Samira Ahmed'sbeen at the helm since the programme moved from Television Centre to Broadcasting House, London so there've been a few editions and I like her presentation and interviewing skills.
I watched last night's and the point about talking over people may have been that tricky delay thing that regularly happens.
It's probably best to keep talking and get your question across than to keep stopping and starting .
I usually enjoy Newswatch, it seems pretty fair and balanced to me although as with all of these type of programmes the odd thing has irked me at times.
Speaking of fair and balanced Fox News Channel also has a simlarly named programme (Fox News Watch). It discusses, in their opinion, examples of blatant bias in the week's media coverage.
I honestly kid you not. The commentators are actually very funny but I assume that isn't really their intention
In comparison BBC Newswatch (although a quite different programme) is really rather good.
The most interesting part for me was a discussion on the BBC's use of information from social network sites.
Coverage of the Scottish Independence debate was discussed and I think a few gripes about football coverage were raised too but it was the social network story that caught my attention.
The most interesting part for me was a discussion on the BBC's use of information from social network sites.
Coverage of the Scottish Independence debate was discussed and I think a few gripes about football coverage were raised too but it was the social network story that caught my attention.
What did they have to say about the use of info from social network sites? I'm doing a presentation for IT Law on social networks and privacy and I was wondering if there was anything privacy-related that I could mention
Samira Ahmed'sbeen at the helm since the programme moved from Television Centre to Broadcasting House, London so there've been a few editions and I like her presentation and interviewing skills.
Only 2 eps so far. I still prefer Snoddy. She's a bit bland by comparison. There's no warmth to her.
The most interesting part for me was a discussion on the BBC's use of information from social network sites.
Did you see that clip of Lyse Douchet talking about social networking to a big crowd? I haven't seen, in a long time, someone use so many words to say absolutely chuff all. God, she was full of herself!
What did they have to say about the use of info from social network sites? I'm doing a presentation for IT Law on social networks and privacy and I was wondering if there was anything privacy-related that I could mention
Even MOTD has twitter comments now..........such as "Well done lads great result" type stuff.
Annoying, who the hell is interested in what some thicko footballer writes on twitter?
They used to do that on the Football League Show but dropped it after a season because it was absolutely pointless - of course a fan is going to praise his or her team if they win.
They used to do that on the Football League Show but dropped it after a season because it was absolutely pointless - of course a fan is going to praise his or her team if they win.
I've had a tweet read out on Newswatch, so I don't mind these. It's the quickest way of getting interaction with viewers.
Did you see that clip of Lyse Douchet talking about social networking to a big crowd? I haven't seen, in a long time, someone use so many words to say absolutely chuff all. God, she was full of herself!
Yes!! I watched that and thought what a load of drivel. What she was saying was just a load of babble - in the interview on Newswatch she basically said that the BBC have to move with the times and that means including social media into the mix even if it may be wildly inaccurate - oh great that's OK then?!:rolleyes:
I get sick of seeing tweets pop up on many programmes like it matters what random twitter users think - it distracts from the programme and for me adds nothing further.
Even MOTD has twitter comments now..........such as "Well done lads great result" type stuff.
Annoying, who the hell is interested in what some thicko footballer writes on twitter?
Ofcourse they only post the positive comments,,they'll aren't all thick though.
Some of the overseas guys make sense in their Tweets,
I get sick of seeing tweets pop up on many programmes like it matters what random twitter users think - it distracts from the programme and for me adds nothing further.
What about a programme like Sunday Brunch where viewers can email/tweet in questions for the guests?
What she was saying was just a load of babble - in the interview on Newswatch she basically said that the BBC have to move with the times and that means including social media into the mix even if it may be wildly inaccurate - oh great that's OK then?!:rolleyes:
No. She never actually said the BIB. :rolleyes:
What she did explain is that they now have a new "UGC Hub" to try and substantiate anything they read on Twitter, etc. If they can't fully verify something they may well still use it but with some sort of disclaimer attached.
Yeah. That guy on about the loss of Ceefax equating to less value from the LF (or whatever it was) is obviously an idiot as pretty-much anything major that was on teletext is still there but but on the Red Button!
Latest Tweet "@newswatchbbc exploring coverage of the new James Bond movie: reporting a cultural phenomenon or promotional plugging? tell us your views.."
Comments
On this or everything? She's only done one Newswatch so far, but I know she's done the Sunday morning show (which I often miss)
I watched last night's and the point about talking over people may have been that tricky delay thing that regularly happens.
It's probably best to keep talking and get your question across than to keep stopping and starting .
Speaking of fair and balanced Fox News Channel also has a simlarly named programme (Fox News Watch). It discusses, in their opinion, examples of blatant bias in the week's media coverage.
I honestly kid you not. The commentators are actually very funny but I assume that isn't really their intention
In comparison BBC Newswatch (although a quite different programme) is really rather good.
The most interesting part for me was a discussion on the BBC's use of information from social network sites.
Coverage of the Scottish Independence debate was discussed and I think a few gripes about football coverage were raised too but it was the social network story that caught my attention.
What did they have to say about the use of info from social network sites? I'm doing a presentation for IT Law on social networks and privacy and I was wondering if there was anything privacy-related that I could mention
The answer of someone who hasn't got a clue!!:D:D:D:D
Only 2 eps so far. I still prefer Snoddy. She's a bit bland by comparison. There's no warmth to her.
Did you see that clip of Lyse Douchet talking about social networking to a big crowd? I haven't seen, in a long time, someone use so many words to say absolutely chuff all. God, she was full of herself!
Nothing of any interest. It'll be on Iplayer.
Annoying, who the hell is interested in what some thicko footballer writes on twitter?
I've had a tweet read out on Newswatch, so I don't mind these. It's the quickest way of getting interaction with viewers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZqaVuetHg
Yes!! I watched that and thought what a load of drivel. What she was saying was just a load of babble - in the interview on Newswatch she basically said that the BBC have to move with the times and that means including social media into the mix even if it may be wildly inaccurate - oh great that's OK then?!:rolleyes:
I get sick of seeing tweets pop up on many programmes like it matters what random twitter users think - it distracts from the programme and for me adds nothing further.
Ofcourse they only post the positive comments,,they'll aren't all thick though.
Some of the overseas guys make sense in their Tweets,
What about a programme like Sunday Brunch where viewers can email/tweet in questions for the guests?
What she did explain is that they now have a new "UGC Hub" to try and substantiate anything they read on Twitter, etc. If they can't fully verify something they may well still use it but with some sort of disclaimer attached.