3 ms·

The BBC's version of the article at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60014514 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60014514. > The BBC ha

The BBC's version of the article at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60014514 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60014514. > The BBC has declined to comment. Nothing more BBC than the BBC writing an article about the BBC saying that the BBC haven't commented.

odiroot 5y ago
This is great journalistic integrity. I applaud them for that.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Reporting on yourself is the polar opposite of journalistic integrity. Reporting on yourself but not even noting to the reader that you're reporting on yourself is worse yet. Writing a named-author analysis piece about yourself, which they have here at the end of the article, is reaching insanity level. The BBC shouldn't report on the BBC.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Reporting on yourself is the polar opposite of journalistic integrity. 1. are there any news outlets that abides by this rule? 2. if I get my news from listening to BBC on the radio or whatever, then am I just out of luck? >Reporting on yourself but not even noting to the reader that you're reporting on yourself is worse yet. I get how including a disclosure makes sense if the affiliation isn't obvious (eg. washington post reporting on amazon), but do you really need a disclaimer to let the reader know that the BBC in the article is the same BBC that wrote the article?
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > are there any news outlets that abides by this rule? Maybe not - but others are their own business, rather than funded by a tax on the people like the BBC. And the BBC do seem to be particularly weird and breathless about reporting on themselves. They've edited the article in place and they're now quoting insider knowledge from an anonymous tip-off... that they've given themselves. It's like that in other areas as well - people working at the BBC once commissioned a sitcom about... people working at the BBC. And when they report on the winner of one of their game shows as news, or when they report that it's a headline that someone said something in an interview from their own interview shows. > if I get my news from listening to BBC on the radio or whatever, then am I just out of luck? For getting objective reporting on the BBC then yeah you are, either way. Is that surprising? Obviously they can't objectively report on themselves. I think they should possibly have a headline on the front page, but it should link to another outlet's reporting. But then choosing the outlet isn't objective either.
- phatfish 5y ago
  As long as it meets the BBCs "strict impartiality rules". Remember if facts annoy a certain group that supports the governments agenda the truth must be watered down to keep them happy. Can't have Nadine Dorris* being offended can we? *The closest thing the UK has to Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Hamuko 5y ago
>Nothing more BBC than the BBC writing an article about the BBC saying that the BBC haven't commented. Could've ended with "other news organizations are available".
bambataa 5y ago
Peak BBC is making a story about the BBC headline news on the BBC news website. As if anyone else cared when they opened their new offices. I’ve never really understood the rage the licence fee provokes in a certain type of voter and I have little faith that any replacement proposed by this government will be an improvement.
- iso1210 5y ago
  In the 70s and 80s there was little entertainment other than real time broadcast TV on the 3 (later 4) channels. The BBC was a cultural institution. 20 million people would tune in to watch absolute crap, because that was really the only option other than go to the pub or play cards. Places like the BBC Television Centre were engrained in the public zeitgest, and thus newsworthy. This clearly isn't the case any more, there's far more choice, and the generations that grew up with "Auntie" are getting older and older.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > In the 70s and 80s there was little entertainment other than real time broadcast TV on the 3 (later 4) channels. Pretty sure people had books, radio, theatre, cinema, etc, in the 70s and 80s.
    - iso1210 5y ago
      Hence the reason TV would only attract half of the adult population then. Those still exist and presumably attract similar numbers, but there are far more options in the 'sitting on couch' area, hence TV viewership is massively down, and what remains is split amongst far more options
- pydry 5y ago
  The "rage" was largely amplified by the Murdoch press who have been irked at having competition for decades. A large contingent of the UK population can be reliably provoked into outrage when the necessity arises. This is largrly how unchecked power is wielded in British politics. Splitting the country down the middle in a fit of fury over Brexit and then sewing it back up was similarly provoked.
iam-TJ 5y ago
More likely there is no comment until the UK government makes the announcement public - rather than responding to 'informed sources'. BBC is caught between a rock and hard place. Its journalists 'need' to report the story or risk being accused of 'censorship' for not reporting on the rumour/leak/background-briefings when other news organisations are reporting those, but at the same time the BBC board [0] (10 non-execs and 4 execs) will presumably have been preparing a measured response to publish once the UK government makes the 'official' announcement. [0] https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/bbcboard https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/bbcboard
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > rather than responding to 'informed sources'. They edited the story as it developed to later refer to 'sources' within the BBC. Publishing an anonymous leak from themselves given to themselves because they wouldn't comment themselves? It's a farce.

odiroot 5y ago

This is great journalistic integrity. I applaud them for that.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Reporting on yourself is the polar opposite of journalistic integrity. Reporting on yourself but not even noting to the reader that you're reporting on yourself is worse yet. Writing a named-author analysis piece about yourself, which they have here at the end of the article, is reaching insanity level. The BBC shouldn't report on the BBC.
- gruez 5y ago
  > Reporting on yourself is the polar opposite of journalistic integrity. 1. are there any news outlets that abides by this rule? 2. if I get my news from listening to BBC on the radio or whatever, then am I just out of luck? >Reporting on yourself but not even noting to the reader that you're reporting on yourself is worse yet. I get how including a disclosure makes sense if the affiliation isn't obvious (eg. washington post reporting on amazon), but do you really need a disclaimer to let the reader know that the BBC in the article is the same BBC that wrote the article?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > are there any news outlets that abides by this rule? Maybe not - but others are their own business, rather than funded by a tax on the people like the BBC. And the BBC do seem to be particularly weird and breathless about reporting on themselves. They've edited the article in place and they're now quoting insider knowledge from an anonymous tip-off... that they've given themselves. It's like that in other areas as well - people working at the BBC once commissioned a sitcom about... people working at the BBC. And when they report on the winner of one of their game shows as news, or when they report that it's a headline that someone said something in an interview from their own interview shows. > if I get my news from listening to BBC on the radio or whatever, then am I just out of luck? For getting objective reporting on the BBC then yeah you are, either way. Is that surprising? Obviously they can't objectively report on themselves. I think they should possibly have a headline on the front page, but it should link to another outlet's reporting. But then choosing the outlet isn't objective either.
phatfish 5y ago
As long as it meets the BBCs "strict impartiality rules". Remember if facts annoy a certain group that supports the governments agenda the truth must be watered down to keep them happy. Can't have Nadine Dorris* being offended can we? *The closest thing the UK has to Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Hamuko 5y ago

>Nothing more BBC than the BBC writing an article about the BBC saying that the BBC haven't commented. Could've ended with "other news organizations are available".

bambataa 5y ago

Peak BBC is making a story about the BBC headline news on the BBC news website. As if anyone else cared when they opened their new offices. I’ve never really understood the rage the licence fee provokes in a certain type of voter and I have little faith that any replacement proposed by this government will be an improvement.

iso1210 5y ago
In the 70s and 80s there was little entertainment other than real time broadcast TV on the 3 (later 4) channels. The BBC was a cultural institution. 20 million people would tune in to watch absolute crap, because that was really the only option other than go to the pub or play cards. Places like the BBC Television Centre were engrained in the public zeitgest, and thus newsworthy. This clearly isn't the case any more, there's far more choice, and the generations that grew up with "Auntie" are getting older and older.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > In the 70s and 80s there was little entertainment other than real time broadcast TV on the 3 (later 4) channels. Pretty sure people had books, radio, theatre, cinema, etc, in the 70s and 80s.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    Hence the reason TV would only attract half of the adult population then. Those still exist and presumably attract similar numbers, but there are far more options in the 'sitting on couch' area, hence TV viewership is massively down, and what remains is split amongst far more options
pydry 5y ago
The "rage" was largely amplified by the Murdoch press who have been irked at having competition for decades. A large contingent of the UK population can be reliably provoked into outrage when the necessity arises. This is largrly how unchecked power is wielded in British politics. Splitting the country down the middle in a fit of fury over Brexit and then sewing it back up was similarly provoked.

iam-TJ 5y ago

More likely there is no comment until the UK government makes the announcement public - rather than responding to 'informed sources'. BBC is caught between a rock and hard place. Its journalists 'need' to report the story or risk being accused of 'censorship' for not reporting on the rumour/leak/background-briefings when other news organisations are reporting those, but at the same time the BBC board [0] (10 non-execs and 4 execs) will presumably have been preparing a measured response to publish once the UK government makes the 'official' announcement. [0] https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/bbcboard https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/bbcboard

chrisseaton 5y ago
> rather than responding to 'informed sources'. They edited the story as it developed to later refer to 'sources' within the BBC. Publishing an anonymous leak from themselves given to themselves because they wouldn't comment themselves? It's a farce.