Another BBC jamboree..bless
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
It's rubbish, isn't it - having World Affairs reporters travelling to the parts of the world they are reporting on. I mean, no other news organisation does it, do they?
so back to the original point if this thread. Did you watch that link and fo you think that we as TV tax payers got value from sending a team to reunion? Nothing we didn't already know Eric, Be far too much pain for you to look at something objectively and judge this one thread on its merits. The piece was crap and poor value to boot.
To have to admit that other people may have a point even in one instance must cause you pain or something much easier to just accuse everybody of hating everything the BBC.
To have to admit that other people may have a point even in one instance must cause you pain or something much easier to just accuse everybody of hating everything the BBC.
Don't get me wrong, I mostly love the BBC, I think it's a marvellous institution in the main. It produces programmes the quality of which you won't find anywhere else in the world. I don't begrudge paying the licence fee either.
However there are aspects of how it's run and the quality/bias of some of the output that pisses me right off.
However there are aspects of how it's run and the quality/bias of some of the output that pisses me right off.
hornetrider said:
Don't get me wrong, I mostly love the BBC, I think it's a marvellous institution in the main. It produces programmes the quality of which you won't find anywhere else in the world. I don't begrudge paying the licence fee either.
However there are aspects of how it's run and the quality/bias of some of the output that pisses me right off.
Absolutely. No organisation is perfect.However there are aspects of how it's run and the quality/bias of some of the output that pisses me right off.
Obviously, because we pay a licence fee we have a proprietorial interest in the BBC - but you cannot run an organisation trying to take into account the views of each and every person who uses it or pays for it. It's just unrealistic.
There will be times when a report on the BBC, or a programme or a radio show doesn't chime with my world view. So what. I don't care. It's not going to ruin my day or raise by blood pressure.
Eric Mc said:
So - it's an important anniversary. It causes me not one problem.
Eric Mc said:
I don't really care to be honest.
It's not that important in the big scheme. There are far more important issues to get wound up about.
It's not that important in the big scheme. There are far more important issues to get wound up about.
Eric Mc said:
As I said, I prefer to worry about things that really affect and upset me. Sending Peter Allan to Hiroshima is not one of those things.
Eric Mc said:
So what. I don't care. It's not going to ruin my day or raise by blood pressure.
How many times do you need to post the same thing? 
We get it. Let someone else have a go.
DMN said:
Are you really getting upset about that?
Really?
What gives you the impression I'm upset? Really?
The thought occurred to me that it was rather excessive to send a team all the way over to Japan to report on the ground for a randomly numbered anniversary of an event that occurred a long, long time ago. Did they send one over for 60? 50? Will they send one for 75? How about 80? What's the significance of 70?
What are they doing over there that they can't do from here? Surely Mr Allan could just interview someone on the phone if they want a personal perspective. What value does it add to radio to send him and his production team over to report from the scene? Not a great deal as far as I can tell. What is the cost of the trip? Is it value for money?
hornetrider said:
DMN said:
Are you really getting upset about that?
Really?
What gives you the impression I'm upset? Really?
The thought occurred to me that it was rather excessive to send a team all the way over to Japan to report on the ground for a randomly numbered anniversary of an event that occurred a long, long time ago. Did they send one over for 60? 50? Will they send one for 75? How about 80? What's the significance of 70?
What are they doing over there that they can't do from here? Surely Mr Allan could just interview someone on the phone if they want a personal perspective. What value does it add to radio to send him and his production team over to report from the scene? Not a great deal as far as I can tell. What is the cost of the trip? Is it value for money?
hornetrider said:
What gives you the impression I'm upset?
The thought occurred to me that it was rather excessive to send a team all the way over to Japan to report on the ground for a randomly numbered anniversary of an event that occurred a long, long time ago. Did they send one over for 60? 50? Will they send one for 75? How about 80? What's the significance of 70?
What are they doing over there that they can't do from here? Surely Mr Allan could just interview someone on the phone if they want a personal perspective. What value does it add to radio to send him and his production team over to report from the scene? Not a great deal as far as I can tell. What is the cost of the trip? Is it value for money?
Really? Aside from the, hopefully obvious, point that the significance is that it is still the only example of the use of nuclear weapons and one may argue that as proliferation of the perceived capability a timely reminder of what this stuff does to real people in real cities is a good thing.The thought occurred to me that it was rather excessive to send a team all the way over to Japan to report on the ground for a randomly numbered anniversary of an event that occurred a long, long time ago. Did they send one over for 60? 50? Will they send one for 75? How about 80? What's the significance of 70?
What are they doing over there that they can't do from here? Surely Mr Allan could just interview someone on the phone if they want a personal perspective. What value does it add to radio to send him and his production team over to report from the scene? Not a great deal as far as I can tell. What is the cost of the trip? Is it value for money?
How would you define value for money? What metric would you want the BBC to use - presumably we'd need something independent as we can't trust the BBC after all - so what is the ISO or ANSI standard for value for money in reporting?
What would you consider acceptable for the cost of the trip? Do you want to know if they flew first, business, coach or in the hold (which would you prefer). How much oversight do you really think "we" need and how much experience of broadcasting do you have in order to apply a value for money judgement.
Having people "on the ground" is the same reason you want people to explore "stuff" rather than robots; our ability to interpret, empathise, connect/engage with is much better face to face.
GnuBee said:
Really? Aside from the, hopefully obvious, point that the significance is that it is still the only example of the use of nuclear weapons and one may argue that as proliferation of the perceived capability a timely reminder of what this stuff does to real people in real cities is a good thing.
How would you define value for money? What metric would you want the BBC to use - presumably we'd need something independent as we can't trust the BBC after all - so what is the ISO or ANSI standard for value for money in reporting?
What would you consider acceptable for the cost of the trip? Do you want to know if they flew first, business, coach or in the hold (which would you prefer). How much oversight do you really think "we" need and how much experience of broadcasting do you have in order to apply a value for money judgement.
Having people "on the ground" is the same reason you want people to explore "stuff" rather than robots; our ability to interpret, empathise, connect/engage with is much better face to face.
couple of points:How would you define value for money? What metric would you want the BBC to use - presumably we'd need something independent as we can't trust the BBC after all - so what is the ISO or ANSI standard for value for money in reporting?
What would you consider acceptable for the cost of the trip? Do you want to know if they flew first, business, coach or in the hold (which would you prefer). How much oversight do you really think "we" need and how much experience of broadcasting do you have in order to apply a value for money judgement.
Having people "on the ground" is the same reason you want people to explore "stuff" rather than robots; our ability to interpret, empathise, connect/engage with is much better face to face.
1) it was not the only example of the use of nuclear weapons (there were two dropped)
2) are you suggesting that the BBC has no permanent bureau/staff in Japan and that they have to fly people in whenever they cover a story there?
I actually agree with covering this event, it was a world defining moment and should be recognised and reported on.
the problem I have is sending a team out to a tiny island to look at a bit of plane that's not even there when they arrived, they could easily have done this from a studio report or used a local affiliate rather than send a crew to get 5 mins of footage of a beach.
GnuBee said:
hornetrider said:
What gives you the impression I'm upset?
The thought occurred to me that it was rather excessive to send a team all the way over to Japan to report on the ground for a randomly numbered anniversary of an event that occurred a long, long time ago. Did they send one over for 60? 50? Will they send one for 75? How about 80? What's the significance of 70?
What are they doing over there that they can't do from here? Surely Mr Allan could just interview someone on the phone if they want a personal perspective. What value does it add to radio to send him and his production team over to report from the scene? Not a great deal as far as I can tell. What is the cost of the trip? Is it value for money?
Really? Aside from the, hopefully obvious, point that the significance is that it is still the only example of the use of nuclear weapons and one may argue that as proliferation of the perceived capability a timely reminder of what this stuff does to real people in real cities is a good thing.The thought occurred to me that it was rather excessive to send a team all the way over to Japan to report on the ground for a randomly numbered anniversary of an event that occurred a long, long time ago. Did they send one over for 60? 50? Will they send one for 75? How about 80? What's the significance of 70?
What are they doing over there that they can't do from here? Surely Mr Allan could just interview someone on the phone if they want a personal perspective. What value does it add to radio to send him and his production team over to report from the scene? Not a great deal as far as I can tell. What is the cost of the trip? Is it value for money?
How would you define value for money? What metric would you want the BBC to use - presumably we'd need something independent as we can't trust the BBC after all - so what is the ISO or ANSI standard for value for money in reporting?
What would you consider acceptable for the cost of the trip? Do you want to know if they flew first, business, coach or in the hold (which would you prefer). How much oversight do you really think "we" need and how much experience of broadcasting do you have in order to apply a value for money judgement.
Having people "on the ground" is the same reason you want people to explore "stuff" rather than robots; our ability to interpret, empathise, connect/engage with is much better face to face.
You need to remember a couple of things.
Firstly they had it coming, period.
Secondly, if you want to get upset, I would recommend the US fire-bombing of Japanese cities which achieved NOTHING, but killed many, many more civilians that the two atomic attacks.
Thirdly, the horrific logic of war tells us that the atomic attacks actually saved millions compared to the cost of a conventional invasion.
Mojocvh said:
Even then the reporting was so daintily PC it was painful.
You need to remember a couple of things.
Firstly they had it coming, period.
Secondly, if you want to get upset, I would recommend the US fire-bombing of Japanese cities which achieved NOTHING, but killed many, many more civilians that the two atomic attacks.
Thirdly, the horrific logic of war tells us that the atomic attacks actually saved millions compared to the cost of a conventional invasion.
You're missing the point of the response - I specifically prefixed the paragraph about the significance with "Aside". The main questions were around defining value for money which is and has been at the core of much of the questioning posed about the BBC.You need to remember a couple of things.
Firstly they had it coming, period.
Secondly, if you want to get upset, I would recommend the US fire-bombing of Japanese cities which achieved NOTHING, but killed many, many more civilians that the two atomic attacks.
Thirdly, the horrific logic of war tells us that the atomic attacks actually saved millions compared to the cost of a conventional invasion.
I've absolutely no desire to get involved in a discussion about the politics or ethics of war or specific war time encounters.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff