Archive for the ‘The BBC’ category

Good Reads: Has the crisis at the BBC damaged Britain’s favourite TV bulletin?

July 30th, 2007

Excellent media section in the Independent today. Here are my picks.

Ian BurrellHas the crisis at the BBC damaged Britain’s favourite TV bulletin?

This article’s biggest crime is perhaps the fact that it doesn’t really answer its own question. However, it’s an interesting look behind the scenes of a program (and it’s a program, not a bulletin, apparently) that has been forced into change.

Huw Edwards (right) takes center stage. His ‘bowser problem’ — he wasn’t sure of the word bowser as people may have not known what they meant — is a clever little anecdote that goes to show how intricate a news bulletin has to be. Make the crucial mistake of losing your audience in your first 40 seconds and you’ll never recover.

But they needn’t worry. The BBC 10 o’clock news had ratings peaking at 6.3 million last week.

Stephen Glover on the Press – TV coverage of the floods verged on red-top exaggeration

Hurrah! The voice of reason. Contrary to popular belief, England isn’t actually flooded from tip to toe. Which is a shame for our journalists, says Stephen.

In the second half of his column, he goes on to discuss Gordon Brown’s relationship with the Daily Mail: “Cynics will say Mr Brown is merely trying to keep it on side. He is aware of its power in Middle England, where he seems to be enjoying something of a honeymoon.”

I don’t think it’s a big issue. Papers don’t control public opinion as much as they once did. The Daily Mail is the least of Gordon’s worries, I’m sure.

BBC reversal not the first occurrence

July 27th, 2007

The BBC got a good belting from the Royal Family a week or so ago after it made a trailer that seemed to show the Queen storming out of a photoshoot. In fact, the clip was of the Queen coming in to the shoot, not out of it.

The BBC offered a groveling apology and promised it wouldn’t happen again.

Nigel Barlow, a mature student at UCLan, has posted this news that he spotted in The Guardian this week.

Charlie Addiman (Letters, July 14) points out that no apology or correction was offered when BBC news reversed the order of events at Orgreave in 1984, screening shots of miners throwing stones at police before showing mounted officers charging the miners. In 1991, though, in response to a complaint by Charles Alverson of Cambridge, Martin Hart, on behalf of the then BBC director general, acknowledged that the film had been reversed. Hart claimed: “It was a mistake made in the haste of putting the news together … an editor inadvertently reversed the occurrence of the actions of the police and of the pickets.” No inquiry. No measures to ensure it doesn’t happen again. No public admission.

Excuse me, Michael Grade, but I think you’re wrong

July 14th, 2007

“We are all vulnerable. We are in an age today where there has been a huge influx of young talent into the industry as it expands. They have not been trained properly, they don’t understand that you do not lie to audiences at any time, in any show – whether it’s news or whether it’s a quiz show. I feel sorry for the BBC.”

- Michael Grade, Executive Chairman, ITV.

I read the above quote in the Independent today. I could yap all night about why I think Michael Grade is wrong here, but I feel it’s a bit too predictable. After all, I’m a young journalism student. Of course I’m going to disagree with him. He has, for lack of a better phrase, dissed ma homies.

He is laying the blame over this fiasco on young, inexperienced talent at the BBC. The BBC, thankfully, is happy to agree that yes, a lot of its workforce is young. Good thing too, young people provide new ideas. With that, they bring a youthful zest that, in some instances, can get ahead of their sense of responsibility.

Despite this, however, is it right to say that young journalists “have not been trained properly”? Well, yes, I think it is. But then who’s training them? You’ll never be a good journalist until you are a practicing one. You can learn as much as you like, but until your in a real-life pressure situation, you can never know what the feeling is to be a real journalist. So, although I agree with him to a point, I feel it is the responsibility of media companies like the BBC, ITV et al to make sure they tune our skills to the level they’re after. Not chuck the blame when something goes wrong. If a building falls down, do you blame the building apprentice?
The comment I object to is: “They do not understand you do not lie to audiences at any time.” Please, Mr Grade, do not be daft. To think we’re not aware of the rights and wrongs of the broadcast world is very insulting. It borders on the painfully ironic too — Mr Grade and his peers are from the generation of journalists that will be remembered for losing the publics’ trust in the media.

There are two scenarios that I think could have happened regarding the trailer for the program. Perhaps the editor/producer in question got overexcited. The dream of a scoop whizzed around in his/her mind and temptation was too great, and, sadly for them, they let it cloud their judgment.

Or, it was an honest mistake.

Either way, it was one that should have been well and truly destroyed when it got to the senior editors at the BBC.

What is happening here is that ratings-chasing has led a rush to out-scoop each other. Mr Grade patronisingly says he “feels sorry” for the BBC. Personally, I feel sorry for Mr Grade. So clouded is his judgment is that he can’t see that everyone is to blame for events such as this. Blame the young by all means, but only when it’s justified. Coming from a broadcaster that would report the death of a village cat as “Cat murder happy-slap culture crisis” (or something…), I tend not to trust Mr Grade’s opinion all too much.

Free at last

July 4th, 2007

Inspirational news this morning: Alan Johnston has been freed.

I’ll be updating this post with my favourite picks from the press coverage of Johnston as and when I come across them.

[THE GUARDIAN] Conal Urquhart – Hamas’s latest coup

What next for Hamas? Alan’s release may lead to an alliance. I honestly can’t tell you if this is a good or bad thing.

[DAILY MAIL (no, really!)] John Humphrys – In this celebrity-obsessed age, Alan Johnston is a hero

“I can imagine (but only just) buying a newspaper without any comment in it – though it would be very, very dull. I cannot imagine buying a newspaper without any news in it,” says Humphrys, highlighting the need for more recognition for reporters like Alan rather than overpaid, underworked columnists like himself. Only kidding John, I love your work, but there are plenty of columnists who really don’t deserve that great big pay cheque. Great piece.

[THE TIMES] Editorial – Shining a Light

This is The Times’s leading article tomorrow, I think. It praises the continuous publcity surrounding Alan.

[BBC EDITORS] Jon Williams – Alan Johnston freed

Jon Williams is World news editor for the BBC, and in this entry he gives his reaction to Alan’s release. He also praises the worth of the BBC World Service, the radio station that Alan listened to — and gained support from — during his time in captivity.

If you’ve read anything decent surrounding Alan’s release, please comment.

‘Think Alan Johnston’

June 26th, 2007

I haven’t commented on the kidnapping of Alan Johnston yet on this blog. I felt that I couldn’t add anything significant to the global debate, so I opted to keep quiet.

But, after seeing the clip of him released by his captors yesterday, I feel I must comment now.

If you haven’t seen the footage, you can see it here.
Incredible. Alan Johnston has been in captivity for over 100 days now. Somehow, he delivered that piece to camera with extraordinary professionalism, clarity and bravery. He even keeps his journalistic morals intact. “My captors say” and “what they describe as” are two phrases that stuck out for me. Alan is being impartial, even at a time like this.

A member on a journalism message board I frequent wrote that it “made me sit up a bit straighter at my cosy desk”. A feeling I certainly agree with today.

There are times when I’ve been working, as a student, freelance or work experience fellow, and I’ve been scared to death to do things. Interviews with people that might be slightly scary. But now I have a different attitude. Next time I find myself confronted with a frightening situation, I will ‘Think Alan Johnston’ — for nothing I will ever do can compare to the sheer terror that Alan must be feeling each and every day.

I must always remember that.

Sign the BBC petition to release Alan Johnston here.

A sickening logo, and a [sic]kening response

June 5th, 2007

There; much better. I love how people get overly worked up about things like this. I’m especially happy now that I have a place where all those idiotic comments can be published for the whole world to see.

Here’s some of my favourites:

“Do the decent thing and give us a logo we can be proud of and not this national embarrassment.”

It’s not really that embarrassing, is it? No.

“The logo lacks elegance and style; two British attributes we are very fond of. Its cheesy and not at all professional – we’ll be the laughing stock of all who see it!”

Hmmm. I think more people will laugh when they see how much of a fuss has been made over it.

The Olympic logo is just like Britain these days — second rate!! One we were a proud nation, proud of our herriatage and everything we stood for. I feel ashamed to say that I am British if that monstrosity is the best we can come up with! If this is going to be a symbol of Britains Olymics, then I truly don’t want to be British any longer. “

I mean honestly — what a complete nonce. They’re not my spelling mistakes by the way. I just can’t be bothered being [sic] all over it.
Gotta love this one though:

“400 grand? I could have achieved the same thing with 10 pints of lager and a kebab.”

Ha!

Sure, I don’t like the logo. It’s naff. But I’m not losing sleep over it. I’m not packing my bags and un-Britishing myself because some designer got it wrong. If there’s one thing that this logo tells us all, it’s that British people are just completely silly.

The Big Bloated Corporation

June 3rd, 2007

Anyone who reads jBlog regularly will know that I’m a big fan of the BBC. As a nation we should be proud that we have an organisation that is so well respected across the world.

So I’m naturally disheartened to hear of imminent job cuts at the BBC.

The license fee settlement has, according to the Beeb, meant that journalists will be facing redundancy. It’s always a sad state of affairs to see this happen, but part of me wonders if the BBC simply employs too many people?

Take Five Live as an example. If you ever listen to their football coverage, you’ll notice how a ‘team’ of reporters covers every match. Is it too much to ask a team of one commentator and one analyst to do the whole match? I’ve heard some games covered by no less that six different people. Pure wastage, and I fail to see how it improves coverage in the slightest.

On a local level, radio coverage from the BBC is very good. Although, again, it could be cut back without hindering quality. On my local radio station, I enjoy listening to Mark Johnson’s commentary on Cambridge United’s games. It’s good — Mark is a long time United fan, so there is a sense of shared joy when the mighty U’s do well.

But our opposition, whoever it may be, will have their own commentary team covering the match too. Two BBC commentary teams commentating on the same match, at the same time. Why not combine the two? If Cambridge are playing Torquay, why not have Mark Johnson and his Torquay-based equivalent commentating together? Already you’ve saved on two analysts.

Apply this to Premiership games, when there will be no less than three commentary teams covering (each local station, and Five Live), and you’ve saved an absolute packet over the season.

And that’s just one example. I could go into the money-spending exercise that was changing the BBC idents to the ridiculous ones with the Hippos (how much did that cost?), or how pointless it is having a shivering Nick Robinson standing outside Downing Street, in the dark, telling us all that nothing has changed since the 6 o’clock bulletin.

I sympathise with the BBC. It’s not nice having to get rid of journalists. No doubt the NUJ will be on their back about this as well. Rightly so, those journalists affected need to be represented. But we should really be looking into how the BBC came to employ these surplus journalists in the first place.

Once that’s done, they can then start looking at how to earn more money from what it does already. Will an advert on BBC.com really be that bad? BBC.com is an attractive prospect for advertisers because it is a well-respected news source that people trust. So, with that in mind, I can’t see the advertisers offering much in the way of pressure on content. They’d want the BBC to stay exactly as it is.

What’s more, why should overseas internet users gain advertising-free access to a website that we — the license fee payer — have paid for?

If the BBC directs its efforts into trimming the excess, and maximising the assets it already has, this change need not be so drastic. We shouldn’t even notice it happening.

Thoughts?