The bbc, again.

[Badger11]

BBC removes article linking bare nails trend to ‘white supremacist standards of beauty’

Corporation says story did not meet editorial standards after it attracts criticism from US and UK media

www.theguardian.com

"BBC removes article linking bare nails trend to ‘white supremacist standards of beauty"

No wonder trust in BBC must be at an all time low.

It was a mistake it can happen to anyone. Of course whenever the BBC does make mistakes it does always seem to favour the left.

 

[Spiderman]

BBC removes article linking bare nails trend to ‘white supremacist standards of beauty’

Corporation says story did not meet editorial standards after it attracts criticism from US and UK media

www.theguardian.com

"BBC removes article linking bare nails trend to ‘white supremacist standards of beauty"

No wonder trust in BBC must be at an all time low.

They are far more than a news channel! They represent us all on the world stage 😏

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

They are far more than a news channel! They represent us all on the world stage 😏

They do. They also present local news and maintain stringent standards that mean when mistakes are made by people (who being human are fallible) they are always identified and corrected. Quite unlike other media.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

They do. They also present local news and maintain stringent standards that mean when mistakes are made by people (who being human are fallible) they are always identified and corrected. Quite unlike other media.

OK then keep the news channel and get rid of the rest.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

OK then keep the news channel and get rid of the rest.

You, along with many here and elsewhere, just don’t get it and probably never will.

 

[HKOwen]

OK then keep the news channel and get rid of the rest.

The " news " channel is the problem

 

[Teddy Eagle]

The " news " channel is the problem

But that's all that's ever discussed. The garbage and repeats they spew out as entertainment is conveniently forgotten.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

You, along with many here and elsewhere, just don’t get it and probably never will.

Not buying into your narrative is hardly not getting it. Stay in thrall to the BBC but don't try to dismiss others' opinions because, "they don't know what's good for them" or some other patronising drivel.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Not buying into your narrative is hardly not getting it. Stay in thrall to the BBC but don't try to dismiss others' opinions because, "they don't know what's good for them" or some other patronising drivel.

No, it’s not just a matter of opinion. I understand yours only too well but it’s really obvious that you don’t understand mine. Hence you don’t get it.

Treating the BBC as just another broadcaster, to be chosen or rejected at will, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is. Unless and until you are able to accept that then you will never get it.

You are, of course, entitled not to get it, but not to just dismiss it as another “narrative”.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

No, it’s not just a matter of opinion. I understand yours only too well but it’s really obvious that you don’t understand mine. Hence you don’t get it.

Treating the BBC as just another broadcaster, to be chosen or rejected at will, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is. Unless and until you are able to accept that then you will never get it.

You are, of course, entitled not to get it, but not to just dismiss it as another “narrative”.

Of course it's a matter of opinion. Mine is that no one should be compelled to subsidise an organisation in which they have no interest. Let those who want it pay for it but the days of the BBC having a monopoly on broadcasting are long gone and the scandals and cover ups have only exacerbated the problem.

 

[HKOwen]

But that's all that's ever discussed. The garbage and repeats they spew out as entertainment is conveniently forgotten.

I agree the other content is not what I would want to watch. They have a couple of hit shows but get nowhere near the audiences shows like That's Life or The Two Ronnies would draw.

Personally I have no interest in Traitors or Strictly, millions do. Traitors is a purchased product from a production company.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I agree the other content is not what I would want to watch. They have a couple of hit shows but get nowhere near the audiences shows like That's Life or The Two Ronnies would draw.

Personally I have no interest in Traitors or Strictly, millions do. Traitors is a purchased product from a production company.

Curious how Reithian idealism went out the window on a tide of bargain hunting, cake baking, celebrity dancing and RuPaul drag racing.

 

[georgenorman]

No, it’s not just a matter of opinion. I understand yours only too well but it’s really obvious that you don’t understand mine. Hence you don’t get it.

Treating the BBC as just another broadcaster, to be chosen or rejected at will, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is. Unless and until you are able to accept that then you will never get it.

You are, of course, entitled not to get it, but not to just dismiss it as another “narrative”.

Utter tosh from Cornwall, as usual.

 

[Badger11]

But that's all that's ever discussed. The garbage and repeats they spew out as entertainment is conveniently forgotten.

A good point. The reason for so many repeats and cheap shows is that the BBC spends less proportionately on entertainment shows than other broadcasters.

If the BBC wishes to thrive it needs to address this. A workforce of 20,000 people, overlapping departments*, a large middle management etc means they don't have the funds to spend on programming.

*Multiple news departments, multiple sports department for example. When there is a government press conference the BBC will send multiple crews instead of just 1. Football matches are regularly covered by multiple crews e.g. 5Live, local radio, BBC online etc.

In fairness the new DG is well aware of the duplication and is trying to eliminate it much to the disgust of the staff.

 

[Spiderman]

They do. They also present local news and maintain stringent standards that mean when mistakes are made by people (who being human are fallible) they are always identified and corrected. Quite unlike other media.

Only after being Identified by others, when the BBC have to correct and apologise. What other media channels are not identified and corrected? Don’t go down the GB News route, as you yourself, have said it is scrutinised more than others

 

[HKOwen]

A good point. The reason for so many repeats and cheap shows is that the BBC spends less proportionately on entertainment shows than other broadcasters.

If the BBC wishes to thrive it needs to address this. A workforce of 20,000 people, overlapping departments*, a large middle management etc means they don't have the funds to spend on programming.

*Multiple news departments, multiple sports department for example. When there is a government press conference the BBC will send multiple crews instead of just 1. Football matches are regularly covered by multiple crews e.g. 5Live, local radio, BBC online etc.

In fairness the new DG is well aware of the duplication and is trying to eliminate it much to the disgust of the staff.

Massive redundancy payoffs and pension liabilities ahead

 

[Badger11]

Massive redundancy payoffs and pension liabilities ahead

The BBC has a very generous pension scheme, the DG will need to address this.

 

[HKOwen]

The BBC has a very generous pension scheme, the DG will need to address this.

The rough was deep and wide and every snout was submerged, Huw Edwards still has all his money, so does Bashir

 

[ASCPFC]

The rough was deep and wide and every snout was submerged, Huw Edwards still has all his money, so does Bashir

Everyone who should have been sacked for gross misconduct still got paid off.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Of course it's a matter of opinion. Mine is that no one should be compelled to subsidise an organisation in which they have no interest. Let those who want it pay for it but the days of the BBC having a monopoly on broadcasting are long gone and the scandals and cover ups have only exacerbated the problem.

All that response is confirm, yet again, that you simply don’t get it. I know what your opinion is. There is no point in repeating it. What you don’t acknowledge is the role the BBC plays beyond its remit as a broadcaster. You don’t get that, but it exists whether you accept it or not.