- A generalised catch-all rant against the BBC…
I have a small amount of sympathy with the OP. It struck me that the Beeb were caught out by the timing of the news last night and the first 30-50mins suffered from the problem that afflicts all 24hours news – the desperate need to say something and fill time. They got it back together again after the hour with better coverage.
Old Huw was either emotional, having too much said jnto his ear or just in a bit of a panic – but he was not his normal self IMO. But it was a ramble for most of the time.
Far better to have a summary in the news, a pause (to refletc?) and return to well researched tributes in time. But that doesn’t fit in with the obsession to keep talking. Must have been a bit if a panic in the newsroom at about 9:45 or whenever the news went live.Posted 4 years agoedlongMember
Why does every programme have to tell you what’s coming up later in the programme and then have to recap what happened earlier before showing it to you.
Multi-channel telly and short attention spans – they assume, rightly, that a fair few viewers will have flicked over part way through, hence the re-caps, and also that a fair few will be tempted to go elsewhere, hence the “coming up next” to try to keep them watching.Posted 4 years agohelsMember
All newspapers and TV channels have prepared Obits. It’s a full time job for somebody, or even a while team, to update them, on a risk-managed basis I would imagine.
As somebody above mentioned, this has been expected for a while, so they have been adding to the reel, possibly too much.
They no doubt spent a lot of time on Michael Jackson too.Posted 4 years agoMrSalmonMember
This is the last great man who will die in our time. Genuinely moving.
I’d be upset if they interrupt 10% as much when the queen dies.
He deserved it. If you don’t get why he was so important and how much he means to the world, and the model he set for a different way of resolving things, a better way of being a man, then naff off into the shadows of ignorance and complacency.
Agreed on the first part, but I don’t think questioning the need to stretch 20 minutes of actual content into an hour of ‘our correspondent in…’ waffle means you don’t get why he was so important. Showing some respect for the man and his achievements and feeling the need to fill airtime with any Mandela-related angle or footage from the archives are not the same thing.Posted 4 years agoyunkiMember
I also happen to think the most sincere performance during Cameron’s speech was the cat’s photobomb
from facebookPosted 4 years ago
… and to add a little colour and controversy to todays events… When you see David Cameron on TV today giving his most intense impression of a member of humanity, remember that in 1985 he was a influential member of the Federation of Conservative Students, who produced the “Hang Mandela” posters. In 1989 he also worked in the Tory Policy Unit at Central office and went on an anti-sanction fact finding mission with a Pro-Apartheid Lobby Firm sponsored by P.W. Botha. All this whilst working for the woman who called Mandela “that grubby little terrorist”. Lest we forget.
remember that in 1985 he was a influential member of the Federation of Conservative Students,
All this whilst working for the woman who called Mandela “that grubby little terrorist”
There is no record of Thatcher ever referring to Mandela as a terrorist.Posted 4 years ago
1. a. The act or fact of grasping the meaning, nature, or importance of; understanding.
b. The knowledge that is acquired in this way.
2. Capacity to include.
3. Logic The sum of meanings and corresponding implications inherent in a term.
Read the article you linked to again, and tell me where it refers to Thatcher actually calling Mandela a terroristPosted 4 years agoJunkyardMember
IN 1987 she referred to the ANC as a terrorist organisation.
Now whilst I would love to pin dance with you as you scribble across the forum I think we all know you are both talking bollocks* and wont stop.
The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation … Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land’ – Margaret Thatcher, 1987
Lots of refernces to that on the internet and it is also quoted as thus
In a press conference Thatcher was asked by Alan Merrydew of BCTV News what her response was “to a reported ANC statement that they will target British firms in South Africa?” She replied that: “when the ANC says that they will target British companies. This shows what a typical terrorist organisation it is. I fought terrorism all my life and if more people fought it, and we were all more successful, we should not have it and I hope that everyone in this hall will think it is right to go on fighting terrorism. They will if they believe in democracy.”
Personally think that makes it worse
* to be fair you like to argue a tenuous but plausible [ish] points as you are not stupid. However your moral compass constantly points to provocative asshat.Posted 4 years agogrumMember
As well as claiming they always loved Mandela and definitely didn’t support apartheid, next the Maggie fan-boys will be denying she cosied up to Pinochet and Pol Pot.
Classy folks, really classy.
It’s perfectly reasonable to highlight the Tory’s legacy of behaviour towards the ANC and apartheid when DC is trying to make political capital out of Mandela’s death.
People talk about ‘showing respect’ to try and stifle uncomfortable truths or opinions they don’t agree with – just like when Maggie died.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘A generalised catch-all rant against the BBC…’ is closed to new replies.