They herald his twittering about the floods in Oz, but nothing in the news or sports pages.
Significant?
Significant?
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Ecowarrior18 said:They herald his twittering about the floods in Oz, but nothing in the news or sports pages.
Significant?
Benotti69 said:they've been banging on about winning the world cup in 1966 ever since
euanli said:no that is the english.
The Hitch said:An article about Lance gets published. Why would that be in the news
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.
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.
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.
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.andy1234 said:snip
The reportng of the current Armstrong situation is fairly typical of the BBC,
fact based, conservative and without agenda...
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.
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.andy1234 said:It is free to report the news as it is, impartially and without the need to be "entertainment"
.
Thank you for setting this straight.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...
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