open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Shame on the BBC
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Marisal
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:06:00 - [1]
 

http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/ITV-to-air-Gaza-appeal-amid-row-723183505.html

Regardless of what ppl thought about the conflict, this was a charity appeal for unaffiliated civilians I frankly find it disgusting that a broadcasting network that has a public service remit will not air the appeal. Yet will air coverage of the conflict

Asestorian
Domination.
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:09:00 - [2]
 

Does the BBC regularly air charity appeals for anything else? What other "disasters" (or whatever you want to call it) have they aired appeals for?

Marisal
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:13:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Marisal on 24/01/2009 18:14:10
Yes the bbc does air stuff for charities infact it its one of the biggest tv networks in the UK the does stuff in support of charities holding a number of annual or bi annual charity drives where the a large portion of the network becomes dedicated to providing programming specifically for the fund-raiser. Most notably children in need, comic relief, sports relief. All of which generate cash for a number of charities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/charityappeals/

if you want to learn more.

Shirley Serious
Amarr
The Khanid Sisters of Athra
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:33:00 - [4]
 

This is a political move, by the broadcasters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7848673.stm
"The BBC, ITV and Sky earlier agreed not to air the appeal."

By broadcasting the appeal, ITV and Sky (Sky is Murdoch) get to claim the moral high ground, and bash the BBC, furthering Rupert's plans to destroy all opposition to his media outlets.

Vabjekf
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:43:00 - [5]
 

makes sense to me. you can tell the BBC is in the right here because the arguments against them are not focusing at all on them trying to remain impartial but are just floods of emotional 'oh noes the sufferings!1' crap.

They are covering humanitarian aid so its not like they are trying to keep everyone's attention away from it. They must have seen the program and considered it to be biased in some way or another.

Marisal
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:44:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Shirley Serious
This is a political move, by the broadcasters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7848673.stm
"The BBC, ITV and Sky earlier agreed not to air the appeal."

By broadcasting the appeal, ITV and Sky (Sky is Murdoch) get to claim the moral high ground, and bash the BBC, furthering Rupert's plans to destroy all opposition to his media outlets.


Nice quote out of context there

lets look at the one that appears right below it "An ITV spokesman had said that no consensus could be reached among broadcasters, before announcing on Saturday that it would run the appeal. "

Tbh the bbc has more of a responsibility to air charity appeals than regardless of other channels as it is a direct part of their remit.

Fire Watch
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:52:00 - [7]
 

Lol

Marisal
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:52:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Vabjekf
makes sense to me. you can tell the BBC is in the right here because the arguments against them are not focusing at all on them trying to remain impartial but are just floods of emotional 'oh noes the sufferings!1' crap.

They are covering humanitarian aid so its not like they are trying to keep everyone's attention away from it. They must have seen the program and considered it to be biased in some way or another.


I seriously doubt the appeal is bias as it is produced by the DEC http://www.dec.org.uk/ A completely independent organisation responsible for charitable appeals.

Arguments against them are focusing on the claims the the BBC is trying to remain impartial infact many of the arguments are saying that refusing to air the charity appeal (not program) shows them as less than impartial. Please highlight the humanitarian coverage BBC has done for the recent gaza conflict other than straight up news stories.

Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction
The Firm.
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:57:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 24/01/2009 18:57:44
Originally by: Marisal
...does stuff in support of charities holding a number of annual or bi annual charity drives where the a large portion of the network becomes dedicated to providing programming specifically for the fund-raiser. Most notably children in need, comic relief, sports relief. All of which generate cash for a number of charities.

Those are scheduled events and have no political dimension. The subject in question is a topical event with a current heavy political loading, therefore something a government broadcaster might wish to avoid. If there is evidence the BBC ever broadcasted anything of the sort during events in Kosovo, DRC, Sudan, etc, and I know other networks did, then I might change my mind.

Vabjekf
Posted - 2009.01.24 19:10:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Marisal
Originally by: Vabjekf
makes sense to me. you can tell the BBC is in the right here because the arguments against them are not focusing at all on them trying to remain impartial but are just floods of emotional 'oh noes the sufferings!1' crap.

They are covering humanitarian aid so its not like they are trying to keep everyone's attention away from it. They must have seen the program and considered it to be biased in some way or another.


I seriously doubt the appeal is bias as it is produced by the DEC http://www.dec.org.uk/ A completely independent organisation responsible for charitable appeals.

Arguments against them are focusing on the claims the the BBC is trying to remain impartial infact many of the arguments are saying that refusing to air the charity appeal (not program) shows them as less than impartial. Please highlight the humanitarian coverage BBC has done for the recent gaza conflict other than straight up news stories.


The problem with these things is that they are covering a war. If you add in the 'human' element of a war, most people are not able to keep these things separate in their head and they get emotional and it works for or against one side or another even if that's not the intention.

Marisal
Posted - 2009.01.24 19:10:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Cmdr Sy
Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 24/01/2009 18:57:44
Originally by: Marisal
...does stuff in support of charities holding a number of annual or bi annual charity drives where the a large portion of the network becomes dedicated to providing programming specifically for the fund-raiser. Most notably children in need, comic relief, sports relief. All of which generate cash for a number of charities.

Those are scheduled events and have no political dimension. The subject in question is a topical event with a current heavy political loading, therefore something a government broadcaster might wish to avoid. If there is evidence the BBC ever broadcasted anything of the sort during events in Kosovo, DRC, Sudan, etc, and I know other networks did, then I might change my mind.


You can find details of those emergency appeals at the link below scroll to the bottom of the page to find a list of previous appeals and above is the information of what an emergency appeal consists of.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/charityappeals/emergency/

Captain Hudson
Caldari
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2009.01.24 19:17:00 - [12]
 

The whole point of the BBC is that they are impartial, therfore showing said advert would damage the claim that they are

Marisal
Posted - 2009.01.24 19:24:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Marisal on 24/01/2009 19:26:59
Originally by: Vabjekf
Originally by: Marisal
Originally by: Vabjekf
makes sense to me. you can tell the BBC is in the right here because the arguments against them are not focusing at all on them trying to remain impartial but are just floods of emotional 'oh noes the sufferings!1' crap.

They are covering humanitarian aid so its not like they are trying to keep everyone's attention away from it. They must have seen the program and considered it to be biased in some way or another.


I seriously doubt the appeal is bias as it is produced by the DEC http://www.dec.org.uk/ A completely independent organisation responsible for charitable appeals.

Arguments against them are focusing on the claims the the BBC is trying to remain impartial infact many of the arguments are saying that refusing to air the charity appeal (not program) shows them as less than impartial. Please highlight the humanitarian coverage BBC has done for the recent gaza conflict other than straight up news stories.


The problem with these things is that they are covering a war. If you add in the 'human' element of a war, most people are not able to keep these things separate in their head and they get emotional and it works for or against one side or another even if that's not the intention.


It could equally be argued though that failing to support a charitable appeal could also be seen as supporting one sides actions that have resulted in such tragedy though. It really isn't the networks position to choose how it will be interpreted, but rather decide if there is an actual bias in the appeal and air it if it isn't biased and meets the other criteria.

While I agree with you that it could probably be interpreted the way you state it can be quite easily looked at in a number of ways depending on how its presented. Commonly referred to in the political world as Spin.

Originally by: Captain Hudson
The whole point of the BBC is that they are impartial, therfore showing said advert would damage the claim that they are


But many see them not showing the appeal (which is purely for the civilians of gaza those not involved in the fighting) as not remaining impartial. Frankly a number of ppl no longer consider the BBC impartial

Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction
The Firm.
Posted - 2009.01.24 19:25:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Marisal
You can find details of those emergency appeals at the link below scroll to the bottom of the page to find a list of previous appeals and above is the information of what an emergency appeal consists of.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/charityappeals/emergency/

I note most are natural disasters, but the Sudanese, Liberian and DRC wars are on there. Double standards it is, then. They get to pick and choose who gets victimhood, huh. WTF. Confused

Shirley Serious
Amarr
The Khanid Sisters of Athra
Posted - 2009.01.24 19:51:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Marisal
Originally by: Shirley Serious
This is a political move, by the broadcasters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7848673.stm
"The BBC, ITV and Sky earlier agreed not to air the appeal."

By broadcasting the appeal, ITV and Sky (Sky is Murdoch) get to claim the moral high ground, and bash the BBC, furthering Rupert's plans to destroy all opposition to his media outlets.


Nice quote out of context there

lets look at the one that appears right below it "An ITV spokesman had said that no consensus could be reached among broadcasters, before announcing on Saturday that it would run the appeal. "

Tbh the bbc has more of a responsibility to air charity appeals than regardless of other channels as it is a direct part of their remit.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7846150.stm

This is when the decision was made. Observe the date of the article.
"Page last updated at 23:16 GMT, Thursday, 22 January 2009"

Thursday. The broadcasters all agreed on Thursday, not to air the appeal.

Now, observe this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7846625.stm
"On Friday, Israel lifted a ban on international aid agencies entering the Palestinian territory."

So, at the time when the decision was made, as well as any concern about impartiality, any aid raised would not have reached the area.

There's still no guarantees that any aid raised will get to where it's needed, it's still massively controversial, but now ITV sees it can make a news story about the BBC not showing it.


A politically sensitive appeal to raise funds that there's a real probability will not delivered?

I doubt that any broadcaster should support such an appeal.

Eran Laude
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2009.01.24 20:34:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Eran Laude on 24/01/2009 20:35:34
Originally by: Cmdr Sy
Originally by: Marisal
You can find details of those emergency appeals at the link below scroll to the bottom of the page to find a list of previous appeals and above is the information of what an emergency appeal consists of.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/charityappeals/emergency/

I note most are natural disasters, but the Sudanese, Liberian and DRC wars are on there. Double standards it is, then. They get to pick and choose who gets victimhood, huh. WTF. Confused


Those wars are fringe conflicts at best with next to no media attention, beyond several articles in the first few days. The plight of people in Gaza is well-documented by the BBC through many news bulletins and articles - it certainly isn't pro-Israeli by any stretch of the imagination when on tonight's news there was a report about UN schools in the Strip re-opening that ended with a picture of a little Palestinian girl crying about an Israeli chopper blowing her brother up right next to her.

As it is still front-page news from a highly divided and troubled area of the world, it's probably better to not throw in their lot with one of the two sides so that it is able to maintain the ability to talk to Israelis - who, let's face it, have also been attacked and persecuted heavily over the past 60 years. Remember the job of the BBC is to "inform, educate and entertain" - generally inform when it comes to the news. If, while the war is still fresh, appealing about the citizens of Gaza would damage the neutrality and impartiality that is evidenced in most pieces of international BBC reporting, and not being able to do the duty to the public that it gets paid for, then it's not worth running the DEC piece. Remember, other UK broadcasters are not publicly funded and do not have to fulfil a mandate to the British people, whereas the BBC has to justify it's licence fee. Maintaining a neutral stance is a cornerstone of it's receipt of the licence fee every year, so if it were to endanger that through airing a controversial topic such as this, thus potentially losing money from the licence fee, it would be less able to provide quality programming.

TL;DR: Remember, the BBC is not a charity, it is not in its mandate to provide free airtime for charities and it has to provide a public service with neutral, unbiased reporting as one aspect. Other broadcasters are more able to dictate what they show, as they are only really regulated by their editors and Ofcom. However, I would argue that all other British broadcasters are really just a load of unadulterated turd atmo.

Marisal
Posted - 2009.01.24 20:38:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Shirley Serious

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7846150.stm

This is when the decision was made. Observe the date of the article.
"Page last updated at 23:16 GMT, Thursday, 22 January 2009"

Thursday. The broadcasters all agreed on Thursday, not to air the appeal.

Now, observe this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7846625.stm
"On Friday, Israel lifted a ban on international aid agencies entering the Palestinian territory."

So, at the time when the decision was made, as well as any concern about impartiality, any aid raised would not have reached the area.

There's still no guarantees that any aid raised will get to where it's needed, it's still massively controversial, but now ITV sees it can make a news story about the BBC not showing it.


A politically sensitive appeal to raise funds that there's a real probability will not delivered?

I doubt that any broadcaster should support such an appeal.


Aid would have been delivered by the UN regardless, plus allowing humanitarian aid in was part of the ceasefire. The appeal wouldn't have been launched by the DEC which includes charities such as The british red cross, oxfam, Christian aid, Islamic relief.

ITV is not the only one reporting this news
Channel 4

Sky News

Reuters

Not to mention the BBC is been criticised by senior and well respected (heh hard thing these days) MP's and an independent charity commission.

Also the appeal is not politically sensitive, it is to provide aid to the civilians caught in the crossfire.

Marisal
Posted - 2009.01.24 21:00:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Eran Laude
Those wars are fringe conflicts at best with next to no media attention, beyond several articles in the first few days. The plight of people in Gaza is well-documented by the BBC through many news bulletins and articles - it certainly isn't pro-Israeli by any stretch of the imagination when on tonight's news there was a report about UN schools in the Strip re-opening that ended with a picture of a little Palestinian girl crying about an Israeli chopper blowing her brother up right next to her.

Funnily they got plenty of coverage on the BBC look in the site new archives
Originally by: Eran Laude

As it is still front-page news from a highly divided and troubled area of the world, it's probably better to not throw in their lot with one of the two sides so that it is able to maintain the ability to talk to Israelis - who, let's face it, have also been attacked and persecuted heavily over the past 60 years. Remember the job of the BBC is to "inform, educate and entertain" - generally inform when it comes to the news. If, while the war is still fresh, appealing about the citizens of Gaza would damage the neutrality and impartiality that is evidenced in most pieces of international BBC reporting, and not being able to do the duty to the public that it gets paid for, then it's not worth running the DEC piece. Remember, other UK broadcasters are not publicly funded and do not have to fulfil a mandate to the British people, whereas the BBC has to justify it's licence fee. Maintaining a neutral stance is a cornerstone of it's receipt of the licence fee every year, so if it were to endanger that through airing a controversial topic such as this, thus potentially losing money from the licence fee, it would be less able to provide quality programming.

Other channels including 4 do get a small cut of the licence fee for public information programs (tbh some of the time i think the moneys better spent there) As for justifying the licence fee.... that's been brought into question alot of late... phone scams, competition scams, behaviour of certain highest paid entertainers.

Originally by: Eran Laude

TL;DR: Remember, the BBC is not a charity, it is not in its mandate to provide free airtime for charities and it has to provide a public service with neutral, unbiased reporting as one aspect. Other broadcasters are more able to dictate what they show, as they are only really regulated by their editors and Ofcom. However, I would argue that all other British broadcasters are really just a load of unadulterated turd atmo.


Quoted from the BBC Website "The BBC has broadcast appeals for individual charities since 1927. Appeals are an important part of our remit as a public service broadcaster, and relate to the BBC's broader involvement in social action broadcasting, coverage of the work of the voluntary sector and policies on corporate social responsibility."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/charityappeals/about/

annoing
Amarr
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.01.24 22:21:00 - [19]
 

Some clarification:

The appeal being mentioned centers on the fact of the recent incursion by the Isrealis into Gaza. Because of this slant to the appeal it looks as though the appeal is saying "look what those isrealis did here". It therefore has a political slant and the BBC does NOT show political charitable appeals. Apart from anything else, its in their broadcast remit NOT to take sides or show one view over another WITHOUT the opposing side having the oppotunity to reply.
So, would you like the isrealis to make an appeal for charitable financial help to give aid to those whose homes were hit by palistinian rockets? Because that is what it would take. If the appeal was made without the mention of the war it WOULD be broadcast.

Also, while the license payers money is given to ALL the channels for the purpose of 'public infomation films', C4 is a non profit station and recieves any shortfall from advertising revenue etc directly from the license fee. If you see any outside broadcast via C4 it is with using BBC equipment, cameras, BBC employed cameramen etc etc. C4 do NOT own any of that equipment themselves and rely wholy on BBC technology. I know that to be true because I did all the courier work for TGI Friday (on C4) and for C4 News outside broadcasts (where I would run film back to the C4 building near Victoria St.) BTW, I was employed by the BBC at the time.


Raktar Medovski
Gallente
Burning Nights
Posted - 2009.01.24 22:28:00 - [20]
 

In b4 "TEH EVIL ZIONIST CONSPIRACY" people.

bff Jill
Posted - 2009.01.24 22:34:00 - [21]
 

The wounded civilians are part of the war in that they are some of the ammunition Hamas is using to fight back.

Its obvious you cant hide behind civilians anymore for safety, so the only reason to still do it is to intentionally get them damaged for negative PR of your enemy.

Therefore showing them, as long as they are kept entwined in the situation in this way, would be like giving free munitions to one side.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.01.24 23:00:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: bff Jill
The wounded civilians are part of the war in that they are some of the ammunition Hamas is using to fight back.

Its obvious you cant hide behind civilians anymore for safety, so the only reason to still do it is to intentionally get them damaged for negative PR of your enemy.

Therefore showing them, as long as they are kept entwined in the situation in this way, would be like giving free munitions to one side.


Then we should also stop Israeli spokespersons from appearing on tv because that (with an even slicker charcoal-grey image) may entwine us in the situation?

bff Jill
Posted - 2009.01.24 23:04:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: bff Jill
The wounded civilians are part of the war in that they are some of the ammunition Hamas is using to fight back.

Its obvious you cant hide behind civilians anymore for safety, so the only reason to still do it is to intentionally get them damaged for negative PR of your enemy.

Therefore showing them, as long as they are kept entwined in the situation in this way, would be like giving free munitions to one side.


Then we should also stop Israeli spokespersons from appearing on tv because that (with an even slicker charcoal-grey image) may entwine us in the situation?


Yes. Besides we don't need to do that anyway, they already have their own youtube channel. You can hear their stuff straight from them with out having to watch commercials or listen to idiot reporters say silly things.

Once fighting stops then people can cover whatever they want. report nothing more than numbers, statistics, positions, etc currently.

But its not like the news really knows much of what its talking about anyway because israel is not talking to them this time around, as i said, they just got their own youtube channel for this purpose=P

Xrak
Pat Sharp's Potato Rodeo
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.01.24 23:04:00 - [24]
 

I agree fully with the BBC's decision.

They have covered the conflict and I feel they have shown it in an unbias and fair way. If people really want to send money then it really would not have been hard to find out where to send it.


sakana
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.01.24 23:55:00 - [25]
 

look at that ITV smear campaign.



Irulan S'Dijana
Amarr
Drexler Burnum Inc.
Rising Phoenix Alliance
Posted - 2009.01.25 00:51:00 - [26]
 

I fully support the BBC in this.

I think one of the underlying problems is that unlike many conflicts, the civilian casualties are very lopsided. Indeed, any Israeli civ casualties wouldn't need any sort of international aid response. Therefore any advertisement would be focused on relieving the suffering of Palestinian civs.

Can you imagine a self-professed neutral network broadcasting a bunch of ads which appeal for aid solely for the Palestinian side? It would look amazingly lopsided.

Xen Gin
Silurian Operations
Posted - 2009.01.25 00:53:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Xen Gin on 25/01/2009 00:53:26
Murdoch tries a lot of **** like this. He can't compete with the BBC, so he's trying to bring it down.

Don ZOLA
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.01.25 01:17:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Xrak
I agree fully with the BBC's decision.

They have covered the conflict and I feel they have shown it in an unbias and fair way.


lol, unfortunately BBC was never objective and unbiased TV to start with. Dunno why would they change it now :)

Captain Hudson
Caldari
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2009.01.25 02:26:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Xen Gin
Edited by: Xen Gin on 25/01/2009 00:53:26
Murdoch tries a lot of **** like this. He can't compete with the BBC, so he's trying to bring it down.


i didnt know the BBC was even something to compete with judging by 99% of the programmes they show

Xen Gin
Silurian Operations
Posted - 2009.01.25 03:37:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Xen Gin on 25/01/2009 03:38:49
Originally by: Captain Hudson
Originally by: Xen Gin
Edited by: Xen Gin on 25/01/2009 00:53:26
Murdoch tries a lot of **** like this. He can't compete with the BBC, so he's trying to bring it down.


i didnt know the BBC was even something to compete with judging by 99% of the programmes they show



There aren't many home grown brilliant shows in UK television on the six major channels (5 + Sky), but in my opinion about 80% of them are made or commissioned by the BBC. Other channels like Sky are full of imports from the US, and ITV and Channel Five are in debt and are laying off jobs, and increasingly filling slots with reality TV and other drivel.

And Not forgetting BBC's iPlayer, which is miles better than the programmes the others have cobbled together in a hurry to cash in.


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only