• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

BBC fishing for stories and opinions?

untallguy

Old-Salt
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#1
A chum had this link sent to him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/6292656.stm

which seems to be inviting serving soldiers to provide political comment to a media organisation.

Am I becoming crusty or is the BBC fishing for stories and ask soldiers to breach their terms of service by commenting on government policy and speaking to the media? (I am assuming that nobody is going to speak to their CoC before answering!)
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#2
'Oh & give us your name address & email address.
We won't tell anyone.'
 
#4
You can see that at least five minutes thought went into the questions. Possibly the BBC could address a similar poll, directed at every sitting MP. Asking such illuminating questions as:

When was the last time you had personal contact with a member of the armed forces who has served on TELIC / HERRICK?

What contact have you maintained with military families and the military community in your constituancy over the last 12 months.

What do you believe are the most urgent issues facing the armed forces in these operational theatres?

How long do you consider, given the information available, the government will be committing troops to these countries for?

Couldn't quite manage any more in 5 mins, but personally, I would prefer the BBC to ask questions of those allowed to respond, without jeopardising their' careers.
 
#5
I just sent the following comment to the BBC

"You know very well that serving personnel are not allowed to give interviews or comment to the press without the consent of their chain of command. Why therefore are you encouraging them to committ an offence under militar law?"

Will I get a response - I doubt it. You expect this sort of thing from the gutter press, I think we should expect better of the BBC.
 
#6
That's a rather quaint, old fashioned perception of the BBC you've got there, if you don't mind me saying so. I think their reputation went down the tubes some years ago. Gilligan whacked the last nail in.
 
#8
Perevodchik said:
So, err, given that this website has been quoted in the press, and given that journalists are known to frequent it's pages.....
True - on the other hand, To the best of my knowledge The CO's don't request the telephone numbers of registering members to authenticate who they are - although, maybe the BBC are just better at these things, should make the BBC's coverage of ID card security interesting!

How does the authentication conversation go?

"Hello, is this John Smith?"

"Yes"

"Ah, hello this is the BBC, you recently responded to a questionaire on the BBC website?"

"Er, yes, that's right"

"You realise that we have to be rigorous in ensuring that our sources are who they say they are? Well, I'm just ringing to confirm that you are in deed, John Smith, formerly John Smith of the Special Air Service Regiment?"

"Er, yep, that's right"

"And you served in Iraq and Afghanistan right?

"Yep, that's right, obviously I can't go into too much detail, because, of the rules, like, and I'd like to remain anonymous, after being photographed on that embassy balcony."

"Oh, ccompletely"

"So, is that it then?"

"Well, yes, thanks so much for your comments about Tony Blair's new home on the outskirts of Basrah being funded by the British tax-payer. Nobody, here had picked up on that one, so, we're bound to run with it, I'll drop you an email to your yahoo email address to let you know where it all goes."

"Yeah, no problem"

"Bye then."

"Yeah, cheers."
 
#14
Nosher361 said:
That's a rather quaint, old fashioned perception of the BBC you've got there, if you don't mind me saying so. I think their reputation went down the tubes some years ago. Gilligan whacked the last nail in.
Nosher what do you mean by that. Gilligan's report may have been sloppy but he got it right didn't he?
 
#15
goodkurtz said:
Nosher361 said:
That's a rather quaint, old fashioned perception of the BBC you've got there, if you don't mind me saying so. I think their reputation went down the tubes some years ago. Gilligan whacked the last nail in.
Nosher what do you mean by that. Gilligan's report may have been sloppy but he got it right didn't he?
Allegedly yes
 
#16
Sloppy journalism, yes. The aftermath wasn't their finest hour either. And they've got worse since.
 
#17
I've been lurking for a while principally with regard to the Afganinstan and Iraq threads. They give info that the average Briton would have to really search for. I saw this attempt at phishing and it really p*ssed me off, so I sent the following reply to Auntie,

"Do you realise that it is against military law for a serviceman/woman to contact the press without prior approval? I'm sure you are familiar with the term "argent provocateur".

"No material or information that could endanger British personnel will be used" - Is this the same BBC which broadcast the intended assault at Goose Green 25 years ago, thereby giving vital information to the enemy and endangering British personnel?

With regards to questions 3 and 4, what do you mean by "is the war winnable"? What are your criteria for a war that has been won? Ultimate destruction and mastery of one's enemies? Unconditional surrender (by whom) or the completion of a "self governing state"? etc, etc.

Number 10 in your quiz is subjective to what the individual regards as "the meedja" i.e. it is arbitrary and not worth consideration. It would be better to ask specifically about the BBC's coverage.

This is such a sloppy piece of so called journalism, but then again I am not surprised because the BBC's standards are, unfortunately, ever slipping. I wish it were not so but law requires me to pay the license fee even if I do not watch BBC TV channels or support the BBC's adgenda."

I didn't think I had any connection with current members of the armed forces. All my mates who served have now left, however, whilst researching my Great, Great Grandfather and his exploits in the Boer War and WW1 it transpires that two of my cousins whom I've never met are serving, one who has just returned from Iraq. This does not mean I have any true understanding the same way that I never knew my Gr-Gr Grandfather, however, it does personalise those conflicts.

I can just imagine the modern BBC phishing for info during WW1 using email such as - dear tommy.atkins@westernfront.fr.
 
#18
jungledave said:
goodkurtz said:
Nosher361 said:
That's a rather quaint, old fashioned perception of the BBC you've got there, if you don't mind me saying so. I think their reputation went down the tubes some years ago. Gilligan whacked the last nail in.
Nosher what do you mean by that. Gilligan's report may have been sloppy but he got it right didn't he?
Allegedly yes
I'm afraid not quite so allegedly. We have the Downing street memos, we have the testimony of Christopher Myers British Ambassador and the memoirs of George Tenet CIA chief at the time. And the attempted self excusing recantations of Colin Powell.
 
#19
untallguy said:
A chum had this link sent to him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/6292656.stm

which seems to be inviting serving soldiers to provide political comment to a media organisation.

Am I becoming crusty or is the BBC fishing for stories and ask soldiers to breach their terms of service by commenting on government policy and speaking to the media? (I am assuming that nobody is going to speak to their CoC before answering!)
E-mail them back, and ask them where NEW LABOUR - NO SHAME is spending the extra £45,500,000 it used to pay the USA, for it's wartime debt?

That should keep 'em going for a day at least..................
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top