3 ms·

> the BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites Wow, they still use this exact disclaimer 23 years later, to the letter. (I wonder why they

> the BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites Wow, they still use this exact disclaimer 23 years later, to the letter. (I wonder why they need it...)

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
They've used it from day one, more or less. Disclaimers like this used to be a little more common on the web, as I recall. But the BBC is a national broadcaster and news organisation. I think you have to keep in mind the volume, nature and often bad-faith unfairness of the kinds of complaints it receives. It's not difficult to imagine the "I was on the BBC website and two clicks later I was looking at bestiality material" complaints, tabloid news stories, extreme right wing/left wing/nationalist politicians etc. A disclaimer like that shoots down that entire range of complaints and was probably constructed with Ofcom's agreement for that reason. (They are the relevant regulator.) If you google "BBC disclaimer" you'll see there's a bunch of them they have had to construct over the years to fend off bad faith complaints from all sorts of angles. (And one or two good-faith complaints that stem from their peculiar position, like the "Other listings magazines are available" disclaimer they have/had to make when they mention the commercial TV/Radio listings magazine, The Radio Times, that is produced under licence. That disclaimer has entered into popular culture and is the basis of a running joke among BBC presenters at times when a contributor inadvertently mentions or places a product. "Of course, other <insert product category> are available.") NPR is in a similar situation, I imagine -- having to put disclaimers into their content to protect themselves from the kind of bad faith criticism that will get brought up the next time their funding is being discussed.
- tragomaskhalos 5y ago
  I'm sure non-British HNers have nothing but a positive impression of the BBC, are aware that it showcases Britain in a positive light, and therefore find it beyond baffling that it is the target of so much vitriol at home from, ahem, certain quarters.

> the BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites Wow, they still use this exact disclaimer 23 years later, to the letter. (I wonder why they need it...)

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

They've used it from day one, more or less. Disclaimers like this used to be a little more common on the web, as I recall. But the BBC is a national broadcaster and news organisation. I think you have to keep in mind the volume, nature and often bad-faith unfairness of the kinds of complaints it receives. It's not difficult to imagine the "I was on the BBC website and two clicks later I was looking at bestiality material" complaints, tabloid news stories, extreme right wing/left wing/nationalist politicians etc. A disclaimer like that shoots down that entire range of complaints and was probably constructed with Ofcom's agreement for that reason. (They are the relevant regulator.) If you google "BBC disclaimer" you'll see there's a bunch of them they have had to construct over the years to fend off bad faith complaints from all sorts of angles. (And one or two good-faith complaints that stem from their peculiar position, like the "Other listings magazines are available" disclaimer they have/had to make when they mention the commercial TV/Radio listings magazine, The Radio Times, that is produced under licence. That disclaimer has entered into popular culture and is the basis of a running joke among BBC presenters at times when a contributor inadvertently mentions or places a product. "Of course, other <insert product category> are available.") NPR is in a similar situation, I imagine -- having to put disclaimers into their content to protect themselves from the kind of bad faith criticism that will get brought up the next time their funding is being discussed.

tragomaskhalos 5y ago
I'm sure non-British HNers have nothing but a positive impression of the BBC, are aware that it showcases Britain in a positive light, and therefore find it beyond baffling that it is the target of so much vitriol at home from, ahem, certain quarters.