One thing puzzles me. I get the "thick rag clickbait" thing for pushing the scum through various media outlets. But what I don't get is why the BBC need to do this? They don't need to attract advertising revenue, their output is funded regardless of audience volumes, so why?
BBC website running a poll now on where the rug head should go next. No option to vote for my septic tank, how biased is that?. Mind you, staying at the scum is an option and that's an even worse fate.
I went there to check. I didn't see any adverts, except for "adverts" for the Rags. On the Football page of bbc.co.uk as of 15:45 CET there are 5 (in letters five !) stories related to Rooney and China.They are still reliant on site hits as this is a standard metric to prove the 'value' of their output. As successive governments, usually at the behest of such as Murdoch, have pressurised the BBC and cut its funding in various ways, they need whatever they can to defend themselves. The funding now may be stable, but every ten (?) years the charter comes up for review.
Also, I thought foreign visitors saw adverts on the BBC?
There were also about 5 Leicester stories ...Probably more like 100
I went there to check. I didn't see any adverts, except for "adverts" for the Rags. On the Football page of bbc.co.uk as of 15:45 CET there are 5 (in letters five !) stories related to Rooney and China.
There is 1 City story on the entire page, but 5 other Rag stories. Are there really 10 times as many Rag fans as City fans?
Exactly and this isn't just about the Pete The Badge incident. There have been a whole series of issues regarding their coverage of us that I've complained about. I understand that the commercial media have to pander to the rag/dipper fan-base and accept that, albeit reluctantly. But the BBC should be the one organisation that is above all that and that treats everyone the same, fairly and impartially. Every individual working for an organisation, big or small, is an ambassador for and should reflect the values of that organisation. The BBC has a published set of guidelines and standards that one or more of their staff or contractors is blatantly ignoring and they should be held to account for that, in the same way that if a member of staff at Tesco was abusive without reason, you'd expect action to be taken rather than the management failing to deal with it and issuing a mealy-mouthed response.That is too simplistic even if aspects of it may be true. This is the BBC sports website, accessible worldwide and paid for by you and me and every other licence payer. It isn't a two bit City programme written and run by pro City people [ We presume.] The BBC by what it stands for and being funded by the public should be vetted more stringently than the City programme. When the original picture of Pete appeared there was no mention of Bertie at all. I know because I saw it as it appeared live online on my phone as I was heading to the game. The piss taking comments was added later.
Yes every other media outlet push the rags, the dippers and the London luvvies before us for the clicks but they rely on advertisement revenue, the BBC does not. They have been overstepping the line for some time now and the treatment of Pete was a leap over that line too far.
Nonce nest! That did make me chuckle, stood up on my delayed train from London Marylebone to Brum :-(Not to mention it has been the nations leading 'Nonce Nest' since it's glorious inception. Hats off to Auntie I say!
so as anyone asked Pete about this or is everyone just having a moan about BBC
Exactly and this isn't just about the Pete The Badge incident. There have been a whole series of issues regarding their coverage of us that I've complained about. I understand that the commercial media have to pander to the rag/dipper fan-base and accept that, albeit reluctantly. But the BBC should be the one organisation that is above all that and that treats everyone the same, fairly and impartially. Every individual working for an organisation, big or small, is an ambassador for and should reflect the values of that organisation. The BBC has a published set of guidelines and standards that one or more of their staff or contractors is blatantly ignoring and they should be held to account for that, in the same way that if a member of staff at Tesco was abusive without reason, you'd expect action to be taken rather than the management failing to deal with it and issuing a mealy-mouthed response.
And it also begs the question that if they're allowing bias to control their sport output then where else in the organisation are people allowed to project their views as the BBC's? There's a whole issue over editorial control and balance that they seem to be ignoring. If they want to behave like TalkSport then they should abandon the licence fee and take adverts. If they want to be funded by the public, then they should respect their audience
Pete appears to be a bit of a loner. I have spoken to him a few times but he kind of keeps himself to himself, although he is receptive to conversation when engaged. Really we don't need to ask Pete though do we? If we see a City fan being attacked or bullied I would hope most of us would try and stop it. An attack on one of us is an attack on us all, a bit like family really. Of course if Pete asked people not to do so on his behalf it would be a different matter.
On the broader subject of the BBC, which in case we forget is supposed to be impartial and who WE fund, they have become progressively more biased against City and as such some of us feel a stand has to be taken. As in singing and fan's staying until the end of games, no one is forcing anyone to join in of course.
Not really. If he isn't offended by it then why should you be? So maybe he should be asked.
And it also begs the question that if they're allowing bias to control their sport output then where else in the organisation are people allowed to project their views as the BBC's? There's a whole issue over editorial control and balance that they seem to be ignoring. If they want to behave like TalkSport then they should abandon the licence fee and take adverts. If they want to be funded by the public, then they should respect their audience
Ok smartarse so go and ask him then! Oh wait...you don't have his address or phone number? Neither do we. I explained quite clearly,or so I thought, the reasons why not just myself, but a lot of Blues were offended by the caption on the picture and the BBC in general. I also said nobody has to join in. Do you know in the workplace if you witness behaviour that YOU deem to be offensive you can report it and the person who has offended can be dismissed, whether the person who the offending comment or action was directly aimed at complained or not?
Human beings baffle me. People try and get an injustice stopped or rectified and all they can do is criticise or put a negative slant on it. I shouldn't be surprised really.
So if I call someone a ginger **** at work and they laugh it off but you as a ginger **** overhear and are outraged enough to complain on behalf of the non offended person hoping to get me reprimanded. I have got that right.
You are quite right. Humans are baffling.
So if I call someone a ginger **** at work and they laugh it off but you as a ginger **** overhear and are outraged enough to complain on behalf of the non offended person hoping to get me reprimanded. I have got that right.
You are quite right. Humans are baffling.
Let me butt in here, change your comment slightly to' you gay faggot', the person who it is aimed at may or may not be gay and he may not be offended on the other hand he may be offended but because he fears greater bullying he says nothing, meanwhile you are sat there, you are gay and feel this kind of 'banter' has no place in 2017. You are suggesting you sit there and do nothing and say nothing because it wasnt said to you ?
Ok smartarse so go and ask him then! Oh wait...you don't have his address or phone number? Neither do we. I explained quite clearly,or so I thought, the reasons why not just myself, but a lot of Blues were offended by the caption on the picture and the BBC in general. I also said nobody has to join in. Do you know in the workplace if you witness behaviour that YOU deem to be offensive you can report it and the person who has offended can be dismissed, whether the person who the offending comment or action was directly aimed at complained or not?
Human beings baffle me. People try and get an injustice stopped or rectified and all they can do is criticise or put a negative slant on it. I shouldn't be surprised really.