There does sometimes seem to be the old case of somebody complaining and thinking they speak for everyone by saying "WE don't think this is newsworthy"
And then expect a national broadcaster to say ' Yes, your right Mr and Mrs Plush Retirement, we will have a complete overhaul just because of you'
There does sometimes seem to be the old case of somebody complaining and thinking they speak for everyone by saying "WE don't think this is newsworthy"
Well, you've every right to give your view too, rather than deride those who choose to.
There does sometimes seem to be the old case of somebody complaining and thinking they speak for everyone by saying "WE don't think this is newsworthy"
It's just an extension of internet forums where members of the not so great British public think their opinion is gospel and they speak for a generation.
If Newswatch is back this Friday then having Gareth Bale as the top story on the 6 O'Clock News is likely to be the most complained about thing this week, putting Bale ahead of Syria won't go down well with the news faithful.
If Newswatch is back this Friday then having Gareth Bale as the top story on the 6 O'Clock News is likely to be the most complained about thing this week, putting Bale ahead of Syria won't go down well with the news faithful.
To be fair - Syria's been top of the headlines for some time. There's nothing really to add until a country either invades or doesn't.
At least there was no pointless appearance from Mary Hockyourlungsup.
Except her appearances are never "pointless" but do really only serve to point out the obvious flaws in the complainers opinions. I love how she pointed out last week that the "think tank" that had come up with some opinion about BBC bias or whatever was "anti-BBC" or something; basically themselves biased.
Added thought: I think some people struggle to appreciate the difference between having an opinion and having a legitimate complaint. Just because you disagree with a decision that's been taken, that doesn't mean you need to make a complaint about it. By all means express your opinion, but sometimes you have to accept that other people have arrived at a different conclusion to you. That doesn't mean they're wrong.
Added thought: I think some people struggle to appreciate the difference between having an opinion and having a legitimate complaint. Just because you disagree with a decision that's been taken, that doesn't mean you need to make a complaint about it. By all means express your opinion, but sometimes you have to accept that other people have arrived at a different conclusion to you. That doesn't mean they're wrong.
By that token, you could argue that Hitler wasn't all bad, that the war in Iraq was right and that Mandela didn't used to be a terrorist.
By that token, you could argue that Hitler wasn't all bad, that the war in Iraq was right and that Mandela didn't used to be a terrorist.
Using this comparison to argue your point simply proves that you can't distinguish between a trivial issue and a serious one. Are you genuinely unable to judge when it's appropriate to complain and when someone is just expressing a different opinion from you?
In short, if you think someone objecting to Hitler and (to use an example from earlier) someone objecting to Gareth Bale's transfer being the lead story on the News are equally valid then your judgement is seriously flawed.
1. Matters of opinion - the BBC is neither ''right''nor ''wrong'',complainants don't agree with the way the BBC has handled a story but that is a matter of opinion.Someone, somewhere, has to make decisions. Influenced by comments from viewers and listeners the BBC might make different decisions on another occasion.It bears in mind the comments.
2. Factual mistakes and errors of judgement. These can and are proved and should be apologised for and corrected by the BBC.The Sachsgate fiasco was wrong, the BBC apologised and disciplined those involved, the head of Radio 2 resigned.It is not a sign of weakness to apologise for something if it's shown to be wrong.
Newswatch's problem is that smug BBC managers appearing on the programme adopt neither approach but simply say they are ''happy'' with the way something was reported and have no intention of changing in the future.
In any case, the programme should be produced outside the BBC - being produced by BBC News is like the police investigating the police, even with them we now have an Independent Police Complaints Commission.
1. Matters of opinion - the BBC is neither ''right''nor ''wrong'',complainants don't agree with the way the BBC has handled a story but that is a matter of opinion.Someone, somewhere, has to make decisions. Influenced by comments from viewers and listeners the BBC might make different decisions on another occasion.It bears in mind the comments.
I agree. What annoys me though is when people 'demand' a change when all they're really doing is saying they have a different opinion. Hopefully the decision makers will take their comments into account, but you can bet there are other viewers saying the complete opposite anyway, so it has to be properly balanced.
In any case, the programme should be produced outside the BBC - being produced by BBC News is like the police investigating the police, even with them we now have an Independent Police Complaints Commission.
There are already independent bodies where you can make legitimate complaints about serious errors that need correcting. Newswatch is just a telly programme. It's meant to give viewers an opportunity to raise any concerns they may have with the people that make the decisions. That may occasionally include minor niggles that need an on-air correction, but comparing it with the IPCC is going too far. Newswatch is not intended to be a place to go for adjudication over something which might have very serious, possibly legal, ramifications.
But it's perfectly obvious the BBC suits who appear don't take a blind bit of notice of any of the complaints - does anyone know of one single thing that has changed as a result of being raised on Newswatch ?
Comments
And then expect a national broadcaster to say ' Yes, your right Mr and Mrs Plush Retirement, we will have a complete overhaul just because of you'
Well, you've every right to give your view too, rather than deride those who choose to.
It's just an extension of internet forums where members of the not so great British public think their opinion is gospel and they speak for a generation.
Didn't seem to be on for as long and less comments?
They covered David Miranda and also the news items covered when parliment was away
To be fair - Syria's been top of the headlines for some time. There's nothing really to add until a country either invades or doesn't.
Nice to see Mary Hockaday sticking it to that "think-tank" too. I wish they'd defend themselves like that more often.
Good to see your views on the BBC license payers.
At least there was no pointless appearance from Mary Hockyourlungsup.
There was more of it this week. Basically "I don't like it so it shouldn't be shown".
Except her appearances are never "pointless" but do really only serve to point out the obvious flaws in the complainers opinions. I love how she pointed out last week that the "think tank" that had come up with some opinion about BBC bias or whatever was "anti-BBC" or something; basically themselves biased.
So have you ever complained about something?
Added thought: I think some people struggle to appreciate the difference between having an opinion and having a legitimate complaint. Just because you disagree with a decision that's been taken, that doesn't mean you need to make a complaint about it. By all means express your opinion, but sometimes you have to accept that other people have arrived at a different conclusion to you. That doesn't mean they're wrong.
How much is too much? How do you quantify this?
By that token, you could argue that Hitler wasn't all bad, that the war in Iraq was right and that Mandela didn't used to be a terrorist.
In short, if you think someone objecting to Hitler and (to use an example from earlier) someone objecting to Gareth Bale's transfer being the lead story on the News are equally valid then your judgement is seriously flawed.
(Edited to remove typing error)
1. Matters of opinion - the BBC is neither ''right''nor ''wrong'',complainants don't agree with the way the BBC has handled a story but that is a matter of opinion.Someone, somewhere, has to make decisions. Influenced by comments from viewers and listeners the BBC might make different decisions on another occasion.It bears in mind the comments.
2. Factual mistakes and errors of judgement. These can and are proved and should be apologised for and corrected by the BBC.The Sachsgate fiasco was wrong, the BBC apologised and disciplined those involved, the head of Radio 2 resigned.It is not a sign of weakness to apologise for something if it's shown to be wrong.
Newswatch's problem is that smug BBC managers appearing on the programme adopt neither approach but simply say they are ''happy'' with the way something was reported and have no intention of changing in the future.
In any case, the programme should be produced outside the BBC - being produced by BBC News is like the police investigating the police, even with them we now have an Independent Police Complaints Commission.
There are already independent bodies where you can make legitimate complaints about serious errors that need correcting. Newswatch is just a telly programme. It's meant to give viewers an opportunity to raise any concerns they may have with the people that make the decisions. That may occasionally include minor niggles that need an on-air correction, but comparing it with the IPCC is going too far. Newswatch is not intended to be a place to go for adjudication over something which might have very serious, possibly legal, ramifications.