BBC Points of View Messageboard

Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
Forum Member
✭✭✭
As I was particularly critical about the partiality of the BBC Points of View programme, I have been summarily barred from posting on that messageboard and a thread I started, has been closed by the "hosts" to prevent any further support of my considered opinions expressed within the "house rules."

I've e-mailed the D.G, Mark Thompson asking how the BBC can ask viewers for a point of view and then censor it.

Here is the "closed" thread and another open one where my comments are receiving some support.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1...&skip=0&show=20

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F3...est=1#p31237997
«1

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 445
    Forum Member
    Those links take me to some really old messages - nothing about Points of View? Can't see anything on the actual Points of View messageboard on the BBC site either?
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Those links take me to some really old messages - nothing about Points of View? Can't see anything on the actual Points of View messageboard on the BBC site either?

    Sorry! Don't know what happened there!

    Try these!



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=2674664&skip=0&show=20


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F3886587?thread=2703580
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,101
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Looks to me like you said something that broke the rules.
  • JonnyCoolJonnyCool Posts: 995
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    To be honest though, the BBC have to make sure that things said cant lead to further problems. When they had the soap boards, you couldnt mention the sacking of the guy who played Joe Scully cos of the legal implications and stuff. If u break the rules that are set, then u got to expect things like that. House rules are there for protection. If the kids i work with went on a message board on the CBBC site and there weren't moderators and some irrelevant posts there i would be shocked. Kids can access the POV board too and its the BBCs responsability that they dont see things they shouldnt.

    Now, when it comes to ur comments about the programme, u might have used strong language, or you might have said things that are unneccessary. You had also started a thread about a topic about something already spoken about and times like that one thread where comments can be concentrated is better.

    However, i do agree that u shouldnt be barred from posting your own opinions, but I'm sure there was a valid reason. We're all entitled to our own opinions and its good to share them, we just gotta make sure we dont break rules or upset people. Anyways, hope it gets sorted out. Have fun. Jonny
  • shoppingqueenshoppingqueen Posts: 362
    Forum Member
    I am sad to say that I have noticed on many 'tv' forums that there is often bannings and posts being removed! I know the LivingTV forums are really over-policed. They say that as part of their licence from ofcom that their own website has to be controlled by them. They have to warn if links go to an external site and if there is forums/ discussions they must be monitored!

    The BBC must have the same policy. The forums are tightly controlled! Channel4 ban users all the time! Free speech its not! At least on digitalspy you can nearly aways say what you want! But there is rules to every forum :(

    The LivingTV moderators have given in to protests by the forum regulars when someone who posts a lot has been banned unfairly. It is very monitored/censored though!
  • shoppingqueenshoppingqueen Posts: 362
    Forum Member
    JonnyCool wrote:
    To be honest though, the BBC have to make sure that things said cant lead to further problems.

    Jonny posted whilst I was writing my reply and I agree with your post. I guess there will never be free forums or discussion boards because there is legal obligations :(

    However I do still think some of the tv channels forums are over-policed and posts which criticise or are negative about the channel disappear!

    I guess if you have followed the rules on the forum and feel its an injustice, then do what you are doing! I have noticed people speaking out for someone does get them back and have you tried contacting the mods yourself? Sometimes they do listen to you!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,101
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭

    The BBC must have the same policy. The forums are tightly controlled! Channel4 ban users all the time! Free speech its not! At least on digitalspy you can nearly aways say what you want! But there is rules to every forum :(

    If you look around Digital Spy, plenty of people get banned for saying things that are rude or libelous.

    And free speech doesn't mean "say what you want" it means, you have as much right to voice your opinion as anyone else. As long as doing so, doesn't hurt or offend others.

    Think of it as, treat others as you would like to be treated.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If you look around Digital Spy, plenty of people get banned for saying things that are rude or libelous.

    And free speech doesn't mean "say what you want" it means, you have as much right to voice your opinion as anyone else. As long as doing so, doesn't hurt or offend others.

    Think of it as, treat others as you would like to be treated.


    Yes, but as I said in one of my posts I didn't break any house rules, other than the one that in so many words says, "If we don't like your opinions, well remove then any way!" This is couched in the term "distruption."

    My point is, that the BBC includes clips of programmes of "running series" effectively using them as "trails"in what is supposed to be a "Viewers Points of View Programme"

    Terry Wogan treats the whole thing as one big joke.

    The selection of letters chosen, is the producer's choice rather than the most supported view of a programme on the message boards The classic was one mild "anti Davina" message (among hundreds on the board) and one "positive" which was actually meant sarcasticly , but they used it anyway!

    If you actually read the threads, my arguments are cogent, to the point, no abuse or anything other than "fair comment."

    The BBC are just uncomfortable with my perception ofthe format of the programme, it's as simple as that.
  • JonnyCoolJonnyCool Posts: 995
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Its happened. I'm sure they had reasons to bar u, and I'm sure it wasnt some random thing they did. Bring it up with the mods and see what they have to say. I know when i used the boards at the BBC the mods on them would also make sure threads didnt go off topic and that led to posts being taken away. So maybe you did break the rules, but didnt realise. I cant be the only one who doesnt read the rules point by point but uses common sense when it comes to posting?!
    The BBC are just uncomfortable with my perception ofthe format of the programme, it's as simple as that.

    And im pretty sure they got more important things to worry about!
  • ChieChie Posts: 4,407
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I agree with you about the POV programme Doghouse Riley. It's just one big 15 minute trailer for BBC programmes :rolleyes:

    And I gave up on the BBC message boards ages ago. Even DS isn't as strict as the BBC. Conkers to them.
  • AcerBenAcerBen Posts: 21,274
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Whilst I find Terry Wogan hilarious, I do find his sarcastic tone to be completely inappropriate for the programme.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've finally received an E-mail saying my "one month asbo" is because I jokingly suggested a "first time" poster "might be be a BBC employee" as their only post had been praising the POV programme on a thread that was highly critical of the format. I did apologise to them when they "took it the wrong way."
    Interestingly enough this person hasn't been interested enough to post a comment on any other TV programme.

    This has parallels when a programme roundly criticised in the media and receiving over 200 posts of complaint as was Davinas on the POV Programme. To counter just a single mild criticism selected, they found one praising it (it was actually a "sarcastic one" from the messageboard also praising Dawn French, but they used it as a "positive" anyway), but if this wasn't available I'm sure they'd have found another "if they really tried!"

    So suggesting someone might work for the BBC will get you a month's suspension.

    Not then starting a well supported thread composed within the "house rules" suggesting that the POV TV programme was little more than a jokey "trail" for running programme series and the letters chosen by the producer showed a distinct BBC bias and wasn't representative of the messageboard.
    Yes they closed the thread after 22 posts and removed a couple before anyone else could add any further comment. Well, they wouldn't want the "inmates" getting carried away would they?

    No they couldn't have put me on suspension for that, could they?

    I can't work out if the BBC are daft, or they just think I am.
  • JonnyCoolJonnyCool Posts: 995
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I dont know about you but 'jokey' is difficult to express in writing and on forums/boards/etc.

    Maybe that's why they misinterpreted it. Maybe you should have made a point of it being a joke, or maybe you worded it too seriously for their liking. Whatever's happened, let sleeping dogs sleep. A month isnt that long when it comes to it.
  • mb@2daymb@2day Posts: 10,787
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    doghouse on ds !

    Run for the hills ! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: ;)

    Heads for hills in 4*4 via 10 golf course's fairways and greens.

    :D
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Err...

    So suggesting "someone might be a BBC employee" should be considered by the BBC as something really offensive to say about someone?

    I'm sure one or two of their employees might have something to say about that.
  • JonnyCoolJonnyCool Posts: 995
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Im taking it that you talking about my post - and if thats the case:

    I can't see how you got that from my post.



    Anyways, as I said, I expect that they just didnt get your humour as its hard to portray jokes online. Just drop it and carry on - it'll make life happier. :)
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JonnyCool wrote:
    Im taking it that you talking about my post - and if thats the case:

    I can't see how you got that from my post.



    Anyways, as I said, I expect that they just didnt get your humour as its hard to portray jokes online. Just drop it and carry on - it'll make life happier. :)

    I've been posting on the BBC Boards for over three years so I have pretty good idea how they work and what are the usual parameters of "moderation."

    No I'm not talking about your post, I'd have quoted it if I were.
    I'm speaking generally and it would appear that some have probably responded trying to be helpful, but not having read the links first.
    What I'm talking about is the lame excuse the moderators have given for the suspension. I know for a fact, contributors have called other posters a lot worse things than "a BBC employee" and still not had any action taken against them.

    You do have to "read between the lines."
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25
    Forum Member
    Err...

    So suggesting "someone might be a BBC employee" should be considered by the BBC as something really offensive to say about someone?

    I'm sure one or two of their employees might have something to say about that.

    Suggesting on a message board that the message board are planting posters on their own message board isn't something most message boards would take kindly to

    And just because somebody doesn't post much doesn't mean anything.I have seen that on various message boards and the posters are real
  • JonnyCoolJonnyCool Posts: 995
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ok Doghouse Riley - Now you vented and shared your views how about giving it a rest. Moderators have a job to do, and they've done it. I think SPDUB#2 has made a valid point with the thought that saying things have been planted isn't going to help make friends as it were.

    Now let the month pass. The more you complain the more its gonna get on your nerves. Just chill a bit, and let it pass. I dont know all the facts, but I'm pretty certain the mods had their reasons, and Im also sure u have your reasons to be annoyed. But you carrying on about the mods on another board isnt going to help you in anyway, so relax and spectate from a distance. I hope it goes well tho, and sorry if you feel as tho im not supporting you, but Im trying to see it from the mod's point of view as well.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JonnyCool wrote:
    Ok Doghouse Riley - Now you vented and shared your views how about giving it a rest. Moderators have a job to do, and they've done it. I think SPDUB#2 has made a valid point with the thought that saying things have been planted isn't going to help make friends as it were.

    Now let the month pass. The more you complain the more its gonna get on your nerves. Just chill a bit, and let it pass. I dont know all the facts, but I'm pretty certain the mods had their reasons, and Im also sure u have your reasons to be annoyed. But you carrying on about the mods on another board isnt going to help you in anyway, so relax and spectate from a distance. I hope it goes well tho, and sorry if you feel as tho im not supporting you, but Im trying to see it from the mod's point of view as well.

    One of the first rules of "Messageboards" is not to tell other people what to do. I'm always particular to follow that one.

    I'm not looking for your support, nor advice, however well intentioned it is, I've just expressed a view, I'm quite laid back about it.

    It's; "just messageboards" and they are of no particular significance other than something to occupy your time while you're waiting for your computer to do something else.
    It's all just so much "Graffiti" that slides down the page and disappears.
    The BBC one is just provided by the BBC to keep the punters amused, just as I've said on many occasions, like; "the bells and mirrors in budgies cages" It has no particular significance as the BBC disregard it completely. Ever known a programme maker make a comment on it?
    The best you get is a response from one of the "clerical staff" they are the only ones who think the board is of some importance.

    I only posted my comments to make other people aware of the manipulation being attempted by the BBC (in my opinion) to solicit positive responses to their running programmes to use on "The POV Show!" by setting up a (poorly supported) seperate board. Other people currently adding messages to the threads started on that board by the hosts are of the same opinion and the fact that the "hosts" seem to fearcely resent any suggestion that this is what they are doing, I actually find amusing. I think the POV programme is mostly "PR Spin" and a "ratings chasing exercise."

    I don't "rant," I explain in a calm and reasonable manner. I'm not bothered if I never post another message on the BBC boards, I should worry, there's plenty of others should I wish to express a view. I only post on this one occasionally and I'm unlikely to visit it again for a while,
    Thank you for your comments, but I have nothing further to add on the subject.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25
    Forum Member
    The BBC one is just provided by the BBC to keep the punters amused, just as I've said on many occasions, like; "the bells and mirrors in budgies cages" It has no particular significance as the BBC disregard it completely. Ever known a programme maker make a comment on it?
    The best you get is a response from one of the "clerical staff" they are the only ones who think the board is of some importance.

    I only posted my comments to make other people aware of the manipulation being attempted by the BBC (in my opinion) to solicit positive responses to their running programmes to use on "The POV Show!" by setting up a (poorly supported) seperate board. Other people currently adding messages to the threads started on that board by the hosts are of the same opinion and the fact that the "hosts" seem to fearcely resent any suggestion that this is what they are doing, I actually find amusing. I think the POV programme is mostly "PR Spin" and a "ratings chasing exercise."
    .

    Can you tell me how those 2 paragrarphs don't contradict each other.

    As far as I can see in the first one you are saying that the general BBC messageboard is no importance and is ignored.

    In the second paragraph you seem to be saying that the particular messageboard devoted to one programme they consider it important enough to try to manipulate it

    Why would they bother and not just ignore it just like all the rest of the message boards
  • JonnyCoolJonnyCool Posts: 995
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Im also getting that cos message boards are so insignifficent, then maybe we should ignore this whole thread....
  • UpsonPainter NNUpsonPainter NN Posts: 1,948
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It seems like the BBC, CH4 and Living TV messageboards, are being run by anti-free speech people.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It seems like the BBC, CH4 and Living TV messageboards, are being run by anti-free speech people.

    I wasn't going to say any more but you're right, yet some people can't recognise it.

    The original POV board had a "header" saying "messages might be used on the POV programme."
    That disappeared a while ago, I remember only one being used in over three years.
    As the standard of programming has steadily got worse over the last few years on all channels, the majority of comment on the board became more critical.

    Many contributors have pointed out that threads with large numbers of post on programmes (perceived by posters as mostly bad but some as good) are ignored.

    I suppose the BBC could no longer be bothered trawling through the main board, (if they ever did)
    So they started an additional one, with "blank" topics appearing with just the title of the programme for which they wanted comments. Even programmes that hadn't even been shown yet!
    The "carrot" was of course they said; "that these might appear in the programme." Read into that statement what you will.

    So this meant that the programme now no longer was the viewer's choice but that of the programme producer.
    It also gave them the opportunity to "trail" these programmes on the "POV show" by showing video clips.

    If that ain't "manipulation" of the programme, I don't know what is. Don't we get enough "trails" already?
    Added to that you have that clown Wogan with his; "Ooo! Ahh! Missus!" delivery and a selection of "funny voices," treating the programme in the same manner as he would "Eurovision."
    This is an awful long way away from what I would consider to be a programme representing the "Viewer's Point of View."

    Any suggestion that this is the situation is fiercely denied by the "hosts."

    To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies, "They would say that, wouldn't they?"
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25
    Forum Member
    The Points of View TV Programme covers topics that have been raised on the Television topic of this message board, or by letter or by email sent directly to the Production Team

    The show's producers are currently seeking feedback on the programmes listed below. If you would like to comment on these programmes please post to the discussion below. .....

    Well as far as I see can see from that message from the POV board based on your criteria for "manipulation"if they are manipulating the programme they have manipulated it from the day the programme started

    It always has been the programme producer choice of viewer's letters whether they were chosen on the basis of numbers of letters received or the letters that were deemed most interesting or the producer choosing letters that week that came from London

    All I can see from the separate POV board is that there is a refinement of that process in that the production team can see what way the letters and emails are tending towards any particular week and can then ask for further comments about those particular subjects before the programme is recorded something which wouldn't have been possible in the days of letters

    I am not spotting any distinction in your definition of a trailer in that even if a viewer asks for a clip of a programme you still consider it a trail

    I also don't see what relevance whether Terry Wogan is a crap presenter or not has got to do with the partiality of Points of View.
    Originally Posted by UpsonPainter NN
    It seems like the BBC, CH4 and Living TV messageboards, are being run by anti-free speech people.

    I wasn't going to say any more but you're right, yet some people can't recognise it.

    So if I don't accept your interpretation I am blind to censorship

    No it just means I don't accept your interpretation and have a different point of view on the subject
Sign In or Register to comment.