Jump to content

Can The Bbc Stoop Any Lower...?


Lxxx

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Horse shit. There was a massacre, this picture was doing the rounds on the net as being evidence of the massacre, the BBC used it with a disclaimer and tried to verify. Millions of news photos are submitted to the BBC every year, is every person expected to remember every photo ever taken? Given the extent to which the picture was being used on the net in association with the syria massacre it was fair to assume it was connected, but, responsibily, the BBC made it clear it couldn't verify and removed once it was discounted.

If it was so obvious this picture was wrong, why did the Independent need the photographer to come forward and tell them, why didn't they just know?

Personally, I would be more concerned if the BBC had chosen not to try and give maximum coverage to this story. I would rather occasional mistakes are made in shining a light on these dark acts than they are covered up because journalists are scared of pushing the limits and sometimes getting it wrong.

As a result of this BBC mistake no one died, no one lost out (except the murderng filth ruling Syria). A photographer probably makes some money and one of the greatest horrors happening on earth today gets increased exposure.

As a result of the west's refusal to take decisive action in Syria thousands are dying.

I know actually deserves a discussion thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Efforts were made overnight to track down the original source of the image and when it was established the picture was inaccurate we removed it immediately.”

 

They obviously did not check very hard since the image should have been well known to anyone on the picture desk and since, anyhow, the image is trivial to trace even without knowing its original source. And given the obvious sensitivity of such an image if there had been any doubt then they could have called in a second opinion - either internally or at any of the agencies. It would instantly have been recognised.

 

What this points to (at least) is the increasing over - dependence of the media on unaccredited and often unverified sources. So eg you get these ridiculous situations where 24 hour news is reporting what someone unknown is saying on Twitter - and this is shaping what people believe.

 

The respectable media was always about verifiying the source and preferably getting corroboration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horse shit. There was a massacre, this picture was doing the rounds on the net as being evidence of the massacre, the BBC used it with a disclaimer and tried to verify. Millions of news photos are submitted to the BBC every year, is every person expected to remember every photo ever taken? Given the extent to which the picture was being used on the net in association with the syria massacre it was fair to assume it was connected, but, responsibily, the BBC made it clear it couldn't verify and removed once it was discounted.

If it was so obvious this picture was wrong, why did the Independent need the photographer to come forward and tell them, why didn't they just know?

Personally, I would be more concerned if the BBC had chosen not to try and give maximum coverage to this story. I would rather occasional mistakes are made in shining a light on these dark acts than they are covered up because journalists are scared of pushing the limits and sometimes getting it wrong.

As a result of this BBC mistake no one died, no one lost out (except the murderng filth ruling Syria). A photographer probably makes some money and one of the greatest horrors happening on earth today gets increased exposure.

As a result of the west's refusal to take decisive action in Syria thousands are dying.

I know actually deserves a discussion thread.

 

The BBC also used the wrong 'LIVE' footage last year in saying that rebel forces were celebrating their victory over Ghaddafi in Green Square, when in fact it was footage in India and the flags being waved were clearly Indian flags. They even claimed to have spoken to the journalist there who sent them the pictures! This sloppy journalism from over-stressed employee's is spreading rapidly.

 

[media=]

[/media]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC also used the wrong 'LIVE' footage last year in saying that rebel forces were celebrating their victory over Ghaddafi in Green Square, when in fact it was footage in India and the flags being waved were clearly Indian flags. They even claimed to have spoken to the journalist there who sent them the pictures! This sloppy journalism from over-stressed employee's is spreading rapidly.

 

This is clearly going to comer as a major shock to you Lxxx but guess what?

 

Organisations like Aunty Beeb are run by people. People make mistakes. Always have, always will.

 

Claiming they should never get it wrong is simply not living in the real world.

 

Oh, how silly of me....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...