INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Save the BBC!

For news of events, petitions and campaigns that may be of interest to humanists and secularists.
Message
Author
User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#81 Postby Altfish » August 24th, 2015, 6:20 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Ah, I understand now.

A two stage tender, we use them a lot in construction.

It sounds like the Met Office were too complacent

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#82 Postby Alan H » August 24th, 2015, 9:22 am

Altfish wrote:Ah, I understand now.

A two stage tender, we use them a lot in construction.

It sounds like the Met Office were too complacent
But no indication from either of them why the Met Office were eliminated. A presumption might be cost, but it could be a case of knowing the cost of something but not its value.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#83 Postby Altfish » August 24th, 2015, 12:16 pm

Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:Ah, I understand now.

A two stage tender, we use them a lot in construction.

It sounds like the Met Office were too complacent
But no indication from either of them why the Met Office were eliminated. A presumption might be cost, but it could be a case of knowing the cost of something but not its value.

Might not be cost.
In construction at the first stage we (try to) measure the quality of what is being supplied; this might be their resources, staffing levels, quality of staff, equipment, experience, references, etc. etc. To be honest this is often a measure of how good a company's marketing team are but it does enable the number of tenderers to be reduced. It also helps the tenderers because tendering is not cheap and they would rather have a (say) 1 in 3 chance that 1 in 8.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#84 Postby Dave B » August 24th, 2015, 2:10 pm

Altfish wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:Ah, I understand now.

A two stage tender, we use them a lot in construction.

It sounds like the Met Office were too complacent
But no indication from either of them why the Met Office were eliminated. A presumption might be cost, but it could be a case of knowing the cost of something but not its value.

Might not be cost.
In construction at the first stage we (try to) measure the quality of what is being supplied; this might be their resources, staffing levels, quality of staff, equipment, experience, references, etc. etc. To be honest this is often a measure of how good a company's marketing team are but it does enable the number of tenderers to be reduced. It also helps the tenderers because tendering is not cheap and they would rather have a (say) 1 in 3 chance that 1 in 8.

OT but when looking at tenders for a research contract my boss vetoed one company because their very flashy literature showed three Rolls Royces in the director's car park.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#85 Postby Altfish » August 24th, 2015, 2:45 pm

:laughter:

Seems like a damn good reason for rejection!

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#86 Postby Alan H » August 24th, 2015, 2:48 pm

Altfish wrote::laughter:

Seems like a damn good reason for rejection!
Yeah, but if the NHS did that, would the likes of Virgin, Serco, Care UK, etc ever get a contract?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#87 Postby Altfish » August 24th, 2015, 2:51 pm

Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote::laughter:

Seems like a damn good reason for rejection!
Yeah, but if the NHS did that, would the likes of Virgin, Serco, Care UK, etc ever get a contract?

But which of those is likely to show RRs on their brochure, more likely pictures of the bearded one and the likes.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#88 Postby Alan H » August 26th, 2015, 12:50 am

Cuts to licence fee would damage UK's entire TV industry, warns BBC chief
“New research shows that, because of the boost the BBC provides, if you cut the licence fee by 25% you’d lose about 32,000 jobs across the whole economy,” said Hall. “These aren’t just jobs at the BBC, but across the TV industry – at independent producers, suppliers and studios up and down the country.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#89 Postby Altfish » August 26th, 2015, 9:35 am

When the BBC moved up to Salford (much to the Daily Mail's disgust :laughter: ) there was talk of all the BBC jobs that would be created. But in addition to the BBC jobs there have been many independent production companies, Salford University has opened a new media study facility next to it; ITV / Granada has moved to the site. In addition there are supermarkets, bars, restaurants, hotels, etc. etc.
We have a tram line to the site the area is now buzzing.

I'm sure the BBC have problems with the layers of management and amount they pay 'stars' but they are a great creator of jobs and at the forefront of advances in the media world.

User avatar
lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#90 Postby lewist » August 26th, 2015, 10:09 am

Altfish wrote:When the BBC moved up to Salford (much to the Daily Mail's disgust :laughter: ) there was talk of all the BBC jobs that would be created. But in addition to the BBC jobs there have been many independent production companies, Salford University has opened a new media study facility next to it; ITV / Granada has moved to the site. In addition there are supermarkets, bars, restaurants, hotels, etc. etc.
We have a tram line to the site the area is now buzzing.

I'm sure the BBC have problems with the layers of management and amount they pay 'stars' but they are a great creator of jobs and at the forefront of advances in the media world.
Altfish, that sounds great. However, the BBC is also the biased organ of the Westminster establishment. The arrogant denials of the lies and astonishing bias that we saw during the Referendum campaign bear witness to this.

There is a strong case for broadcasting being devolved so that is properly regulated.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#91 Postby Alan H » August 26th, 2015, 10:30 am

lewist wrote:There is a strong case for broadcasting being devolved so that is properly regulated.
But why does it need to be divided up to be properly regulated? And what regulation is required? It seems we need better journalism all round, but not sure how you can regulate for that.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#92 Postby Altfish » August 26th, 2015, 10:47 am

lewist wrote:
Altfish wrote:When the BBC moved up to Salford (much to the Daily Mail's disgust :laughter: ) there was talk of all the BBC jobs that would be created. But in addition to the BBC jobs there have been many independent production companies, Salford University has opened a new media study facility next to it; ITV / Granada has moved to the site. In addition there are supermarkets, bars, restaurants, hotels, etc. etc.
We have a tram line to the site the area is now buzzing.

I'm sure the BBC have problems with the layers of management and amount they pay 'stars' but they are a great creator of jobs and at the forefront of advances in the media world.
Altfish, that sounds great. However, the BBC is also the biased organ of the Westminster establishment. The arrogant denials of the lies and astonishing bias that we saw during the Referendum campaign bear witness to this.

There is a strong case for broadcasting being devolved so that is properly regulated.

I'm not sure it is "...the biased organ of the Westminster establishment." I agree it is (in general) a supporter of the status quo, but all governments of all hues claim that the BBC is biased against them. Even the SNP played this card to great effect.
It worries me when governments/parties try to control the media. It is always an opinion as to whether or not they are being biased and walking the fine line of neutrality is difficult. I think the BBC does it fairly well although there are always opportunities to improve. In fact sometimes they try to give 'both sides of the story' when one side is bollox (anti vaccination is a good example)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#93 Postby Alan H » August 26th, 2015, 11:09 am

Altfish wrote:
lewist wrote:
Altfish wrote:When the BBC moved up to Salford (much to the Daily Mail's disgust :laughter: ) there was talk of all the BBC jobs that would be created. But in addition to the BBC jobs there have been many independent production companies, Salford University has opened a new media study facility next to it; ITV / Granada has moved to the site. In addition there are supermarkets, bars, restaurants, hotels, etc. etc.
We have a tram line to the site the area is now buzzing.

I'm sure the BBC have problems with the layers of management and amount they pay 'stars' but they are a great creator of jobs and at the forefront of advances in the media world.
Altfish, that sounds great. However, the BBC is also the biased organ of the Westminster establishment. The arrogant denials of the lies and astonishing bias that we saw during the Referendum campaign bear witness to this.

There is a strong case for broadcasting being devolved so that is properly regulated.

I'm not sure it is "...the biased organ of the Westminster establishment." I agree it is (in general) a supporter of the status quo, but all governments of all hues claim that the BBC is biased against them. Even the SNP played this card to great effect.
It worries me when governments/parties try to control the media. It is always an opinion as to whether or not they are being biased and walking the fine line of neutrality is difficult. I think the BBC does it fairly well although there are always opportunities to improve.
Of course, just because parties of all colours complain, doesn't mean the BBC isn't biased! I think there is poor journalism all round: the haranguing of interviewees; sound bites, inane questioning.
In fact sometimes they try to give 'both sides of the story' when one side is bollox (anti vaccination is a good example)
They shouldn't be doing this now, after Prof Steve Jones' report: Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#94 Postby Altfish » August 26th, 2015, 11:57 am

Haranguing by interviewers is rare; I assume you are referring to the Nick Robinson / Alex Salmond affair; have there been others?
Also when does difficult questioning become haranguing? I would say that in too many cases politicians are let off easily.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#95 Postby Alan H » August 26th, 2015, 12:51 pm

Altfish wrote:Haranguing by interviewers is rare; I assume you are referring to the Nick Robinson / Alex Salmond affair; have there been others?
Also when does difficult questioning become haranguing? I would say that in too many cases politicians are let off easily.
Difficult to provide examples, but I'm sure we've all seen them: interviewers focussing on some obscure and only barely relevant point that makes it look as if he/she is doing a great job making the interviewee squirm and look unable to answer the question, meanwhile letting more important and pertinent issues go undiscussed. This usually involves some future hypothetical situation.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#96 Postby Altfish » August 26th, 2015, 2:01 pm

Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:Haranguing by interviewers is rare; I assume you are referring to the Nick Robinson / Alex Salmond affair; have there been others?
Also when does difficult questioning become haranguing? I would say that in too many cases politicians are let off easily.
Difficult to provide examples, but I'm sure we've all seen them: interviewers focussing on some obscure and only barely relevant point that makes it look as if he/she is doing a great job making the interviewee squirm and look unable to answer the question, meanwhile letting more important and pertinent issues go undiscussed. This usually involves some future hypothetical situation.

Is it only the BBC that does that?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#97 Postby Alan H » August 26th, 2015, 2:33 pm

Altfish wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:Haranguing by interviewers is rare; I assume you are referring to the Nick Robinson / Alex Salmond affair; have there been others?
Also when does difficult questioning become haranguing? I would say that in too many cases politicians are let off easily.
Difficult to provide examples, but I'm sure we've all seen them: interviewers focussing on some obscure and only barely relevant point that makes it look as if he/she is doing a great job making the interviewee squirm and look unable to answer the question, meanwhile letting more important and pertinent issues go undiscussed. This usually involves some future hypothetical situation.

Is it only the BBC that does that?
Absolutely not. I was referring to journos everywhere.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#98 Postby Dave B » August 26th, 2015, 4:59 pm

I am in agreement with you, Alan.

The standard of "everyday" journalism has diminished over the past 20 years (since the Internet basically). The BBC usually made an attempt to be accurate, honest, objective and balanced - but it is getting worse, tge same item may have different figures etc. on different BBC "outlets". Why there is not a single BBC news department I cannot work out.

If an article has the quakity of being a personal opinion I lose interest - even if it accords with my own! I appreciate reporters who report, rather than editorialise,, offer an objective analysis and leave me to make up my own mind.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#99 Postby Alan H » August 26th, 2015, 5:10 pm

Dave B wrote:I am in agreement with you, Alan.

The standard of "everyday" journalism has diminished over the past 20 years (since the Internet basically). The BBC usually made an attempt to be accurate, honest, objective and balanced - but it is getting worse, tge same item may have different figures etc. on different BBC "outlets". Why there is not a single BBC news department I cannot work out.

If an article has the quakity of being a personal opinion I lose interest - even if it accords with my own! I appreciate reporters who report, rather than editorialise,, offer an objective analysis and leave me to make up my own mind.
Have you read: Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media by Nick Davies? Highly recommended and charts the decline in journalism.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Save the BBC!

#100 Postby Dave B » August 26th, 2015, 6:22 pm

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:I am in agreement with you, Alan.

The standard of "everyday" journalism has diminished over the past 20 years (since the Internet basically). The BBC usually made an attempt to be accurate, honest, objective and balanced - but it is getting worse, tge same item may have different figures etc. on different BBC "outlets". Why there is not a single BBC news department I cannot work out.

If an article has the quakity of being a personal opinion I lose interest - even if it accords with my own! I appreciate reporters who report, rather than editorialise,, offer an objective analysis and leave me to make up my own mind.
Have you read: Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media by Nick Davies? Highly recommended and charts the decline in journalism.
Nope, but will read it now!

Even allowing for neologisms and the changing use of words the quality of the English often leaves much to be desired.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Save the BBC!

#101 Postby Altfish » August 26th, 2015, 7:27 pm

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:I am in agreement with you, Alan.

The standard of "everyday" journalism has diminished over the past 20 years (since the Internet basically). The BBC usually made an attempt to be accurate, honest, objective and balanced - but it is getting worse, tge same item may have different figures etc. on different BBC "outlets". Why there is not a single BBC news department I cannot work out.

If an article has the quakity of being a personal opinion I lose interest - even if it accords with my own! I appreciate reporters who report, rather than editorialise,, offer an objective analysis and leave me to make up my own mind.
Have you read: Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media by Nick Davies? Highly recommended and charts the decline in journalism.

A great read, I highly recommend it.


Return to “Positive Humanism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests