Just another example of dumming down at the BBC I'm afraid.
I also noted that in order to satisfy some kind of "regionality" quota, the presenter of last nights "Special" on the death of those children wasn't required to speak comprehensible English. So I had to translate a lot of it from Northern Irish into English for my OH, as she genuinely couldn't understand what was being said. Even I struggled to work out that "regular rise" was "regular rows".
You'd think a topic like this might deserve a bit more respect.
I've just watched it with the wife and daughters, none of us had a problem with the presenter, we thought she was very clear.
The same reporter just now ended his report with something along the lines of 'there will be an enquiry to see if more could have been done to protect the Phillpot chidren'
That's not word for word- but it explains the context for those that ;don't get it'
At 6pm yesterday he would have said 'if more could have been done to protect the Phillpot kids'
Which is why it was so jarring and innapropriate to continualy use the word 'kids' yesterday.
The same reporter just now ended his report with something along the lines of 'there will be an enquiry to see if more could have been done to protect the Phillpot chidren'
That's not word for word- but it explains the context for those that ;don't get it'
At 6pm yesterday he would have said 'if more could have been done to protect the Phillpot kids'
Which is why it was so jarring and innapropriate to continualy use the word 'kids' yesterday.
You really should stop with this 'people who don't get it' tosh. I'm perfectly comfortable with my opinion that it's not an issue and people have made a mountain out of a flat piece of land, let alone a molehill. Plus, who are you to decide what 'it' is? You have your opinion, but don't go trying to push it onto others by saying other people haven't 'got it'. I'm more than comfortable with my opinion and I see no reason to change it. By all means say you think they used the wrong word as that's your opinion, but it's not for you to decide what 'it' is or whether people have 'got it' or not. Your opinion isn't the only 1 that counts and your opinion isn't automatically right (because it's an opinion, so there's no right or wrong).
You can't grasp why 'kids' which is slang isn't appropriate, and doesn't sound right.
Fair enough.
Clearly BBC realised it was wrong (and I didn't complain to them) as it wasn't repeated in subsequent bulleins. Clearly they would have continued saying 'kids' if the bosses thought it appropriate. I suspect people who think it was a non issue were not watching at the time- which is why I quoted a sentence from last nights report to illustrate why 'kids' felt wrong.
But to you it doesn't feel wrong.
Like I say- Fair enough.
And the only reason people keep 'coming back' is because you keep 'coming back' For someone who doesn't care why keep going on about it?
I'm not trying to push my opinion on you. You are because you're constantly coming out with this tosh about people not getting it. It's your opinion that it's not right, but that DOESN'T mean it is wrong for it to be used. Who are you to decide what's wrong and what's right? Who are you to turn round and say people don't get it? For me there's nothing to 'get' but that doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong, because it's an opinion. Your opinion is it's wrong, mine is it's not. I'm comfortable with my opinion without talking about what people can/can't grasp or can/can't get, because you're not right or wrong and neither am I.
Normally this sort of thread doesn't get past the first page- because it's the Broadcasting thread if people feel standards are slipping they will start a thread. I'm surprised some (not just you) thought the thread was a wind up and a complete non issue.
I quoted the last sentence from last nights report to illustrate why some (but not you) felt it was so wrong. If it doesn't sound 'right'- And to me and others it didn't- then it probably isn't right.
Anyway, You clearly HAVE to have the final word on this thread- so why not make one final post about how it doesn't matter to you and then no one need post anymore on the subject.
Again, the BBC Newcastle breakfast show ignored the Philpott case again, whereas Daybreak and Breakfast covered it.
They wanted our views on some TV programmes which float your boat- the fact Colin Briggs gets involved in these stupid topics means Alfie Joey is clearly desperate now- no-one's interested or replying to them, so drag in Colin Briggs. Next Gilly Hope will be going topless.
Shame why Colin Briggs can show support for his buddy but neither he or Alfie couldn't show the same support to Carole Malone 2 years ago when she needed it after the NOTW closed. And Colin Briggs's wife expects Carole to be supportive to her?
Again, the BBC Newcastle breakfast show ignored the Philpott case again, whereas Daybreak and Breakfast covered it.
They wanted our views on some TV programmes which float your boat- the fact Colin Briggs gets involved in these stupid topics means Alfie Joey is clearly desperate now- no-one's interested or replying to them, so drag in Colin Briggs. Next Gilly Hope will be going topless.
Shame why Colin Briggs can show support for his buddy but neither he or Alfie couldn't show the same support to Carole Malone 2 years ago when she needed it after the NOTW closed. And Colin Briggs's wife expects Carole to be supportive to her?
Why would BBC Newcastle be interested in Philpott, given that BBC Newcastle is a regional broadcaster?
Why would BBC Newcastle be interested in Philpott, given that BBC Newcastle is a regional broadcaster?
Well BBC Newcastle's breakfast show after the current team debuted talked about Ben Kinsella's murder, which had nothing to do with the NE. But they discussed it since it was major news.
And the Philpott case/the NOTW closure (given Newcastle-born Carole Malone worked on it) would've been serious discussion and reaction for listeners too, given these were major news stories. They got reaction to Michael Jackson's death!
But the NOTW/Philpott are not as important as what TV floats your boat or Hollywood movie suggestions or any of the rubbish Alfie Joey puts out (bringing Colin Briggs in to give reactions to these proves it's jumped the shark if you're having to get colleagues in). Then he wonders why his show wins no Gilliard or Sony awards compared to his predecessor.
Well BBC Newcastle's breakfast show after the current team debuted talked about Ben Kinsella's murder, which had nothing to do with the NE. But they discussed it since it was major news.
Seems to me that the production team on that programme have lost their accepted brief as to what the Regional News programme is are there for!
When I was a restauranteur, I once had a customer give me a telling off for referring to her children as......... Children.
"They are NOT children, they are small people" apparently.
God bless the British public. Always ready to be offended.
"Small People". I find terms like that so condescending. What is wrong with the word "children"? That is what they were.
Going back to the issue of the children on the news report being referred to as "kids" - I would agree that it does sound a bit too informal for a serious news item. While "kids" should be OK in a more informal report, I would say "children" would sound better in a serious item. It would be interesting to see what the BBC Style Guide says, as I have always had a keen interest on language in the news.
Seems to me that the production team on that programme have lost their accepted brief as to what the Regional News programme is are there for!
Well even when it's a regional story, they still consist with the silly topics.
Case in point- the on-going Christopher Rochester (from Chester-Le-Street, in the Radio Newcastle area)case in Greece- this made the local papers last year. Yet Alfie and Charlie were yakking on about how some Radio Newcastle staff won the lottery, and wanting people's good news!.
And the NOTW closure involved a journalist from the Radio Newcastle area, Carole Malone (so was sort of regional), and again Alfie Joey considered Hollywood movies for Wills and Kate in LA more worthy of reaction.
Well even when it's a regional story, they still consist with the silly topics.
Case in point- the on-going Christopher Rochester (from Chester-Le-Street, in the Radio Newcastle area)case in Greece- this made the local papers last year. Yet Alfie and Charlie were yakking on about how some Radio Newcastle staff won the lottery, and wanting people's good news!.
And the NOTW closure involved a journalist from the Radio Newcastle area, Carole Malone (so was sort of regional), and again Alfie Joey considered Hollywood movies for Wills and Kate in LA more worthy of reaction.
You seem really obsessed with Radio Newcastle covering the closing of the NOTW for some reason.
Add me to the Agree With OP corner. Kids is a relaxed informal term which has its place in normal and sometimes formal English, but in this context it was out of place and jarred with the gravity and seriousness of the subject. It's a shame that some people can't see the difference in the way language can be used at different times to set a tone. In this case it was wrong.
I've heard similar jarring contextual use of language where reporters refer to 'Mum' and 'Dad', rather than the more formal mother or father or better still the more generic parents. All part of the steady enforcement of the non-challenging relaxed style of conversational language in news reports.
It's quite interesting.
One of the things that you are told when writing for news is that you should 'tell the story like you were telling it to a friend in a pub'.A very senior BBC broadcaster said that in a talk I went to today and I don't disagree with the concept.
The reality is that it doesn't really work that way most of the time.
If I was telling the story to a mate in the boozer, I would say something like this:
"Did you hear about that bloke who killed his kids? He got at least 15 years."
I'd also probably use some choice swear words to describe what I thought of him.
Now, there are plenty of circumstances where you could use all of those words in a news script (apart from the swearing) and it would be fine.
If I was doing a feature about a young dad who wants to earn a living/ is concerned about the price of beer/ thinks petrol costs too much/ whatever...you could script a package with something like:
"X is a typical bloke, he has 2.4 kids and...."
I'm not saying that's the world's best bit of writing, but it could work in the right circumstances.
However,because of the gravity of this situation - words like 'bloke' or 'kids' are unacceptable.
One of the things that you are told when writing for news is that you should 'tell the story like you were telling it to a friend in a pub'.A very senior BBC broadcaster said that in a talk I went to today and I don't disagree with the concept.
Blimey. If that's how they're training BBC reporters these days then it explains a lot. What a very sad revelation
The 'tell it like you were telling a friend' has been a concept used in broadcasting for many years - it's nothing new.
The idea is that language used should be conversational and easy to understand.
I had no idea that they used this "tell it like you were telling a friend concept" in broadcast journalism training.
I have noticed that BBC news seems a bit less formal nowadays than it has been. I am not being conservative, but I think myself that news broadcasts should retain some formality.
What I also find annoying is how BBC Regional News programmes (Midlands Today especially) try to be too light-hearted on some occasions.
I had no idea that they used this "tell it like you were telling a friend concept" in broadcast journalism training.
It's what I've always been told in 16 years of journalism.
The reason?
Well, it's because in radio the theory is that it's a 'one-to-one' medium. The relationship is between the broadcaster (whether it be the newsreader or presenter) and the listener. You aren't supposed to be talking to lots of people - you're just talking to one person.
And on some stations I was on in the early years, that may have been a literal person...
I have noticed that BBC news seems a bit less formal nowadays than it has been. I am not being conservative, but I think myself that news broadcasts should retain some formality.
The reality is that you involve a lot of formalism. Court cases for example - you always give the full name, age and some level of their address.
Why?
Legally, because you have to. Also, BBC Guidelines state that you should refer to someone by their full name of title unless a guilty verdict has been reached,
For example, you would always refer to Mick Philpott during his trial as 'Mick Philpott' or 'Mr Philpott'. You couldn't call him 'Philpott' though (which many papers will have done).
Why? It can be seen as dehumanising and implying guilt.
Ultimately, when news-writing, you try and be as conversational as possible - but there are still many conventions that do not allow it.
OP I wonder if I am right in thnking that you are not English?
The reason I ask is that this matter of referring to some children as 'kids' is purely a matter of class which thye English know about automatically. The children concerned were or are 'kids' because they are in a family living on benefits, who should not have had 'kids' because they are too poor and only had 'kids' so that childrens' allowance could be claimed.
The BBC got it exactly right. Working class people's brats are considered a burden on decent people and will be their whole lives, and just because they were killed does not mean that the BBC should kowtow to political correctness and refer to them in the same way as children of valuable members of society.
So you and I can continue to use the term 'children' for all youngsters, but the BBC must reflect the establishment view, which is after all how things actually are, not how we want them to be.
OP I wonder if I am right in thnking that you are not English?
The reason I ask is that this matter of referring to some children as 'kids' is purely a matter of class which thye English know about automatically. The children concerned were or are 'kids' because they are in a family living on benefits, who should not have had 'kids' because they are too poor and only had 'kids' so that childrens' allowance could be claimed.
The BBC got it exactly right. Working class people's brats are considered a burden on decent people and will be their whole lives, and just because they were killed does not mean that the BBC should kowtow to political correctness and refer to them in the same way as children of valuable members of society.
So you and I can continue to use the term 'children' for all youngsters, but the BBC must reflect the establishment view, which is after all how things actually are, not how we want them to be.
Xenophobia and denigration of the working classes all in one post? Congratulations! :rolleyes:
Comments
In reponse to a typical right wing paper trying to do the same.....
I've just watched it with the wife and daughters, none of us had a problem with the presenter, we thought she was very clear.
That's not word for word- but it explains the context for those that ;don't get it'
At 6pm yesterday he would have said 'if more could have been done to protect the Phillpot kids'
Which is why it was so jarring and innapropriate to continualy use the word 'kids' yesterday.
You really should stop with this 'people who don't get it' tosh. I'm perfectly comfortable with my opinion that it's not an issue and people have made a mountain out of a flat piece of land, let alone a molehill. Plus, who are you to decide what 'it' is? You have your opinion, but don't go trying to push it onto others by saying other people haven't 'got it'. I'm more than comfortable with my opinion and I see no reason to change it. By all means say you think they used the wrong word as that's your opinion, but it's not for you to decide what 'it' is or whether people have 'got it' or not. Your opinion isn't the only 1 that counts and your opinion isn't automatically right (because it's an opinion, so there's no right or wrong).
You don't get it.
You can't grasp why 'kids' which is slang isn't appropriate, and doesn't sound right.
Fair enough.
Clearly BBC realised it was wrong (and I didn't complain to them) as it wasn't repeated in subsequent bulleins. Clearly they would have continued saying 'kids' if the bosses thought it appropriate. I suspect people who think it was a non issue were not watching at the time- which is why I quoted a sentence from last nights report to illustrate why 'kids' felt wrong.
But to you it doesn't feel wrong.
Like I say- Fair enough.
And the only reason people keep 'coming back' is because you keep 'coming back' For someone who doesn't care why keep going on about it?
Normally this sort of thread doesn't get past the first page- because it's the Broadcasting thread if people feel standards are slipping they will start a thread. I'm surprised some (not just you) thought the thread was a wind up and a complete non issue.
I quoted the last sentence from last nights report to illustrate why some (but not you) felt it was so wrong. If it doesn't sound 'right'- And to me and others it didn't- then it probably isn't right.
Anyway, You clearly HAVE to have the final word on this thread- so why not make one final post about how it doesn't matter to you and then no one need post anymore on the subject.
Ranted at themselves in their bedsit or bore people down the pub presumably.
They wanted our views on some TV programmes which float your boat- the fact Colin Briggs gets involved in these stupid topics means Alfie Joey is clearly desperate now- no-one's interested or replying to them, so drag in Colin Briggs. Next Gilly Hope will be going topless.
Shame why Colin Briggs can show support for his buddy but neither he or Alfie couldn't show the same support to Carole Malone 2 years ago when she needed it after the NOTW closed. And Colin Briggs's wife expects Carole to be supportive to her?
Why would BBC Newcastle be interested in Philpott, given that BBC Newcastle is a regional broadcaster?
Well BBC Newcastle's breakfast show after the current team debuted talked about Ben Kinsella's murder, which had nothing to do with the NE. But they discussed it since it was major news.
And the Philpott case/the NOTW closure (given Newcastle-born Carole Malone worked on it) would've been serious discussion and reaction for listeners too, given these were major news stories. They got reaction to Michael Jackson's death!
But the NOTW/Philpott are not as important as what TV floats your boat or Hollywood movie suggestions or any of the rubbish Alfie Joey puts out (bringing Colin Briggs in to give reactions to these proves it's jumped the shark if you're having to get colleagues in). Then he wonders why his show wins no Gilliard or Sony awards compared to his predecessor.
Yes, it would seem so. A regional news programme, as it is regional, should be regional.
"Small People". I find terms like that so condescending. What is wrong with the word "children"? That is what they were.
Going back to the issue of the children on the news report being referred to as "kids" - I would agree that it does sound a bit too informal for a serious news item. While "kids" should be OK in a more informal report, I would say "children" would sound better in a serious item. It would be interesting to see what the BBC Style Guide says, as I have always had a keen interest on language in the news.
Well even when it's a regional story, they still consist with the silly topics.
Case in point- the on-going Christopher Rochester (from Chester-Le-Street, in the Radio Newcastle area)case in Greece- this made the local papers last year. Yet Alfie and Charlie were yakking on about how some Radio Newcastle staff won the lottery, and wanting people's good news!.
And the NOTW closure involved a journalist from the Radio Newcastle area, Carole Malone (so was sort of regional), and again Alfie Joey considered Hollywood movies for Wills and Kate in LA more worthy of reaction.
You seem really obsessed with Radio Newcastle covering the closing of the NOTW for some reason.
It's quite interesting.
One of the things that you are told when writing for news is that you should 'tell the story like you were telling it to a friend in a pub'.A very senior BBC broadcaster said that in a talk I went to today and I don't disagree with the concept.
The reality is that it doesn't really work that way most of the time.
If I was telling the story to a mate in the boozer, I would say something like this:
"Did you hear about that bloke who killed his kids? He got at least 15 years."
I'd also probably use some choice swear words to describe what I thought of him.
Now, there are plenty of circumstances where you could use all of those words in a news script (apart from the swearing) and it would be fine.
If I was doing a feature about a young dad who wants to earn a living/ is concerned about the price of beer/ thinks petrol costs too much/ whatever...you could script a package with something like:
"X is a typical bloke, he has 2.4 kids and...."
I'm not saying that's the world's best bit of writing, but it could work in the right circumstances.
However,because of the gravity of this situation - words like 'bloke' or 'kids' are unacceptable.
Blimey. If that's how they're training BBC reporters these days then it explains a lot. What a very sad revelation
The 'tell it like you were telling a friend' has been a concept used in broadcasting for many years - it's nothing new.
The idea is that language used should be conversational and easy to understand.
I had no idea that they used this "tell it like you were telling a friend concept" in broadcast journalism training.
I have noticed that BBC news seems a bit less formal nowadays than it has been. I am not being conservative, but I think myself that news broadcasts should retain some formality.
What I also find annoying is how BBC Regional News programmes (Midlands Today especially) try to be too light-hearted on some occasions.
It's what I've always been told in 16 years of journalism.
The reason?
Well, it's because in radio the theory is that it's a 'one-to-one' medium. The relationship is between the broadcaster (whether it be the newsreader or presenter) and the listener. You aren't supposed to be talking to lots of people - you're just talking to one person.
And on some stations I was on in the early years, that may have been a literal person...
The reality is that you involve a lot of formalism. Court cases for example - you always give the full name, age and some level of their address.
Why?
Legally, because you have to. Also, BBC Guidelines state that you should refer to someone by their full name of title unless a guilty verdict has been reached,
For example, you would always refer to Mick Philpott during his trial as 'Mick Philpott' or 'Mr Philpott'. You couldn't call him 'Philpott' though (which many papers will have done).
Why? It can be seen as dehumanising and implying guilt.
Ultimately, when news-writing, you try and be as conversational as possible - but there are still many conventions that do not allow it.
The reason I ask is that this matter of referring to some children as 'kids' is purely a matter of class which thye English know about automatically. The children concerned were or are 'kids' because they are in a family living on benefits, who should not have had 'kids' because they are too poor and only had 'kids' so that childrens' allowance could be claimed.
The BBC got it exactly right. Working class people's brats are considered a burden on decent people and will be their whole lives, and just because they were killed does not mean that the BBC should kowtow to political correctness and refer to them in the same way as children of valuable members of society.
So you and I can continue to use the term 'children' for all youngsters, but the BBC must reflect the establishment view, which is after all how things actually are, not how we want them to be.
Xenophobia and denigration of the working classes all in one post? Congratulations! :rolleyes: