Another BBC jamboree..bless

[Mojocvh]

Off on their summer holidays to the Island of Reunion just in case some wore wreckage washes up.

Took then a few days to get there mind....no doubt the expenses were rung up..kershring..

[Mojocvh]

eccles said:

Pesty said:

Radio 4 have just had their very own corespondent on reunion.

She interviewed a mother and child who were hunting for more. Then the radio station on the island.

But the most important bit was this gem. One interviewee stated that the larger the coast line an island has the bigger the probability of things washing up on it.


Well fk me. Seriously how anybody can defend the BBC spunking this money away for absolutely nothing is beyond me.

Are you saure it wasn't the TV reporter doing the interview. She was inteviewing the mother and child on the Breakfast news this morning.

Yeah, that was SUCH a riveting tale..

..anyway I may have been wrong to suggest that the BBC people were on a jamboree. After all Reunion does hold the world record for the most rainfall in a 12 hour period...

See, I think they are waiting for the heavens to open, then they have the MMGW angle to report on too....

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 5th August 14:52

[Mojocvh]

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.

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.

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.