, I am living exactly at the boarder city between Pakistan and Afghanistan, I am an Afghan but I should say myself a global one, Because I use my feet to cross the Boarder for attending my college in Pakistan. I am yet not asked and gvien a chance at the media about the troubles our area are facing!


  • 30.
  • At 09:25 AM on 12 Oct 2006,
  • hossein wrote:

I am sending following message from faraway village of Iran.Here there are not TV channel that entertain people. Your attempts to launching a TV channel news is useless because from several month ago the government restarting his old policy and without any legal permission violencly enter homes and taking Satelite Dish. SO THINK OVER THIS MATTER MORE AND MORE . Have a good time

yore faithfully,


  • 31.
  • At 09:28 PM on 20 Oct 2006,
  • Rich Young wrote:

Subject: The Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation and BBC News Reader's Mispronunciation

I don't think this email is really a formal complaint, so I hope I'm not violating your policy for posting. Also, I could not find any topic which could include this subject, so I am asking you to start a new topic to see if there are others who have noticed this same anomaly in BBC TV reporting. Let's have an open discussion on this issue.

Quoting from your instructions, "We're happy for you to criticize the BBC in your e-mails and comments, and to ask serious, probing questions of us - we'll do our best to respond to them." I hope so, because this has bothered me for a long time as I regularly watch your newscasts on DirecTV here in Panama.

There was a recent news item in the Telegraph headlined "BBC's secret guide to avoid tripping over your tongue" covered on their website, datelined 20 Oct 2006.

Quoting from that article:
"A secret guide that has helped generations of BBC news readers pronounce difficult words and odd-sounding names is to be made public for the first time.

"The Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation, which is published next week, is an updated version of the tome used by the BBC since the days when radio presenters wore dinner jackets.

"More than 16,000 words, phrases and difficult-sounding names and places are included in the £14.99 book, a version of which has been part of the BBC’s training for presenters and news readers. In 1926, Lord Reith, the first director general, decided that the BBC would always get it right whether it was pronouncing the names of visiting dignitaries or the battlegrounds of far-flung wars. He created the Advisory Committee on Spoken English whose members included George Bernard Shaw and Robert Bridges, the poet laureate."
Close quote.

What I would like to know is if the BBC is so concerned about pronouncing proper names correctly, why can't they get the English place names right first? That is the native language of the BBC, right?

BBC News continues to grate on one’s nerves with their habit (about 50% of the time) of lapsing into what I refer to as "ending-in-vowel bastardization". That is, the practice of regularly switching the pronunciation from the correct vowel ending and replacing it with an "er" sound.

It will probably be argued by a BBC apologist that is just a quaint British colloquialism. But pronouncing the same word in two succeeding sentences two different ways? It makes it sound like the news reader has been told to correct the habit and then quickly lapses back into the same lazy pronunciation, many times within the very same sentence!

What an example? There are hundreds everyday on the BBC news programs. Cuber, Havaner, Americer, Bosnier, Russier, Canader, Australier, Aisier, Florider, Africer, Indier, Bahamer, Bermuder, Arizoner, Montaner, Alasker, ad nauseam.

Maybe the BBC should put every English word used for a place name ending in an "a" in their little pronunciation guide. Changing this practice would really help them sound a little more credible.

I wonder what Lord Reith would say if he were here to listen to your news reporters and studio talking heads slip in and out of this lazy form of talking?

And for heaven’s sake, BBC - be consistent. Don't change the pronunciation of the very same word by the very same speaker within one sentence! It makes the speaker sound ignorant. Geez!

There, that's off my chest.

Rich Young
Volcan, Panama

  • 32.
  • At 10:11 AM on 22 Oct 2006,
  • leslie daniels wrote:

If you were showing a Football Match , would you have cut it so abrumptly as you did the Defense Minister This Morning, surely anyone in their right mind would have " Moved Heaven and Earth "----literally to have continued this interview, I believe this is a crass deriliction of an Editors Job, and surely must rate as a total misinterpretation of priorities and must call for some diciplinary choking off.

L. Daniels

  • 33.
  • At 03:55 PM on 27 Oct 2006,
  • Dr John Phillips wrote:

In Lorna Gordon's report on the lunch-time news today concerning the disturbing case of radiation overdose, I distinctly heard the young reporter say that the cancer patient 'received more radiation than she should of'. My, how the standards have slipped at the Beeb! Lord Reith would be spinning in his grave! Does no one care any longer about grammatical correctness at the BBC? Of course, such widespread solecisms are an indictment of a school curriculum in which grammar no longer has any place. As a linguist, I very much regret this, since sloppy expression and sloppy thinking invariably go together.

  • 34.
  • At 02:51 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • Craig wrote:

Can the B.B.C please tell me why they keep applying the generic term of "soldier" to any service personell serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? As a sailor in the Fleet Air Arm, part of the Royal Navy, myself and my colleagues maintain seaking helicopters in basra airstation alongside airmen from the Royal Air Force and soldiers from the British Army. I myself and many of my colleagues feel that being called soldiers is wrong as we are sailors would it not be fairer and more respectful to call us all service personell?

  • 35.
  • At 08:11 AM on 29 Mar 2007,
  • Grant Chambers wrote:

How ironic that 31 people saw this useful and open blog post from the BBC editors as an invitation to complain! And many of the 33 posts really do seem to be complaints for the sake of complaining.

The fact is that the BBC provides a world-leading news and current affair service. I would challenge these people to find me a service that even comes close.

I find it hard to believe that given its virtues, so many people could pull up the BBC about slips of pronunciation and presenters saying "err". Perhaps they will seek out alternative news services where "err" is never spoken and place names are always flawlessly announced. Good luck to them.

  • 36.
  • At 10:07 AM on 05 Apr 2007,
  • Arnold Ellis wrote:

I cannot understand why there are so many programs on BBC1 that include reminders of what has happened "up to now".
Animal 24/7, Flog It and Car Booty are just three examples.
Another annoying feature is especially noticeable on Animal 24/7, This is the "What is coming next" interruption.
These programmes are too short to need these features, or, are they put in because the programme needs to be "padded"?

  • 37.
  • At 11:25 AM on 20 Apr 2007,
  • marie linklater wrote:

Keep up the good work BBC

Your site is very informative fair and I find honest alway,s giving both side,s.

British living in asia BBC is the best new,s to read.

  • 38.
  • At 05:39 PM on 03 May 2007,
  • Krishnan wrote:

I get my daily dose of world news from BBC and have been for many years. It is the only reliable source that I have found with in-depth coverage of news and events across the world. I am indebted to the brave journalists that report from the trouble spots around the world.

My best wishes and prayers with all at BBC, especially Alan Johnston.

  • 39.
  • At 04:56 PM on 01 Jun 2007,
  • cassie wrote:

I just wanted to say that my heart gose out to the family of Mr. Johnston. I hope things turn out ok for him and that he comes out alright. It's terrible that so many horrible things are happening these days.

  • 40.
  • At 09:01 PM on 02 Jun 2007,
  • Stephany LaMont wrote:

I live in the United States and have been ill and unable to work for several months. What to do with all that time? I have surprised myself by becoming addicted to internet news. Daily I review and read articles and stories from several newspapers, magazines, and dip frequently into blogs. But, for the most unbiased international news I turn to the BBC.

After reading so many of the above responses, I can say that I have no opinion on the pronunciation of your newscasters. It is often hard for me to understand much of what they say anyway.

Thank you for your superior reporting. No news organization is perfect, or without some bias being slipped in, but the BBC is more straight forward that most. Thank you.

Stephany LaMont, Georgia, USA

  • 41.
  • At 05:35 PM on 09 Jun 2007,
  • Jeff Duncan wrote:

I agree the BBC are a joke - their is no complaints system as such rather just a few folk who punt out the same tired less-than half answer to a serious complaint.

I complained several times when the BBC pulled the only serious Scottish discussion topic board - Scots Talk - it was clearly done because it was not in favour with the left-wing BBC, labour loving junta.

It was pro-SNP in so much as the majority of people posting tended to dislike the Labour party. To this day they have not managed to give a credible reason why it was pulled and we are now left with one board called River City (yes that sad soap!!).

I cannot wait until the BBC are replaced one day. They abuse their position and do not represent the people of Scotland let alone the UK.

  • 42.
  • At 02:27 PM on 13 Jun 2007,
  • Rachel wrote:

I am from America, and I love watching the BBC news on my public television station. It focuses more on news than personal bias and gives far more information about global events than American news does. For example, when the nightly news runs out of American stories to report, the "news coverage" turns to "look, a cat in a tree was rescued by a heroic young girl"... I don't care! I want to know what's going on in the world. For the same reason, I no longer read the big American papers online, and prefer BBC news online instead.

  • 43.
  • At 09:53 AM on 24 Jun 2007,
  • Vanessa wrote:

I've had trouble adding comments. It says I'm not allowed to add comments as if you have to be registered but where or how do you register? I'm completing while signed on to Have Your Say as I cannot see any other registration that counts. Will this comment be added?

  • 44.
  • At 01:30 PM on 13 Jul 2007,
  • Mrs Penelope Holt wrote:

To be fair to Today programme early yesterday, I can't remember whether they were quoting from the Papers or making their own comment when I first heard 'hissy fit' and 'Queen storms out'. Referring only to this and not the Editing row,the Queen would never 'storm out', so why use the phrase? and why repeat it again this morning? Pop stars and celebs. and supermodels 'storm out'. No one else does. I think your scriptwriters need to improve their literacy skills.

  • 45.
  • At 06:02 PM on 21 Aug 2007,
  • Grill wrote:

Hum. Keeps telling me I'm not allowed to post comments - why not?

  • 46.
  • At 09:06 AM on 30 Aug 2007,
  • Bill Carter wrote:

Can you please stop bombarding us with meaningless facts figures and percentages most of which are based on so called 'surveys'
The Wednesday evening news reminded me of the old Soviet Union propoganda news broadcasts.
Much as you will never face up to it, [self criticism not being a BBC strongpoint] your organization HAS become Big Brother.It is not impartial not democratically appointed and continues to desperately fill airtime with unsubstantiated drivel in an attempt to justify its existence..and license fee..
By the way this self 'moderated' page is also undemocratic and unfair and can potentially render any serious criticism futile ..just another example of the patronising arrogance which pervades your company.

Bill Carter

  • 47.
  • At 08:25 AM on 31 Aug 2007,
  • Brendan wrote:

Re: Rugby World Cup Blog -> What drivel is this? If this is the abysmal standard of journalism now being commissioned by the BBC, then I want a refund of my licence fee... NOW. To see how to write a journalistic blog then look no further than Mark Mardell's work. Working for the BBC used to be a privilege for the best of the best, nowadays it seems that anyone from the Dog and Duck can scam money from the Beeb. Pay these guys off, and get hold of Will C., Rory U et al and pay them for World Cup insight - guaranteed to be read by all Rugby afficionados. It beggars belief that an editor with a passion for the sport, a vision of quality and journalism experience would allow this offering to even see light of day...

  • 48.
  • At 12:12 AM on 14 Sep 2007,
  • Loudlily wrote:

Regarding the McCann's story, the dilema Ms Feltz had deciding whether to allow the supporters or non supporters of the McCanns to air their opinions, was a short lived one. But with so much fuzz hanging around in the gossip corners (on your street and mine!) shouldn't the most ridiculous theories from alien abduction to selling the child into slavery, be put out there if only to be voiced and allow the idiotic lame brains to hear their own theories ridiculed - well and truly! I was visitng a relative in hospital this week and overheard some patients exchanging pleasantries to fill in time but then the story of the McCanns became the favoured topic and with one loud mouth pushing forward his point of view, two people left the conversation having changed their minds to belive that Mrs McCann was a wicked woman who must have been using drugs and drink and was no better than a child beating drug addict who was capable of anything. In creating the balance of the argument, how many conversations do you think would result in the canonisation of the same woman - not many I fear - not in this world where we are too easy to accept unimaginable evil and treachery and we are just synichal enough not to accept the concept of innocence. So, the gossip mongers win when public debate is absent.....everytime.

  • 49.
  • At 05:41 PM on 27 Sep 2007,
  • Madeup wrote:

"We're happy for you to criticise the BBC in your e-mails and comments, and to ask serious, probing questions of us - we'll do our best to respond to them."

I'm not convinced by either part of this statement, to be honest. It seems to me that the moderators allow far fewer comments to appear than are actually submitted, and censor most of them on the grounds that they might make the BBC look bad.

As for responding to them, that's a joke - very few of The Editors bother to respond to anything.

(I don't expect you'll print this, either, but there you go.)

  • 50.
  • At 06:49 PM on 01 Oct 2007,
  • J.WESTERMAN wrote:

I think that a submission that is regarded as too near the point does not get published.
For instance look at the following. It seems perfectly fair and justified to me.

“To Mark Thompson. (21.09.07)

You are not out of the woods by a long way.
BBC journalists still feel free to add gratuitous comments and opinions. If you would like a good example look at my very recent submissions to The Editors regarding government proposals for children, described by one of your journalists as “Stalinesque”.

Would you care to take up a challenge? Set up a blog inviting viewer/listeners just to quote further incidents of this kind – no more: no less. It may succeed where your management has signally failed.

I would add that what has happened to BBC integrity is sad. It is regarded as a great loss.
It also appears that we will have to put up with your persistent between program advertisements and overblown news presentations.”


  • 51.
  • At 12:23 AM on 02 Oct 2007,
  • Arun Subramanian wrote:

It was indeed disappointing to note that the BBC chose to equate the Burmese situation with that of Briney Spears losing custody of her children - both appeared side by side on the front page of the BBC News website at 7:00PM EDT when I checked. Both may score high on a "popularity index" with viewers, but I do feel that given the current state of world affairs one can hardly weigh the two on the same scale.

Hi, we normally watch BBC news programes BUT, having aquired a new surround sound Tv, find it most annoying to have the MANIC drummer banging away in the background each time the headlines are being read out, Do we need this distraction, does any one else feel the same, and can it be stopped ?. PLEASE !

  • 53.
  • At 09:46 PM on 09 Oct 2007,
  • E Warren wrote:

The manic noise mentioned by b staines - 5 Oct - has annoyed me for years I have to watch with the remote control permanently at hand. It also happens with the opening of the local news, an absolute racket.
The background noise also ruins, it is so intrusive, some fabulous programmes Dimbleby's About Britain just one example, surely in this technological age it is possible to tone it down a bit.

  • 54.
  • At 06:47 PM on 18 Oct 2007,
  • Sarah A. wrote:

I hate advertising. I would rather pay a reasonable fee to have the content advertising free. Fortunately one can learn to ignore it except the advertising you show at the beginning of video clips.
You are continually worried about obesity but packaged and fast food are the result of intense advertising. Advertisers do not inform they persuade.

  • 55.
  • At 12:56 AM on 24 Oct 2007,
  • Saad Barrie wrote:

I agree on keeping adverts out of BBC programmes and against cutting World Service programmes . Although I live in Sierra Leone, which is highly dependent on foriegn aid, I would rather the UK Government cut aid to fund more BBC programmes for the developing world. Millions of people in the developing world are dependent on the BBC as thier sole provider of news, civic education, and entertainment. I see this as a form of aid with a direct impact on the lives of poor, helpless, and misinformed people across Africa in particular.
Besides,Without the BBC what is 'Great' about Britain in the world today?

  • 56.
  • At 08:48 PM on 21 Nov 2007,
  • Roy Daniels wrote:

I must register my concern about the news presentation tonight, on many occasions I am often concerned about the presentation but tonight's - beats the lot!

When the newscasters were giving important news that is causing concern for many about the lost data - she bursts in a laughing and giggling schoolgirl - come on - be professional - are you sure this is the BBC not CBBC?

When watching the News 24 - start of the game - the commentators talked all the way through the Croatia National Anthem - is this how the BBC show respect to other countries?

Come on BBC we expect better?

  • 57.
  • At 03:50 PM on 29 Nov 2007,
  • Richard Mahoney wrote:

As an admirer of BBC and an American listening to BBC TV in Bangkok, I am disappointed with the coverage of Pakistan. The clear story here is "What comes after Musharraf?" He surely will now lose control in Pakistan. I hope that BBC is not saying "We may lose access in Pakistan, if we start talking about the end of the Musharraf regime." Best regards, Richard Mahoney

  • 58.
  • At 10:37 PM on 10 Dec 2007,
  • mainsheettrim wrote:

Sorry to spoil the party and your self congratulations but most expats like me gave up on you years ago, we watch CNN nowadays for an unbiased western view of world news. Whenever I listen to the World Service these days I have trouble understanding the reports,are you not allowed to employ standard english speakers anymore ?

Why does the BBC promote gambling every day of the week through suggesting racing tips on programmes such as Today and Five Live??

This post is closed to new comments.

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.