BBC News Presenters Set to Strike!

Discussions on news and breaking news events including, BBC News, ITV News, Sky News
mickey
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:01 pm

Post by mickey » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:21 am

Hi irxin - well said and great to see someone else, of like mind contributing, to the debate.



Regarding other Sat TV stations coming on stream - I just say - "The more the better" we don't have to watch them. But if they add an alternative view of things then that only strengthens our democracy. Is this something the BBC is afraid of?



Mickey

irxin
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:49 pm

Post by irxin » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:22 am

Agreed, Have you noticed that the 'evil murdoch' uses the CBS feed for their 00:30 feed.



This is presumably to give a better service to Sky News not the free one he could have provided by giving Fox news. Even Fox is no where near as bad as the Beeboids would have us believe although I do not like their over reliance on opinion rather than fact.

Lone
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:34 pm

Post by Lone » Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:23 pm

mickey wrote:Lone, please go back to my earlier reply where I stated that I?m not against Public Service Broadcasting (PSB). It is for the very reasons you describe i.e quote ?producing diverse programming to cater for all our needs? that I support PBS. No one will disagree with that philosophy.. But how to pay for it and by how much?



PSB needs to be able to concentrate on what it does best ie news, current affairs, drama, arts etc. and to do this without a ratings war to worry about. The commercial boys can do what they want to run their business. However, regulators will need to control the amount of funds PSB receives and how it spends our money. With the present arrangement where-by one party is getting a guaranteed an inflation busting income can only distort the market place and drive others to the wall. Lets? have a level playing field without the compulsory Government Licence to legally receive news & entertainment from any source.



If ITV goes and in your utopian world Murdoch departs & pulls the plug what?s left? Foreign Satellite TV: Fox News, CNN, Al Jazeera International (in English soon) , NBC etc



Mickey





Mickey, I am actually in complete agreement with you that the BBC needs to pull back from it's constant ratings war with ITV and the others, and concentrate more on the science/nature/topical programming, even though it may perhaps mean the end of my beloved Top Gear. If what you are suggesting is that we cut back it's funding so that it concentrates on these niches, perhaps we have come to an agreement.



With regards to what'll happen if ITV and Murdoch pulls out, remember they are not the be all and end all of broadcasting in the UK, as I've mentioned efore such is the nature of capitalism that someone will almost certainly step in to fill the market.

Lone
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:34 pm

Post by Lone » Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:09 pm

irxin wrote:Everyone in the UK is not only forced by law to contribute ?2.6 billion by way of the licence fee but an additional ?.75 Billion direct from normal taxation to fund the BBC.



Of their own free will they pay BSkyB ?4.2 Billion, my proportions are roughly similar to the average but my viewing is 5% BBC and 95% Sky provided.



The only ?service? I use from the BBC that is not available commercially is Radio 4, and the BBC news site, which is very wide ranking because of their bottomless pockets.



The BBC expenditure really does need sorting out, they have had years to brainwash the nation (The Beeb would insist on ?nations?) into thinking they are a necessity ? They are not.



I have an opinion on all of their output but a couple of examples ? They would have more viewers and more money for programs if BBC 3 and 4 were just used as timeshifts for the two main channels. On radio why do they generate so many music channels, there are at least a hundred commercial ones?



As this is a news forum Sky has no requirement to provide a news service but gives by far the best, and balanced, service for free.



I also noticed earlier somebody raised the evil Murdoch, another example of Beeb brainwashing ? News International own less than a third of BSkyB and in turn the Murdoch family own less than a third of News International. I make it that Murdoch owns around 9% of Sky but obviously, the shareholders are happy that he has a say in the running because he is a successful profit maker.





Irxin, with regards to Al-Jazeera, I am really looking forward to them coming to our screens, not only to provide a different perspective on stories that Sky and BBC provide, but also because a number of my favourite personalities, such as Rageh Omar and Felicity Barr, have joined the channel.



Ultimately I don't trust neither the BBC nor Sky, but if it comes down to a choice (and it often does because they are the main two providers of UK news), I have to go with the BBC. For me Sky's bias is undeniable, it is anything but fair and balanced, just look at it's sister network Fox (a complete joke IMO) and it's cousins The Sun and The Times, all part of the Murdoch family, of which his influence simply cannot be ignored. He runs Sky and his news empire like a dictator rules his country.



Anyone who believes he is fair minded and balanced should really be concerned whether or not they have willingly or unwillingly been brainwashed into the Murdoch media.

irxin
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:49 pm

Post by irxin » Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:58 am

Hi Lone, Sorry I think the BBC has been the Dictator in this country for years along with its aids the Guardian and Independent.



Sky is more balanced than the BBC, an example is that British Forces Broadcasting feed the troops with Sky News rather than News24 ? Presumably, the majority of 200,000 odd servicemen prefer their coverage.



Fox News is not suitable for our tastes at all but that has nothing to do with the argument, as I mentioned Sky News use CBS not Fox for their American coverage in the small hours.



I have just watched the start of Al Jazeera, looks like I will tune into them far more than I ever look at Fox, or CNN. One early observation is not a single female presenter or reporter wearing as much as a headscarf ? What does that say about the PC attitude of the BBC (all right and Sky) who done a headscarf the minute they get off the plane in a Muslim country.

Lone
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:34 pm

Post by Lone » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:33 pm

irxin wrote:Hi Lone, Sorry I think the BBC has been the Dictator in this country for years along with its aids the Guardian and Independent.



Sky is more balanced than the BBC, an example is that British Forces Broadcasting feed the troops with Sky News rather than News24 ? Presumably, the majority of 200,000 odd servicemen prefer their coverage.



Fox News is not suitable for our tastes at all but that has nothing to do with the argument, as I mentioned Sky News use CBS not Fox for their American coverage in the small hours.



I have just watched the start of Al Jazeera, looks like I will tune into them far more than I ever look at Fox, or CNN. One early observation is not a single female presenter or reporter wearing as much as a headscarf ? What does that say about the PC attitude of the BBC (all right and Sky) who done a headscarf the minute they get off the plane in a Muslim country.





Well I suppose it also depends on your own personal political opinions and beliefs.



I'm sure the Armed Forces would prefer Sky to News 24, just as the US military would prefer Fox to CNN, because Murdoch is far more likely to present the news and them in a more favourable light.



Personally I find a lot of things about Sky's coverage distasteful, and though their bias is nowhere near as blatantly evident as Fox, at times it is possible to pick up on it. You can even sometimes draw similarities between the headlines of The Sun and Sky's own headlines. The recent veil issue is a good example. After the initial hoo-haa with Straw's comments, there was a brief lull. Then The Sun decided to take up issue with it a few days after, and Sky followed suit by headlining the veil issue yet again, continuing with the Islamaphobic theme which can be traced through most of Murdoch's outlets. Lebanon is another good example, Sky spent a disproportionate amount of time on covering the Israeli side and interviews with Israeli heads then would be merrited of an unbiased organisation. Sky is, and always has been very pro-Israeli, and that is a big turn off from me. That and the fact that Sky seems to have a culture of 'sex sells' with it's presenters, far more then the BBC and something which I'd expect more from across the pond.



As I've said before, I'm not a big fan of BBC's news coverage, I find it biased too. During the build up to the Iraq war the BBC were just as guilty as Sky of promoting the governments pro war agenda.



Lastly, with regards to presenters wearing headscarves, personally I don't have any problem or issue with them wearing it. That's just my opinion.

irxin
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:49 pm

Post by irxin » Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:46 pm

?The BBC said that at 2230 GMT on Tuesday, 61% of people "who were scheduled on the rota and expected in" were striking.

That number had dropped to 39% by 1030 GMT on Wednesday, the spokeswoman said.

The standard of Tuesday evening's 10 O'Clock News on BBC One and Newsnight on BBC Two had been "fairly consistent with what it would normally be", she added?



The above is from the BBC news website ? It would seem to prove that they are completely overstaffed if output was hardly affected.



I watch very little News24, where they affected?

Lone
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:34 pm

Post by Lone » Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:57 pm

irxin wrote:?The BBC said that at 2230 GMT on Tuesday, 61% of people "who were scheduled on the rota and expected in" were striking.

That number had dropped to 39% by 1030 GMT on Wednesday, the spokeswoman said.

The standard of Tuesday evening's 10 O'Clock News on BBC One and Newsnight on BBC Two had been "fairly consistent with what it would normally be", she added?



The above is from the BBC news website ? It would seem to prove that they are completely overstaffed if output was hardly affected.



I watch very little News24, where they affected?





I totally forgot when they were stricking, so I didn't pay much attention when watching on Tuesday, looking back they didn't seem affected. And I've been watching AJI since yesterday so again, can't really tell.

mickey
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:01 pm

Post by mickey » Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:22 pm

Perhaps the striking techs have joined the BBC presenters that have already made the move to Al Jazeera International? Also many of the team at Sky News, ITV & CNN appear to have decided to work for AJI (even the Sky News weather girl has jumped ship)!



I watched some of the AJI programming today and was pleasantly surprised at the lack of moslem World bias.

Lone
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:34 pm

Post by Lone » Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:09 am

mickey wrote:Perhaps the striking techs have joined the BBC presenters that have already made the move to Al Jazeera International? Also many of the team at Sky News, ITV & CNN appear to have decided to work for AJI (even the Sky News weather girl has jumped ship)!



I watched some of the AJI programming today and was pleasantly surprised at the lack of moslem World bias.





Yes, I have to agree I am very impressed, not only at the variety of presenters they have from all over the world but also (so far) their apparant impartiality. Dare I say I might even grow to trust them more then Sky.



P.s. Mickey, it's spelt muslim, not moslem :tongue:

Post Reply