FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > BBC reports censured by interested parties.
BBC reports censured by interested parties.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Read a report today that the independent group that decide on suitability of matters reported by the BBC is run by large businesses and newspapers eg pharmaceutical companies and the Daily Mail, among others. It's not a huge surprise, given the bias in the choices and content of reports but can anyone else add anything?" Link ? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Read a report today that the independent group that decide on suitability of matters reported by the BBC is run by large businesses and newspapers eg pharmaceutical companies and the Daily Mail, among others. It's not a huge surprise, given the bias in the choices and content of reports but can anyone else add anything?" If news is of a live real time nature, how would there be time to assess whether or not it is reported . How many are on the committee's and what is their background . ? | |||
"D notices are there to stop fuckwit reporters and news papers from dropping some poor twat in the shit just so they can be the first to release a story. Especially when it comes down to defence ect " Maybe but that is just the first layer in our countries secrecy laws | |||
"Read a report today that the independent group that decide on suitability of matters reported by the BBC is run by large businesses and newspapers eg pharmaceutical companies and the Daily Mail, among others. It's not a huge surprise, given the bias in the choices and content of reports but can anyone else add anything? If news is of a live real time nature, how would there be time to assess whether or not it is reported . How many are on the committee's and what is their background . ? " You won’t get an answer to this as they don’t exist. Live reports on ongoing incidents are also exactly that..., they go out live (my daughter was present immediately following the Manchester bombings). No committee on earth can alter that.... it’s just another conspiracy theory by the flat earth /ruled by lizards brigade., | |||
| |||
"You won’t get an answer to this as they don’t exist. Live reports on ongoing incidents are also exactly that..., they go out live (my daughter was present immediately following the Manchester bombings). No committee on earth can alter that.... it’s just another conspiracy theory by the flat earth /ruled by lizards brigade.," All live TV has an absolute minimum of a 7 second studio delay and it is the job of the editors to pull the plug at any point where content breaks guidelines or the law. There is usually a second delay built in at the transmitters too. Or are you so gullible that you believe it when live reports suddenly go off air and the newscaster tells you they are having technical difficulties... | |||
"There's no such thing as "live TV"!!.... There's not even "live radio", except maybe your local shit. The media has always been the main strong arm of governments, that's why there panicking to fuck over social media" My daughter was at the scene in Manchester. Could see and hear the reporter directly...and at the same time her friend was streaming the live tv pics on her iPhone. How live do you want it? Not even a 4 second time delay..... loads of TV is live! | |||
| |||
"Read a report today that the independent group that decide on suitability of matters reported by the BBC is run by large businesses and newspapers eg pharmaceutical companies and the Daily Mail, among others. It's not a huge surprise, given the bias in the choices and content of reports but can anyone else add anything?" Maybe a few examples of what you think has been censored would be helpful. And, when you say bias in the choice and content of reports, which way do you think it's biased because about 1/3 of the people who regularly post here seem to think it's biased against the left, in particular against Jeremy Corbyn, another 1/3 seem to think it's full of liberal left wing luvies on a mission to destroy the moral fibre of the nation and the other 1/3 just don't understand what the fuck the other 2/3 are on about. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Forget the link, go straight to the source- Science Media Centre. The BBC use them to check anything remotely concerned with science, from what I gather eg reports from BMJ, GM issues and climate change The point is there's no such thing as an independent source if it is funded by a host of interested parties. Its CEO has an interesting pedigree too, concerning denying genocide in Rwanda" This is what the Science Media Centre say on its website under its "for journalists" section. "When science hits the news agenda, it’s our job to pass on to journalists as much accurate information as we can, as quickly as possible. In order to do this we send out quotes from experts, statistical analyses of scientific studies and Factsheets, in addition to running regular press briefings on the latest hot topic. Find our most recent Roundups and Rapid Reactions, briefings, Factsheets and ‘Before the Headlines’ analyses below, or use the icons on the right. As well as working with experienced specialist reporters, we also provide support to new reporters, editors and generalists through a series of publications, including ‘Briefing Notes’ on controversial topics, and guidelines on science and health reporting, and by working with the National Coordinator for Science Training for Journalists." Can you explain how that is censorship? | |||
| |||
"Forget the link, go straight to the source- Science Media Centre. The BBC use them to check anything remotely concerned with science, from what I gather eg reports from BMJ, GM issues and climate change The point is there's no such thing as an independent source if it is funded by a host of interested parties. Its CEO has an interesting pedigree too, concerning denying genocide in Rwanda This is what the Science Media Centre say on its website under its "for journalists" section. "When science hits the news agenda, it’s our job to pass on to journalists as much accurate information as we can, as quickly as possible. In order to do this we send out quotes from experts, statistical analyses of scientific studies and Factsheets, in addition to running regular press briefings on the latest hot topic. Find our most recent Roundups and Rapid Reactions, briefings, Factsheets and ‘Before the Headlines’ analyses below, or use the icons on the right. As well as working with experienced specialist reporters, we also provide support to new reporters, editors and generalists through a series of publications, including ‘Briefing Notes’ on controversial topics, and guidelines on science and health reporting, and by working with the National Coordinator for Science Training for Journalists." Can you explain how that is censorship? " Completely agree with you here, it's the complete opposite of censorship and is looking to get the facts out. Science reporting in the mainstream media, especially the printed press is shockingly bad. Many papers don't have specialist reporters anymore so they'll basically go for a headline grabbing story about a scientific study they don't understand that bears little comparison to the actual outcome of a study or research. Looks like this site is addressing that. I've lifted the below directly from the site: " about us The Science Media Centre has its roots in the influential House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee third report on Science and Society, which wanted to renew public trust in science. Established in 2002, it was originally based in the Royal Institution of Great Britain, until becoming a separate charity in its own right in April 2011. The Centre is now housed in the Wellcome Collection, and believes that scientists can have a huge impact on the way the media cover scientific issues, by engaging more quickly and more effectively with the stories that are influencing public debate and attitudes to science. The SMC’s philosophy is: “The media will DO science better when scientists DO the media better.” Our Mission To provide, for the benefit of the public and policymakers, accurate and evidence-based information about science and engineering through the media, particularly on controversial and headline news stories when most confusion and misinformation occurs. Our Priorities – Working with journalists and providing them with information about science and its related disciplines; making it easier for them to get access to the best science and scientists when science stories are making the headlines. – Working with scientists, engineers and other experts, and supporting them to engage with the media; creating more opportunities for them to get their voices heard on the big science, health and environment stories of the day. – Supporting press officers when they are working on complex science, health and environment stories. – In addition, the SMC provides expert advice and evidence on issues relating to science in the media. The Centre often submits evidence to select committee inquiries on science communication in emergencies and public understanding of risk, and in 2011-12 gave both written and oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, ethics and practice of the press. Our Independence The independence of the Science Media Centre is critical to the work we carry out. We do not have any specific agenda other than to promote the reporting of evidence-based science, and are completely independent in both our governance and funding. Annual Report The Science Media Centre’s Annual Reports can be found on this page. You can view our profile on the Charity Commission’s website here." | |||
"I'm surprised you need it explained to you as it's self-evident that it's not an independent organisation, being that it is funded by parties with their business interests or tight agendas. An organisation funded by parties standing to gain by the suppression of news that harms or promotes it if it improves their profits ( because when all else is said, that is what it fundamentally about) is censoring anything may result in falling sales. Worse than that, it is censoring scientific papers about the effects of government strategy eh in the example of the BMJ report, results on how many people the report says have died as a direct result of austerity cuts. My point in this is that we should all be aware that there is NO SUCH THING as independent news reporting, that media influences every single thing we do, buy or believe and that it behoves us to remember this, reconsider where we stand in this and broaden our horizons." Have you read the list of people providing funding and the fact it caps how much individual organisations can pay. There are lots of Universities, Royal societies, charities etc in there. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Yes, I have. It reinforces my point." It actually does the exact opposite. Alzheimers society Royal society of biology Open university Motor Neurone disease society British ecological society Alzheimers research uk Institute of cancer research Institute of physics The Met office Kings college London Research councils UK Cancer research UK Imperial College British heart foundation Food Standards agency Medical research council University of Edinburgh National Institute for health research I've just cherry picked a few but I don' think you could find a less sinister organisation. If lists every single one of it's donors by a range of donation levels and caps each individual donor. It alos provides charts showing how it's donations are made up. Everything is very transparent and clear. I'm assuimg you've read a blog that was outraged about this somewhere? Was it 'Another Angry Voice'? | |||
 | |||
"Yes, I have. It reinforces my point. It actually does the exact opposite. Alzheimers society Royal society of biology Open university Motor Neurone disease society British ecological society Alzheimers research uk Institute of cancer research Institute of physics The Met office Kings college London Research councils UK Cancer research UK Imperial College British heart foundation Food Standards agency Medical research council University of Edinburgh National Institute for health research I've just cherry picked a few but I don' think you could find a less sinister organisation. If lists every single one of it's donors by a range of donation levels and caps each individual donor. It alos provides charts showing how it's donations are made up. Everything is very transparent and clear. I'm assuimg you've read a blog that was outraged about this somewhere? Was it 'Another Angry Voice'?" You assume wrongly. It's never wise to, with a unknown person. Open your mind- donors- large companies, and I include charities in this because they are just that for those employed in them- chose to donate to/join another company that influences news and media output....out of the goodness of their hearts? If that's your take, I despair. Before someone comes back with 'someone has to do it', my point is we should recognise that everything we hear and read is censored and we should be aware of how this leads our opinions, emotions and beliefs. | |||
"Yes, I have. It reinforces my point. It actually does the exact opposite. Alzheimers society Royal society of biology Open university Motor Neurone disease society British ecological society Alzheimers research uk Institute of cancer research Institute of physics The Met office Kings college London Research councils UK Cancer research UK Imperial College British heart foundation Food Standards agency Medical research council University of Edinburgh National Institute for health research I've just cherry picked a few but I don' think you could find a less sinister organisation. If lists every single one of it's donors by a range of donation levels and caps each individual donor. It alos provides charts showing how it's donations are made up. Everything is very transparent and clear. I'm assuimg you've read a blog that was outraged about this somewhere? Was it 'Another Angry Voice'? You assume wrongly. It's never wise to, with a unknown person. Open your mind- donors- large companies, and I include charities in this because they are just that for those employed in them- chose to donate to/join another company that influences news and media output....out of the goodness of their hearts? If that's your take, I despair. Before someone comes back with 'someone has to do it', my point is we should recognise that everything we hear and read is censored and we should be aware of how this leads our opinions, emotions and beliefs. " So as you are singling out charities as being particularly nefarious, what kind of stories would Cancer Research UK, or the British Heart Foundation censor? Also, how does this organisation only "censor" the BBC? | |||
| |||
"Instead of asking questions with self-evident answers, go think about it for a while. Where have I singled out charities? Why should charities have donated to this? This organisation informs the BBC'S reporting and most other media's. It's funded by large companies, including charities, whose interests are all featured or involved with media output. " So you can't think of one type of story a charity would censor then. Why would charities want their press releases seen by media outlets? Because they want the publicity. Why would charities want their scientists interviewed by the media? So they can talk about the good work of the charity, and also the need for further research to achieve even better outcomes, new treatments etc. That's fairly obvious. So how does "informing" as you say it equate to censorship? Can this organisation stop the BBC from publishing a story that they don't like? It can't. You should admit that your opening post is complete bollocks. You can't even spell properly. To censor means to suppress unacceptable material. To censure means to formally express severe disapproval. | |||
| |||
"It has indeed stopped publishing or reporting on issues that affect its sponsors. I've already mentioned one. Promotion of charities is censoring of a kind (it's meant to bring in more donations) but not as malevolent as drug companies preventing reporting on the adverse effects of their products on say, the environment or foreign countries or wildlife. Every single group on that list has a self interest in making sure that their 'product' remains untainted. Again, we should recognise that every part of our media is governed by that and judge accordingly. " Through what mechanism can this body censor the BBC, and only the BBC, but not other media organisations? After all, your opening post and title is only aimed at the BBC. | |||
| |||
| |||
"And in other news, conspiracy theories continue to be stupid." But demonjohn, you made that statement in a public site, that would be read by the media as an official statement from demonjohn. That's like a release, that the press could read! You have censured [sic] the media!!!!! How could you demonjohn?  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Offs. How simple do I need to make this!!!! If an organisation with a paying membership of interested parties are informing the BBC and the media in general about the suitability of reporting on matters directly or indirectly related to their members, we as the public, need to be aware that censorship and that information eggs, the BMJ concern, is going unreported and so judge what we do hear accordingly. " The BMJ is a peer reviewed journal. That means they provide their own internal review process to ensure the quality of the work. They self review and self publish. Another organisation can't stop the BMJ publishing an article that it wants to publish. So how was it censored? | |||
| |||
"How do you think? At least we agree on the BMJ being peer reviewed. The Science Media Centre judged the BMJ'S peer reviewed report, which was critical of the government's austerity measures and had reported the likely deaths resulting, as not something the BBC should report on (other media did, though). In this, the BBC was censored or to be more exact, the output of news concerning the issues highlighted in the BMJ were censored in the BBC" Is that the claim that's made on the Angry Voice blog I mentioned above as it's the only place I can find such a claim? It looks as though the comment or article may have been removed but it's still showing up on search results. Is this political blog where you got your into abour the SMC? | |||
| |||
"How do you think? At least we agree on the BMJ being peer reviewed. The Science Media Centre judged the BMJ'S peer reviewed report, which was critical of the government's austerity measures and had reported the likely deaths resulting, as not something the BBC should report on (other media did, though). In this, the BBC was censored or to be more exact, the output of news concerning the issues highlighted in the BMJ were censored in the BBC" Through what mechanism? How was it censored? The BBC were going to run a story and the SMC said they weren't allowed? I'm sure the BBC have a subscription to the BMJ, if they see an interesting story, then they can report on it. If they don't think it newsworthy then they wont. | |||
| |||
| |||
"There's no such thing as "live TV"!!.... There's not even "live radio", except maybe your local shit. The media has always been the main strong arm of governments, that's why there panicking to fuck over social media My daughter was at the scene in Manchester. Could see and hear the reporter directly...and at the same time her friend was streaming the live tv pics on her iPhone. How live do you want it? Not even a 4 second time delay..... loads of TV is live!" . Do you know why analogue radio and dB radio have a 1 second time difference?.... Anyhow more to the point all TV broadcasts by law have to have a time delay. Outside broadcasts will have more of a delay due to routing | |||
"I've heard of the Angry Blogger or any other blogger What comes out of all this useless debate, if I'm frank, is how quickly any challenge to the status quo is rebuked or how tenaciously some hold onto the dream of the UK state being an icon of truth and fairness. That's a dangerous mindset but possibly comforting to those who hold it. It certainly removes any personal responsibility to question or interpret information given- a bit like accepting orders without question. I'll repeat what I've said- little can be changed but we'd be wise to look and listen and weigh up what's being reported with the suspicion that there might be either a back story or another interpretation and MAKE UP OUR OWN MINDS. " 1. You can't decribe the mechanism of the so called censorship. 2. You can't spell censorship, which means you probably don't know much about it. 3. You can explain how this censorship applies only to the BBC when this organisation is completely independent of the BBC and has no oversight of the BBC. 4. You stuggle to understand what censorship actually is. | |||
"I've heard of the Angry Blogger or any other blogger What comes out of all this useless debate, if I'm frank, is how quickly any challenge to the status quo is rebuked or how tenaciously some hold onto the dream of the UK state being an icon of truth and fairness. That's a dangerous mindset but possibly comforting to those who hold it. It certainly removes any personal responsibility to question or interpret information given- a bit like accepting orders without question. I'll repeat what I've said- little can be changed but we'd be wise to look and listen and weigh up what's being reported with the suspicion that there might be either a back story or another interpretation and MAKE UP OUR OWN MINDS. " And with that in mind, would you accept that having looked, listened and weighted up what you've presented people are well within their rights to judge it as inconsequential nonsense, or is that not what you meant by "MAKE[ing] UP OUR OWN MINDS"? | |||
| |||
"Everyone is free to form an opinion. It's the basis upon which we form it that's the important issue. If you think it's inconsequential ie, having no consequence, you are very, very mistaken my friend. Censoring happens and to take a media fact as truth without question is naive. However, it is your choice. " You are taking an unregulated blog as fact, and dimissing an internationally recognised, award winning news agency. I know which sounds more daft to me. I'm sure you have followed the proper procedures and made a complaint about this censorship though, right? | |||
"Just seen an organisation called "Illumina" have also donated, clearly a poorly disguised cover for the illuminati "PMSL..... Illuminati....really?  | |||
"Everyone is free to form an opinion. It's the basis upon which we form it that's the important issue. If you think it's inconsequential ie, having no consequence, you are very, very mistaken my friend. Censoring happens and to take a media fact as truth without question is naive. However, it is your choice. " Of course they are but it's always good to check the information that opinion is formed from. You mentioned you read a report today but don't want to disclose where you read it. Since I can only find it on a couple of blogs I've dug around right down to the original supposedly suppressed report and I can see why the SMC would caution the BBC about reporting it given the what the report states in it's own conclusion (I've posted it in an earlier post). If you don't want to tell us where the report you read about this resides then fair enough but you can understand how that looks. Actually just thinking about it, it looks like you're suppressing and censoring the report you read  | |||
| |||
"Everyone is free to form an opinion. It's the basis upon which we form it that's the important issue. If you think it's inconsequential ie, having no consequence, you are very, very mistaken my friend. Censoring happens and to take a media fact as truth without question is naive. However, it is your choice. " Even if I were mistaken, you've utterly failed to present a convincing case. Knowing that, turning it around into being my failing isn't really going to work for you. | |||
"Everyone is free to form an opinion. It's the basis upon which we form it that's the important issue. If you think it's inconsequential ie, having no consequence, you are very, very mistaken my friend. Censoring happens and to take a media fact as truth without question is naive. However, it is your choice. You are taking an unregulated blog as fact, and dimissing an internationally recognised, award winning news agency. I know which sounds more daft to me. I'm sure you have followed the proper procedures and made a complaint about this censorship though, right? " As I said, I haven't seen the unregulated blog you talked about hence I haven't quoted it. However, what you've read in a blog isn't that relevant, since I'm talking about the actual SMC. I do wish you read and assimilate before criticising. If you or anyone else are happy that a company funded by a host of interested parties gives advice on the suitability of reporting topics, following advice from those members, you have no critical facility.. It's not the legal side- that is for lawyers- it's the subject. It's not an editorial decision - it's an outside, funded and self serving body having control over what is presented about their members. It is as it is, whether you like it or not. It's not the only high profile organisation moulding public thought but denying it does doesn't make it stop. | |||
"Everyone is free to form an opinion. It's the basis upon which we form it that's the important issue. If you think it's inconsequential ie, having no consequence, you are very, very mistaken my friend. Censoring happens and to take a media fact as truth without question is naive. However, it is your choice. You are taking an unregulated blog as fact, and dimissing an internationally recognised, award winning news agency. I know which sounds more daft to me. I'm sure you have followed the proper procedures and made a complaint about this censorship though, right? As I said, I haven't seen the unregulated blog you talked about hence I haven't quoted it. However, what you've read in a blog isn't that relevant, since I'm talking about the actual SMC. I do wish you read and assimilate before criticising. If you or anyone else are happy that a company funded by a host of interested parties gives advice on the suitability of reporting topics, following advice from those members, you have no critical facility.. It's not the legal side- that is for lawyers- it's the subject. It's not an editorial decision - it's an outside, funded and self serving body having control over what is presented about their members. It is as it is, whether you like it or not. It's not the only high profile organisation moulding public thought but denying it does doesn't make it stop. " So what was your source for your opening post if you didn't get it from a blog? It's an organisation, a resource that journalists can use. Its similar to an umbrella organisation. There are all sorts of umbrella organisation, for unions, for house builders, for military charities, for homeless charities, for the telecom's industry, for the aviation industry etc etc etc. All of these umbrella organisations can help the media with press releases, experts to talk to, facts, figures, and a central voice to represent that industruly. That's not censorship. It's part of a functioning democracy. | |||
| |||
| |||
"You miss the point of a business, for this is what it is, funded by those with a huge amount of self interest deciding what is and what is not suitable for publication. The BMJ report's conclusion was widely reported by newspapers, broadsheet and rag alike but not by the BBC as far as I can tell. It was a rather interesting conclusion that was come to so why not? The report I read is not available to share as it's internal . None of the blogs above mention the MSC so why suggest I read them? All blogs start with some sort of truth. Where it goes from there depends on the blogger. I'm not interested in embroidery. I am interested to pursue truth though and feel better placed to judge reporting, knowing the agenda they pursue and have always. What we are told is never the whole story, ever, and there is plenty we don't ever get told. " There is no problem here, not matter how hard you look. As you have said, the BMJ article was widely reported, despite the limitations written by the authors of the article. So its in the public domain. If you want info on all articles in the BMJ, then get a subscription to the BMJ, don't expect 1 media organisation to do that for you. You are pissed off that not every single media outlet reports on exactly the same story. I would be a lot more concerned if it were the other way round, and if all media outlets covered exactly the same stories. That would be a recipe for disaster. | |||
| |||
"No, I'm not 'pissed off'. You aren't taking in what I'm saying. That's up to you." 1 organisation didn't run a story covered by other media outlets. That's the crux of your complaint. Right? | |||
 ))) | |||
"Nooo lol never mind )))"You only named 1 organisation in your opening post, and haven't been able to show any evidence of censorship. | |||
))) Lol.
| |||
"I suspect that even if I cut and pasted the original details from the email, you'd still not get the point. Don't let it tax you anymore ))) Lol.
"Yeah, it's probably best to leave the thread there now your arse has been handed to you and been proved to be wrong by multiple posters  | |||
| |||
"BMJ are a company who accept sponsorship. I’m a little lost how they can be called unbiased if others are called bias for donations. " Someone would have to do the legwork and prove a quid pro quo. I figure we'll be waiting a long time. | |||
| |||
"They certainly wouldn't even begin. You do know what BMJ stands for? " Biased media journalism?  | |||
 | |||
"Awe bless. You do know this is an adults only site? "It was a joke, I have 3 or 4 BMJ articles printed out, highlighted and sitting on my desk right now. | |||
"BMJ are a company who accept sponsorship. I’m a little lost how they can be called unbiased if others are called bias for donations. " According to their website: "Sources of revenue The BMJ accepts revenue from a range of sources to ensure wide and affordable access while maintaining high standards of quality and full editorial independence. The sources of income include subscriptions from institutions and individuals; classified advertising for jobs and courses; display advertising for pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical products; events (exhibitions, sponsorship, and visitor fees); sale of reprints, rights, and royalties; sponsorship; and open access publication fees. Where content has been supported by sponsorship—for example, as a result of an unrestricted educational grant—this is clearly indicated." | |||
"BMJ are a company who accept sponsorship. I’m a little lost how they can be called unbiased if others are called bias for donations. According to their website: "Sources of revenue The BMJ accepts revenue from a range of sources to ensure wide and affordable access while maintaining high standards of quality and full editorial independence. The sources of income include subscriptions from institutions and individuals; classified advertising for jobs and courses; display advertising for pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical products; events (exhibitions, sponsorship, and visitor fees); sale of reprints, rights, and royalties; sponsorship; and open access publication fees. Where content has been supported by sponsorship—for example, as a result of an unrestricted educational grant—this is clearly indicated."" I’m not claiming they are biased btw ! | |||
