BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.

[Alan Fry]

Yet again, another reason why the BBC should have 100% control of the licence fee, This is nothing more than a attempt to keep Murdoch happy.

All this will do is reduce quality in the BBC and further reduce quality news and current affairs!

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Sadly there was a time when reading the same facts in more than one newspaper actually meant that the story was likely to be true.Now it just means they use the same sources..

What about news agencies like Associated Press and Retuers?

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Yet again, another reason why the BBC should have 100% control of the licence fee, This is nothing more than a attempt to keep Murdoch happy.

All this will do is reduce quality in the BBC and further reduce quality news and current affairs!

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------


What about news agencies like Associated Press and Retuers?

I reiterate that you really should read Flat Earth News by Nick Davis..


The modern day press barons have screwed as much profit out of every news source to the point that each and every news agency(national or international) is cut to the bone staff wise and there are not enough bodies on the ground actually doing any research or sourcing of real actual news.

Reuters is a pale shadow of the once stellar organisation it once was.

Today's papers tend to stea...errr repeat the news from other papers or just make them up or use press releases from PAs trying to promote the interests of a company,political party or product.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Yet again, another reason why the BBC should have 100% control of the licence fee, This is nothing more than a attempt to keep Murdoch happy.

Rubbish

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Rubbish

What a surprise!!!

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I think some of you should read Flat Earth News by Nick Davis.

You might start to appreciate just how the gathering of everyday news has been cheapened by the cut throat press barons who demand high turnover and churn at the expense of actually ethically sourcing the news.
This is the reason why every newspaper and news channel and radio news has exactly the damned same news stories.They basically all go to the same flawed sources where cutting costs is the motto rather than getting the news.At least the BBC has had the financial ability to try and source news ethically.That is up until Murdoch putting his size 9s all over influencing the present government over the cuts to the BBC's funding.

I remember reading in an article by Private Eye about the myth the 24 hour rolling news is good.

Well, on a basic level, and ignoring the repetitive nature of it, it is. It is handy to be able to turn on the TV at any time and get a quick run through of what's happening in the world.

The problems start when there is a big news item. Private Eye gave the example of the BBC's coverage of the last Gulf war. The BBC and Sky apparently both had so much footage coming in that they were both playing footage on the channel without anyone with journalistic experience seeing and verifying it to be correct.

Part of that problem was a complete lack of qualified journalists.

I remember one night, I was watching ITV news, and for 45 minutes, their complete news coverage was live night vision video of a road in Iraq, which the news reader not apparently knowing what was happening but furiously scrambling to come up with "facts" to keep the viewer interested.

Anyway, I digress..

Part of the problem for the BBC is that it's competition is very powerful (or was ). The Daily Mail and Murdoch in particular. Two organisations that will happily use their complete range of media outlets to publically criticise the BBC whenever it does anything even slightly dodgy while remaining oddly uncritical of each others own transgressions. Think about that for a second.. When have you *ever* seen a tabloid (apart from the Mirror, which does seem happy to criticise others) criticise another tabloid?

I think this thread indicates something i thing is a problem for the media in general. It takes time, money and personnel to investigate good stories. Indeed, it can take months and thousands of pounds.

The broadsheets do apparently still do this, but the tabloids have worked out it's cheaper to fill their pages with pictures of z list slebs doing any kind of random crap that will get them a column inch or two, and fill the rest of the paper with Sport and their own agenda disguised as news.

I just hope the BBC don't do that.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I reiterate that you really should read Flat Earth News by Nick Davis.

I would do, but I fear it might depress me too much

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I reiterate that you really should read Flat Earth News by Nick Davis..


The modern day press barons have screwed as much profit out of every news source to the point that each and every news agency(national or international) is cut to the bone staff wise and there are not enough bodies on the ground actually doing any research or sourcing of real actual news.

Reuters is a pale shadow of the once stellar organisation it once was.

Today's papers tend to stea...errr repeat the news from other papers or just make them up or use press releases from PAs trying to promote the interests of a company,political party or product.

I meant that since the beginning of News Agencies, Newspapers share stories because they get it from the same source (news agencies) for the past 100 years or so.

We need more non-profit news sources and the BBC is one of them, it about time the media was taken control by BBC-style companies

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

We need more non-profit news sources and the BBC is one of them, it about time the media was taken control by BBC-style companies

And the ones you would like are not those that the majority would like i can bet.


Maybe you should show them your twitter feed i am sure they can get a story or two from that

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

And the ones you would like are not those that the majority would like i can bet.


Maybe you should show them your twitter feed i am sure they can get a story or two from that

What do you mean the majority, have you asked what news outlet do thet like?

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

I meant that since the beginning of News Agencies, Newspapers share stories because they get it from the same source (news agencies) for the past 100 years or so.

We need more non-profit news sources and the BBC is one of them, it about time the media was taken control by BBC-style companies

The problem with your socialist view of the world (assuming you do actually believe what you say and aren't making it up) is that you see people as passive and that they need to be spoon fed your twisted version of reality.

The reason that Murdoch is successful is not because of some crazy mind control that he has over people. Break it down to the basic level and then you see that his organisations deliver exactly what people want in a format that they want. He isn't subliminally controlling the masses - he is simply giving them exactly what they want through his outlets.

If people didn't want it they wouldn't have it. The problem with your world view is that you can't place the responsibility at the individual. If people wanted better news they would vote with their feet and get it.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

The problem with your socialist view of the world (assuming you do actually believe what you say and aren't making it up) is that you see people as passive and that they need to be spoon fed your twisted version of reality.

The reason that Murdoch is successful is not because of some crazy mind control that he has over people. Break it down to the basic level and then you see that his organisations deliver exactly what people want in a format that they want. He isn't subliminally controlling the masses - he is simply giving them exactly what they want through his outlets.

If people didn't want it they wouldn't have it. The problem with your world view is that you can't place the responsibility at the individual. If people wanted better news they would vote with their feet and get it.

Since when have I suggested that Rupert Murdoch has mind control over people? (Unless he is a member of the Jedi )

Anyway, he took control of Britains highest selling newspaper and used it to his ends, Murdoch (and other media outlets) do deals with poltical parties so that he gets what he wants and in return his newspapers express his poltical views

Now media giants have the power to control policy, A lot of people beleve in what the media say's, so you cannot say that media giants have no influence over people opinions

Remember the term:

"Your Provide the Pictures, I will provide the War"

The trouble is that people have got used to a system and they don't like chance (its a human instinct), but when it comes to a point where they have no hope in life, that can chage pretty fast

I would not describe myself as a socialist, they are too corrputed by many things (including links with Islamists) and by the way, I want a un-biased media!

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

I would not describe myself as a socialist, they are too corrputed by many things (including links with Islamists) and by the way, I want a un-biased media!

Then start at home with your biased view of the world.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Since when have I suggested that Rupert Murdoch has mind control over people? (Unless he is a member of the Jedi )

Anyway, he took control of Britains highest selling newspaper and used it to his ends, Murdoch (and other media outlets) do deals with poltical parties so that he gets what he wants and in return his newspapers express his poltical views

Now media giants have the power to control policy, A lot of people beleve in what the media say's, so you cannot say that media giants have no influence over people opinions

Remember the term:

"Your Provide the Pictures, I will provide the War"

The trouble is that people have got used to a system and they don't like chance (its a human instinct), but when it comes to a point where they have no hope in life, that can chage pretty fast

I would not describe myself as a socialist, they are too corrputed by many things (including links with Islamists) and by the way, I want a un-biased media!

Error!

When Rupert Murdoch bought the Sun newspaper in 1969, its circulation was in decline, and it was haemorrhaging money - he turned it from a broadsheet into a tabloid, and into the biggest selling newspaper by giving people what they thought they wanted (including page 3)....

[LexDiamond]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Since when have I suggested that Rupert Murdoch has mind control over people? (Unless he is a member of the Jedi )

Anyway, he took control of Britains highest selling newspaper and used it to his ends, Murdoch (and other media outlets) do deals with poltical parties so that he gets what he wants and in return his newspapers express his poltical views

Now media giants have the power to control policy, A lot of people beleve in what the media say's, so you cannot say that media giants have no influence over people opinions

Remember the term:

"Your Provide the Pictures, I will provide the War"

The trouble is that people have got used to a system and they don't like chance (its a human instinct), but when it comes to a point where they have no hope in life, that can chage pretty fast

I would not describe myself as a socialist, they are too corrputed by many things (including links with Islamists) and by the way, I want a un-biased media!

There you go again suggesting that the media controls people. No it does not!

People have minds of their own. You are confusing the facts here. Media giants are big because they provide a product that people want and not because they brainwash people into their point of view.

There is no such thing as bias free media. Everyone has an opinion, including journalists. People buy Murdochs media because his media shares the persons point of view and not because they are trying to buy in to his way of thinking - they already think the same he does on those issues.

His political influence, or any other outlets influence for that matter, is due to the fact that they know that their consumer base supports their view. It really is that simple.

If tomorrow Murdochs outlet headlines 'Lets all be paedos', will Britain become a nation of paedophiles? Under your world view yes, but in reality no because at this point the view of the consumer and media outlet would differ so the consumers vote with their feet and find a more appropriate media outlet.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Then start at home with your biased view of the world.

We are all biased anyway

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Error!

When Rupert Murdoch bought the Sun newspaper in 1969, its circulation was in decline, and it was haemorrhaging money - he turned it from a broadsheet into a tabloid, and into the biggest selling newspaper by giving people what they thought they wanted (including page 3)....

True, but as first he did not change its political viewpoint, until he did a deal with the Tories, in return, they did things in his favour (by then it was the UK's highest selling newspaper). That has been the case for 30 years

Remember what happen to a certain Neil Kinnock?

---------- Post added at 12:15 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

Originally Posted by LexDiamond

There you go again suggesting that the media controls people. No it does not!

People have minds of their own. You are confusing the facts here. Media giants are big because they provide a product that people want and not because they brainwash people into their point of view.

There is no such thing as bias free media. Everyone has an opinion, including journalists. People buy Murdochs media because his media shares the persons point of view and not because they are trying to buy in to his way of thinking - they already think the same he does on those issues.

His political influence, or any other outlets influence for that matter, is due to the fact that they know that their consumer base supports their view. It really is that simple.

If tomorrow Murdochs outlet headlines 'Lets all be paedos', will Britain become a nation of paedophiles? Under your world view yes, but in reality no because at this point the view of the consumer and media outlet would differ so the consumers vote with their feet and find a more appropriate media outlet.

I am not suggesting the media controls people, but it the information it gives to them can be manipulated in their favour (both left wing and right wing have done this)

The reason is he has political influence is that the biased info they have given their readers (the Daily Mail and Express do the same) has helped them share the same political views as the newspaper they read

Also they use they popularity to lobby for political change (Sarah's Law for example), I don't think Murdoch will ever suggest that about being Paedos, because of their long campaigns against them, then there are the close links between Press and government...