Not a word on the BBC site.

May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Ecowarrior18 said:
They herald his twittering about the floods in Oz, but nothing in the news or sports pages.

Significant?
no not really, cycling outside of british stars is not on their radar.

it will appear tomorrow when someone gets around to it. also they dont want to detract from a Bit winner in the TdU just yet.

very Brit attitude to milk their winners. they've been banging on about winning the world cup in 1966 ever since
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
The reports on the BBC website tend to just be regurgitated agency reports rewritten by a general staffer who probably isn't even interested in cycling.

They're not go to get involved in anything heavy that they don't understand properly.
 
May 22, 2009
68
0
0
Cycling is still fringe in Britain. Apparently much better we fawn over footballers diving, swearing at the ref and generally just cheating then anything decent. I wouldn't go all conspiratorial and think the Beeb are somehow cosy with Armstrong just because they don't have an article up - it took them about a week to even mention Contador winning the Tour, plus the gave Cavendish about half the time of everyone else at the Sports Personality gig.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
euanli said:
no that is the english.
bbc dear boy, we are talking about the bbc, the bbc radio clip " they think it's all over, it is now" must be on a perpetual loop in there....:rolleyes:

i do understand the difference between the home nations. there's the celts(Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) and then the english.
 
May 22, 2009
68
0
0
The Hitch said:
An article about Lance gets published. Why would that be in the news:confused:
Last person I talked to about cycling here in the UK went 'Oh yeah, with the American guy...Brett? The one who wins France all the time.' Such is UK life. As you say, an article on a guy no one in the country even knows about would hardly qualify as newsworthy.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Libel laws in the UK mean that the media is vary wary of reporting doping allegations. For example the Guardian report on the SI story led with the Armstrong denies, and ended with 'Lance Armstrong has never failed a test'.

Anyone who has tried to discuss doping on the BBC or Guardian discussion boards knows that it is a pointless activity because i) the mods know nothing about cycling ii) but they are scared of libel suits.
 
Jun 11, 2010
28
0
0
SC1990 said:
Last person I talked to about cycling here in the UK went 'Oh yeah, with the American guy...Brett? The one who wins France all the time.' Such is UK life. As you say, an article on a guy no one in the country even knows about would hardly qualify as newsworthy.
That is fair enough, but having commented on his Tweet about the Queensland recently, he is on their radar. It isn't as if he is unknown to the Brits and having been on their site regularly.

Just thoughts.
 
Met a guy who shot video for the BBC for a while. He said the key to the BBC is that they have managed to have deftly convince anyone and everyone they are of the highest quality, largest productions, pinnacle of broadcasting and media, head and shoulders above everyone else. But the reality is their production teams are usually just a tiny slice over everyone else. Just like all other media outlets, they barely pay enough, they often push staff to the brink, gouge advertisers, etc. More or less, they're just like everyone else.

Having said that, you'll probably forget all this next time you watch the BBC, and think of them with wonder as being the elite, the pinnacle of broadcasting. It's part of their mystique, and they play it up perfectly.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Met a guy who shot video for the BBC for a while. He said the key to the BBC is that they have managed to have deftly convince anyone and everyone they are of the highest quality, largest productions, pinnacle of broadcasting and media, head and shoulders above everyone else. But the reality is their production teams are usually just a tiny slice over everyone else. Just like all other media outlets, they barely pay enough, they often push staff to the brink, gouge advertisers, etc. More or less, they're just like everyone else.

Having said that, you'll probably forget all this next time you watch the BBC, and think of them with wonder as being the elite, the pinnacle of broadcasting. It's part of their mystique, and they play it up perfectly.
How much BBC do they show in the Great Pacific Northwest? I've met several BBC journalists*, a couple are friends, and they are very well informed. They are also largely impartial, which is good compared to the 24 hour party political broadcasts that pass for news in the US.

*I've even met Matt Slater, who's blog is posted above. He really knows his cycling (an Ullrich fan), but only blogs about it. He said he'd rather not blog about cycling though, as cycling fans were the most crazy and bile drench posters of all.
 
Goodness, don't get me wrong. They do quality work, absolutely. Their staff is very good. But this guy noted that the upper management has always given the impression to the world they are this giant at the forefront of everything, with the highest tech facilities, an army of well paid workers, etc. But the reality is that they didn't pay much more than others, and many of their crews were smaller than you'd think, often worked with older gear and frequently had to make due with what they have.

That's no reflection on their actual product. Just on perception in society, which happens all the time in every industry. That's all.

For example, in the US people think if you're going to work in news, CNN would be the pinnacle. The reality is they pay very low. I used to work for Turner Broadcasting under the same umbrella. The giant TBS. They were very well run, but we got by on small field crews, and they paid alarmingly low. Looks good on a resume though.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Met a guy who shot video for the BBC for a while. He said the key to the BBC is that they have managed to have deftly convince anyone and everyone they are of the highest quality, largest productions, pinnacle of broadcasting and media, head and shoulders above everyone else. But the reality is their production teams are usually just a tiny slice over everyone else. Just like all other media outlets, they barely pay enough, they often push staff to the brink, gouge advertisers, etc. More or less, they're just like everyone else.

Having said that, you'll probably forget all this next time you watch the BBC, and think of them with wonder as being the elite, the pinnacle of broadcasting. It's part of their mystique, and they play it up perfectly.
Its interesting that you bring pay into the equation of quality broadcasting.
One of the reasons the BBC is the benchmark of broadcasting and media is down to the way the BBC is funded.
Effectively the BBC is still a nationalised company, funded by the public license fees. The downside of this is that there isn't the funding that say SKY or FOX news enjoys, the upside is that the BBC doesnt have a conflict of interests.
It is free to report the news as it is, impartially and without the need to be "entertainment"

The BBC, in the UK at least, has NO advertising revenue so I'm not sure where they "gouge advertisers". Maybe in the international markets?

The reportng of the current Armstrong situation is fairly typical of the BBC,
fact based, conservative and without agenda...
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
andy1234 said:
snip

The reportng of the current Armstrong situation is fairly typical of the BBC,
fact based, conservative and without agenda...
i dont watch telle enough to make the blanket voucher but i can support this point at least regarding their on-line news reporting. i feel the same about deutsche welle...no morning starts without these two. but both are useless as cycling outlets except the german obsession with doping stories.
 
Mambo95 said:
d. They are also largely impartial, which is good compared to the 24 hour party political broadcasts that pass for news in the US.
THats the big myth. BBC is not impartial. They claim to be, just as so many others claim impartiality, but its just that, a claim, and it **** me off when people try it.

Time and time again, be it in sport, politics or world affairs, personal opinion just gets the better of them. Just as it does every other scummy news agency which tries to convince people that they are the standardbearers of impartiality.


andy1234 said:
It is free to report the news as it is, impartially and without the need to be "entertainment"

.
If the bbc isnt concerned with providing "entertainment" (to the masses) why then do they spend so many millions on hiring celebrities. Thats millionns and millions of taxpayers money, mine and your, which is supposed to be going to improving the dire economic situation, and helping the sick, feeding the poor, instead going to the pockets of (until recently) ignorant egomaniac Jonathan Ross.

Why did they put that panorama programme in the week of the world cup vote. It must have been a coincidence because the benevolent impartial bbc dont care about their own ratings :rolleyes:
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
andy1234 said:
Its interesting that you bring pay into the equation of quality broadcasting.
One of the reasons the BBC is the benchmark of broadcasting and media is down to the way the BBC is funded.
Effectively the BBC is still a nationalised company, funded by the public license fees. The downside of this is that there isn't the funding that say SKY or FOX news enjoys, the upside is that the BBC doesnt have a conflict of interests.
It is free to report the news as it is, impartially and without the need to be "entertainment"

The BBC, in the UK at least, has NO advertising revenue so I'm not sure where they "gouge advertisers". Maybe in the international markets?

The reportng of the current Armstrong situation is fairly typical of the BBC,
fact based, conservative and without agenda...
Thank you for setting this straight.
The other thing that one has to bear in mind is that British libel law is more favourable to the plaintiff than other jurisdictions so, in the event that they publish or broadcast something that could be construed as libelous, there is a lower standard to meet in court.

Also CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox etc all have advertising revenue to consider and as such are more exposed to possible bias. The BBC doesn't have any advertising in the UK at all, indeed up until only a handful of years ago it would go as far as to have fictitious branding in dramas it produced to avoid accidental product placement!

The Panorama program in 2010 about FIFA corruption was aired despite it being in the English World Cup Bid's interests not to air it. Why? Because the BBC is independent of sponsors & looks at the bigger picture.

They will only actually wade in once there are verifiable facts to report, which I suspect will be once any indictment is handed down.
 
The Hitch said:
THats the big myth. BBC is not impartial. They claim to be, just as so many others claim impartiality, but its just that, a claim, and it **** me off when people try it.

Time and time again, be it in sport, politics or world affairs, personal opinion just gets the better of them. Just as it does every other scummy news agency which tries to convince people that they are the standardbearers of impartiality.



If the bbc isnt concerned with providing "entertainment" (to the masses) why then do they spend so many millions on hiring celebrities. Thats millionns and millions of taxpayers money, mine and your, which is supposed to be going to improving the dire economic situation, and helping the sick, feeding the poor, instead going to the pockets of (until recently) ignorant egomaniac Jonathan Ross.

Why did they put that panorama programme in the week of the world cup vote. It must have been a coincidence because the benevolent impartial bbc dont care about their own ratings :rolleyes:
You seem to be confusing BBC Entertainment with BBC News.
Now I have no doubt that Fawlty Towers has its own agenda, but I dont tend to watch it to let me know whats happening in the world.

Also, the last time I looked at the terms of my television license fee, it didn't claim to benefit the poor and needy of the world.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY