Jobs & Education1 min ago
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The BBC News is censored though probably less so than most news organisations. The only bias here though is that the mosque disturbance is in a far away country and so that lessens it's news value. We are very parochial about news, and if there is not a British angle it will drop down the order and maybe even only get a passing mention.
for TV purposes 'news' has to have footage. If there isn't any (I don't know if they've had any from Pakistan), the item will be low on their agenda or not there at all. But the website, which can make do with the odd photo, has carried the story at length, as in my previous post. So, no, I don't think they're censored (as opposed to being edited, which means someone is making a decision about what the mains tories of the day is, and is common to all news organisations).
jno
The BBC recently revealed that it had told the family of Alan Johnston that it had the tape of him with a bomb belt but that it wasn't going to boadcast any of the footage. Very laudible pronouncement to the family of a colleague, but that is still censorship from an organisation whose job is to impart information.
The BBC recently revealed that it had told the family of Alan Johnston that it had the tape of him with a bomb belt but that it wasn't going to boadcast any of the footage. Very laudible pronouncement to the family of a colleague, but that is still censorship from an organisation whose job is to impart information.
The BBC won't broadcast jihadi videos of hostages being beheaded and so on. As rojash says, they're not suppressing news of the event, just not depicting it. I'm not sure if this amounts to censorship or whether it's just routine editorial decision-taking, bearing in mind the size and make-up of the audience. But the facts have not been hidden as brionon's original question sort of suggests might be the case.
We get for example a sanitised version of the horrors in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a school of thought which says if the British public were shown the graphic material of the suffering to the people and our soldiers, that they might have been more vociferous in their calls to get out of those places. Shielding us from the horrors, might actually be prolonging those horrors.
Some may argue it is about public decency and others may think it is about not upsetting the government. Whatever, it is censorship.
Some may argue it is about public decency and others may think it is about not upsetting the government. Whatever, it is censorship.
I get fed up with TV news, the other day there was a female reporter pontificating on about Wimbleton matters, while at the same time the Breaking News rolling strip at the bottom of the screen was stating that some more troops had been killed in Iraq.
Why do they not cut-off immediatly any trival reporting, and report live the fact that we had lost more troops? Which is what would happen if a so called VIP had been killed.
Why do they not cut-off immediatly any trival reporting, and report live the fact that we had lost more troops? Which is what would happen if a so called VIP had been killed.
probably because they didn't know any more at the time, oldgit. They get the news that someone has been killed but know nothing about who, where or when, so they initially announce it with scrolling type at the bottom of the screen, so viewers know the bare details as soon as possible, then follow it up more fully when they know more themselves.
1 to 15 of 15
