Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Oh right! He's stepped aside....


KenTaylor e2
10 3.0k 2 United Kingdom
25 Oct 2012 7:33PM

Quote:Similar to being forced to pay for commercial TV even if you don't own a TV set. Smile

You are not wrong there although there are many that don't realise the fact Wink

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

gcarth e2
10 2.3k 1 United Kingdom
5 Nov 2012 4:18PM

Quote:Power Corrupts and no amount of press outrage, public enquiries and the like will ever change this.

Its not just a UK thing by the way, many other societies are even worse, its just we are so damned hypocritical about it and keep on being "Suprised and shocked" when it, once again, becomes undeniable

Yes, you're quite right - and in what you said before that. Pyschopathic personalities tend to be found in positions of power - where they can manipulate people so easily and then commit these horrendous deeds - and I'm not only talking about paedophiles...


Quote:In what way is the beeb 'not fit for purpose'. It sounds a grand phrase, usually trotted out by people who object to the TV licence (not the same thing), but I have yet to work out what people mean when they say it.
Well, I have to agree with "pcheywood": I think the BBC is decidedly not "fit for purpose".
There have been countless incidents were the BBC has spinelessly followed the government line - notably in the case of Blair's warmongering before and during the illegal war in Iraq.
The BBC sign up to a charter to declare that they will provide unbiased broadcasts - they palpably do not abide by that promise.
So if anyone thinks the BBC is fit for purpose, they need to examine their own bias and lack of self-examination.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
5 Nov 2012 5:59PM

Quote:So if anyone thinks the BBC is fit for purpose, they need to examine their own bias and lack of self-examination.

Then again, some people are so passionate in their views that anyone who does not agree with them is de facto biased against them. Works both ways.


Quote:they will provide unbiased broadcasts

Unbiased in a single broadcast or unbiased overall with each view getting a shot?
To be honest I am bored and irritated in equal measure of the number of times I hear a good article on the radio or TV and they spoil it right at the end in giving a fatuously brief 'summary' giving 'the other view' and all it does is leave a sour taste of a view that has not been given the same level of scrutiny as the main item. I prefer to leave a programme-maker to give a view and hve another programme present the opposite.

The best summary of the beeb I have heard is an establishment (or right-leaning, depending on you terminology) hierarchy with an anti-establishment (or left-leaning) staff.
gcarth e2
10 2.3k 1 United Kingdom
5 Nov 2012 7:35PM

Quote:The best summary of the beeb I have heard is an establishment (or right-leaning, depending on you terminology) hierarchy with an anti-establishment (or left-leaning) staff.
There's some truth in that; but ultimately, I think that the right-leaning bosses have the lefty staff kow-towing to the establishment agenda. It's the same in the newspaper industry - a journalist does not need to be reminded that he's supposed to keep to the safe mainstream view. As Noam Chomsky pointed out to Andrew Marr - as a journalist you're often not aware that you might be creating a biased view - such is the establishment propaganda grip on us all: many of us are conditioned to accept the distortions and disinformation found in the mass media, generally. I'm not talking conspiracy here - it's just plain commonsense - media proprietors and advertisers don't like their media to rock the boat too much otherwise they might go out of business.


Quote:Then again, some people are so passionate in their views that anyone who does not agree with them is de facto biased against them. Works both ways.

Of course: However, in the case of the BBC, it can be demonstrated that they are guilty of omitting information or disinforming the public. Whether this is always deliberate or just sloppy journalism is another matter. For example, reporters or commentators will frequently say things like: "The US administration are taking democracy to Iraq" instead of saying "The US administration said they are taking democracy to Iraq".
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
5 Nov 2012 8:11PM
If your critcism is at such a level it says more (to me) about the listener's ability to apply reasoning than it does about the beeb.
I understand what you are saying and it applies across the whole of journalism - broadcast as well as print.
This is a superb critique of modern journalism and points the finger not at journalists but the shortcuts management take that do not give time for proper investigative journalism.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-Distortion/dp/0099512688/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352146206&sr=8-1
gcarth e2
10 2.3k 1 United Kingdom
5 Nov 2012 9:08PM

Quote:If your critcism is at such a level it says more (to me) about the listener's ability to apply reasoning than it does about the beeb.
I understand what you are saying and it applies across the whole of journalism - broadcast as well as print.
This is a superb critique of modern journalism and points the finger not at journalists but the shortcuts management take that do not give time for proper investigative journalism.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-Distortion/dp/0099512688/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352146206&sr=8-1



Thanks for the Flat Earth Newslink.
I haven't yet read this book so I'm naturally reluctant to opine on the subject, except to say that Media Lens are rather critical of the book: For example, they think Nick Davies attaches too much importance in his book, to the idea that journalists don't have enough time to avoid things like sloppy journalism.
Media Lens say Davies doesn't address the real 'elephant in the room' - corporate interference and corruption.
I'm trying to keep an open mind on this until I read the book - I'm sure the author might make a lot of valid points. The book has won awards but Media Lens have brought out two or three superb books themselves which address the 'elephant in the room' - the grip of the big corporations. Obviously in the case of the BBC, the problem is successive governments and their threat to take away the licence if they don't 'play ball'.
jondf e2
8 2.7k
5 Nov 2012 9:37PM

Quote:This is a superb critique of modern journalism and points the finger not at journalists but the shortcuts management take that do not give time for proper investigative journalism.


Sounds good so just ordered from....er......a-hum.......Amazon. I've sent an accompanying e-mail insisting they cough up the vat Smile
jondf e2
8 2.7k
10 Nov 2012 7:49AM
Has the BBC news facility developed a unhealthy tabloid mentality? Many seem to think so. And the irony that the very organisation that might well be implicated in the J Saville scandal could now find itself on the wrong end of a libel charge by a wrongly accused individual is almost the stuff of farce if wasn't so damn serious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20277732
dcash29 e2
9 2.0k England
10 Nov 2012 8:50AM
God can nobody talk about anything else, this S*** is everywhere you go.

Next we'll be prosecuting everybody from the 70's that used racial terms.

Bring it up when people are alive.

Thread blocked.
thewilliam e2
6 4.9k
10 Nov 2012 10:14AM
Some organisations do develop an atmosphere where abomidable or criminal behaviour is tolerated and eventually becomes considered quite normal.

The press reports about corruption within the Chinese "communist party" suggest that the rot has well and truly set it. There was a piece on the news about the official who was wearing a different expensive watch in each of the 9 press pix taken of him; each watch worth more that his year's salary.

Only a regular cleanup can keep an organisation on the straight and narrow.
jondf e2
8 2.7k
10 Nov 2012 10:11PM

Quote:Only a regular cleanup can keep an organisation on the straight and narrow.


Yes but then it's a question of who's doing the cleaning up. The police? The judiciary? The government? The military? Edna Everidge? I mean.....just who the hell can we trust?
jondf e2
8 2.7k
10 Nov 2012 11:09PM

Quote:.....just who the hell can we trust?


Oh, I know....why yes, of course! THE PRESS!!
thewilliam e2
6 4.9k
11 Nov 2012 9:58AM
The Watergate affair came to light because a newspaper wanted to "clean up" the political scene. Or was it just because pair of journalists wanted to rescue their careers?
jondf e2
8 2.7k
7 Dec 2012 10:23AM
By God......I actually feel sorry for Max Clifford! Should I be on medication? Wink
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
7 Dec 2012 10:33AM

Quote:The Watergate affair came to light because a newspaper wanted to "clean up" the political scene. Or was it just because pair of journalists wanted to rescue their careers?


...and not because of "Deep throat"? ..and no not Lynda Lovelace. Wink

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.