Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

BBC's shoddy journalism prejudices murder enquiry

And the Beeb report it as if they're right to break the law!

Time to shut them down, as yet again they act contrary to all public interest whilst sucking copiously from the public tit.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Time to shut them down, as yet again they act contrary to all public interest whilst sucking copiously from the public tit.

    300px-BroadmoorRecordRuin.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *beam*

    Someone had to.
  • littlemissylittlemissy Posts: 9,972 Supreme Poster
    Normally, I am not that fussed about the BBC or anything that they do in general. However, I did get very annoyed about the reporting of the murder suspect. This man is now going to have this hanging over him for a very long time, even if he is released without charge. Really dislike the way the whole thing has been handled.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Agree with littlemissy

    I do not understand why the media should be allowed to report any details of suspects in criminal investigations.

    Apart from the problems of prejudicing the trila it is grossly unfair to anyone who is found innocent but may remain tainted by the allegations made about them and broadcast to the world by our horrible media.

    i cannot see why any such details are 'in the public interest'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No it isn't in the public interest. And whenever something like this happens those responsible should be given a monumental fine at the least.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought they didn't have the right to name a suspect until they were put on trial and found guilty?
  • littlemissylittlemissy Posts: 9,972 Supreme Poster
    Sofie wrote:
    I thought they didn't have the right to name a suspect until they were put on trial and found guilty?
    The police haven't named the suspects, it is the media who have named them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    No it isn't in the public interest. And whenever something like this happens those responsible should be given a monumental fine at the least.

    And with the BBC that comes out of my pocket. As fucking usual.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's hardly just the BBC who has been reporting..but I do agree that a lot of the stuff I've seen broadcast/printed about the first suspect could be prejudical. When I did my journalism training we learned a lot about the dangers of reporting anything potentially prejudical once a case was active (ie someone had been arrested)..so it's a bit strange to see all these big media organisations seemingly ignoring the rules.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Out of interest, how does an interview where someone doesn't admit to killing these women amount to predjudice of any case against him in the future?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because it is putting circumstantial evidence in the public domain with the inent of making him appear guilty, something which will impact on the impartiality of any jury.

    It's grossly unprofessional.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm confused, I saw the end of Newsnight last night and the presenter said: "We are going to look at tomorrow's papers now but we can't look at some because they are about the Ispwich murders."

    Have the BBC been warned off?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's the BBC just being pricks about it.

    As usual.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    That's the BBC just being pricks about it.

    As usual.
    Of course if newspapers weren't the biggest pricks of them all and insisted on prejudicing cases with their sensationalist accusatory headlines, the BBC wouldn't have to worry about showing the front pages on TV in the first place.

    Funny how you don't find much time or space to point this out. Your mate's Rupert Murdoch's red-top tabloid, the Soaraway S*n, even published a photograph of the man now charged with the murders (a photograph in which he was jokingly strangling a woman at a party).

    Such antics are a trillion times worse than the BBC has ever done. A a trillion times more frequent too.

    But it's not the evil Auntie doing them so of course it's best to pretend they didn't take place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The worst culprit was the Guardian, which I attacked for it before, in case you didn't notice.

    What's Murdoch got to do with owt? Murdoch (for all his faults) doesn't send me to prison if I don't pay him.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well you seem to give the evil dirty digger a far easier ride than the BBC. Which is funny really, considering that for every instance of 'shoddy journalism' the BBC allegedly commits, and which you are fast as a shooting star to point out to the world, the Murdoch press commits 100 more, which almost invariably go unreported.

    We know you hate the BBC with a passion but it is still thousands of times better and more professional than anything else in the media world so if we were to close it down for its wrongdoings the rest of the press and TV and radio broadcasters would have been shut down decades ago.

    Time to chill out a bit with Auntie... with Xmas upon us and all... ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Well you seem to give the evil dirty digger a far easier ride than the BBC. Which is funny really, considering that for every instance of 'shoddy journalism' the BBC allegedly commits, and which you are fast as a shooting star to point out to the world, the Murdoch press commits 100 more, which almost invariably go unreported.

    The Dirty Digger cannot send me to prison for not paying him. That is the crux of the matter.

    If the BBC wants to bleed my wallet dry it needs to be responsible. It isn't. So it can fuck off and pay for itself.

    Still, good to see that Gordon's seen sense- looks like they're going bust soon anyway :hyper:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The Dirty Digger cannot send me to prison for not paying him. That is the crux of the matter.
    The BBC doesn't send anyone to prison either.

    If you have an issue with that you should be talking to the government or the judges who hand out such sentences.
    If the BBC wants to bleed my wallet dry
    Doesn't take much to dry your wallet does it?
    it needs to be responsible. It isn't. So it can fuck off and pay for itself.
    Seeing as the BBC broadcatsts 24 hours a day, 365 days a week in hundreds of TV and radio channels and that you can only manage to find and post here a bad story once in a blue moon, I'd say the BBC is doing an extremely good a responsible job.

    Naturally no company, business, individual or group is 100% perfect. Such thing is impossible. But that doesn't mean there is no such thing as a responsible company on Earth of course. Trust you to go about the very, very, very rare instances in which there has been a fuck up in order to justify your calls for the removal of the licence fee.

    Luckily, other than the odd free marketeer and right winger, few people agree with your views.
    Still, good to see that Gordon's seen sense- looks like they're going bust soon anyway :hyper:
    Don't worry, the BBC won't go bust and the licence will stay.

    The quality of programmes might go down as a result. But doubtless you don't mind that. Indeed, I get the feeling you'd be happy as hell in a cultural wasteland where the only things on offer on the telly are America's Dumbest Criminals, Dream Team and Big Brother if it means you don't have to pay the licence.

    The funny thing of course is that you'd end up paying that amount- and probably a lot more- thanks to the extra pennies that will go into every single product you buy to cover the all-important advertising budgets of companies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unfortunately I don't see any other way of preserving the BBC for what it is: the finest broacasting institution on the planet and an invaluable cultural asset to this country that cannot be overstated.

    If we could ensure the current standards, output and quality would be preserved I'd be more than happy to get rid of the licence. But I don't think such thing exists. Even a combination of subscription and adverts would not be enough.

    The bottom line is, once you introduce adverts you are regulated by commercial pressure and ratings. The more one cares about ratings, the more downmarket the product becomes. As poor ITV demonstrates.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't paying for the BBC that's the problem; it's how it's paid for.

    Do you mean you see it as a moral issue ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and they wanted the liscence fee to go up beyond inflation as well.

    robbing bastards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Time to shut them down, as yet again they act contrary to all public interest whilst sucking copiously from the public tit.
    Everyone makes mistakes. The BBC needs money form the public otherwise it wouldn’t be as accountable to the public.

    This could be one of the main reason Kermit is so pissed about the BBC and not simply because he is required to pay for the tv licence (or partisan views) but because he is required to pay for the license and feels like he is not getting the value for, in this case, the journalism. Because other media sources rely on private/advertising money to fund themselves, Kermit and other such people may not exhibit the same amount of intent in criticising other media networks (apart from partisan views). After all, we are not obliged to pay for them. See the difference?
    Normally, I am not that fussed about the BBC or anything that they do in general. However, I did get very annoyed about the reporting of the murder suspect. This man is now going to have this hanging over him for a very long time, even if he is released without charge. Really dislike the way the whole thing has been handled.
    I agree that the way the media in general and not just the BBC, as have been in past incidents, handled the reporting was quite careless.

    What would be hanging over his head though? is it, that he was suspected of murder? Wouldn’t that be because of the police? What about others that have been suspected in other cases, but is cleared? Should we be sympathetic to them? This is how the police investigative system is, isn’t it? Should there be a way of rectifying any damage caused to those that have been suspected but later cleared? If so, how so? Should the media then apologise to this man? He did seem rather proud to disclose his relationship with the girls to the press.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bit unrelated i know, but it disgusts me how they can get away with stuff like this by saying it's "in the public interest". (as that bbc article does)

    We had a bit of shit with newspapers stealing our photographs a while back, and they got away with it by saying just that.

    Fucking journalists, paracitic bastards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What is of public interest and what interests the public are two entirely different things. But of course the media will print/broadcast all sorts of shit because of the latter while claiming it is because of the former.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The BBC doesn't send anyone to prison either.

    Yes, it does.

    If I watch a competitor of the BBC without paying the BBC then I will be fined £1000 (which goes into the BBC's coffers) and threatened with imprisonment if I then fail to pay the BBC. People do get sent to prison for failing to pay the BBC Tax.

    If I buy the Sunday Mirror without first buying the News of the Screws then the Dirty Digger gives me a free DVD to try and tempt me back.

    See the difference?

    The way the BBC is funded actively prevents public accountability. If I disagree with something that a private company does I withdraw my trade from them- if everyone agrees with me that private company goes bankrupt. If I disagree with something that the BBC does, however, I am legally unable to withdraw my trade from them without being imprisoned.

    I have no particular problem with the BBC's output, it is no better or worse than any other TV channel. But I should be given the choice of buying it. After all, if its so fantastic, everyone will.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Yes, it does.

    If I watch a competitor of the BBC without paying the BBC then I will be fined £1000 (which goes into the BBC's coffers) and threatened with imprisonment if I then fail to pay the BBC. People do get sent to prison for failing to pay the BBC Tax.

    If I buy the Sunday Mirror without first buying the News of the Screws then the Dirty Digger gives me a free DVD to try and tempt me back.

    See the difference?
    No, actually I don't. The BBC is in the business of broadcasting, not serving justice.

    Whether people get sent to jail or not for not paying the licence has nothing to do with the BBC. That's up to the judges or the law. Take up with them if you must.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    No, actually I don't. The BBC is in the business of broadcasting, not serving justice.

    The BBC sets the law, and the BBC prosecutes.

    Unless you think that by calling its enforcement arm something else it is absolved of all responsibility?

    Maybe I should try that. I should set up an extortion body called "Kermit Licensing" and then imprison people who don't pay me- do you think the judges will let me off?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does the BBC hand down sentences?

    Does it demand that people be jailed for the offence of not paying the licence?

    No.

    So let's not pretend otherwise please.

    Happy Xmas by the way! :)
Sign In or Register to comment.