Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge

guy debord said:
Are you lot serious? Someone mischievously titled a photo with the most innofensive epithet I can think of, the BBC inadvertently publish it leading to 130 pages of internet rage.
Then to crown it all and to defend the clubs bruised honour after this egregious slur, a city fan publishes an article on a popular football website which speculates that the fan in question might be suffering from some form of mental illness. It even throws a popular one in there without any knowledge at all about the fans medical history and without any consent from him.
Which is worse, being called Bertie or having your mental health speculated about on a football website?
Embarrassing and ill considered.

Outrage generated in the echo chamber of an internet forum isn't the real world.
Click to expand...

I think the first couple of lines highlights your not too well versed on this topic. First of all it was not 'someone' but the BBC themselves who titled a photo and then published it. Even though, originally, they lied about it and claimed it was 'titled' by an external organisation only to be questioned upon this and have to backtrack their original claim.

As for an inofensive epithet surely you would agree 'Manchester city supporter', 'football fan', would all have been more inoffensive descriptions??Yet the BBC (not some lad bantz fanzine, twitter feed) chose to title the picture of an elderly City fan as 'Bertie' from Bertie the bitter blue a derogatory term used by a rival football club and by association describe him as one.

I am not a great believer in a lot what is wrote regarding an agenda but I can recognise when City fans are being insulted and yes I expect better from the national broadcaster than childishly ridiculing an elderly blue. If you genuinely think this is not unique please highlights all the other elderly members of the public the BBC has photographed and decided to ridicule? Of course they haven't because they know this is not acceptable practice unless you happen to be a football fan and in particular a City fan.
 
franksinatra said:
I think the first couple of lines highlights your not too well versed on this topic. First of all it was not 'someone' but the BBC themselves who titled a photo and then published it. Even though, originally, they lied about it and claimed it was 'titled' by an external organisation only to be questioned upon this and have to backtrack their original claim.

As for an inofensive epithet surely you would agree 'Manchester city supporter', 'football fan', would all have been more inoffensive descriptions??Yet the BBC (not some lad bantz fanzine, twitter feed) chose to title the picture of an elderly City fan as 'Bertie' from Bertie the bitter blue a derogatory term used by a rival football club and by association describe him as one.

I am not a great believer in a lot what is wrote regarding an agenda but I can recognise when City fans are being insulted and yes I expect better from the national broadcaster than childishly ridiculing an elderly blue. If you genuinely think this is not unique please highlights all the other elderly members of the public the BBC has photographed and decided to ridicule? Of course they haven't because they know this is not acceptable practice unless you happen to be a football fan and in particular a City fan.
Click to expand...
Well said,couldn't have put it better myself ..
 
If you want to be amused look at McNulty's BBMUTVC report on their sport website the headline reads "City salvage a point" and then completely omits to mention the Milner foul on Sterling only referring to the incident as a missed opportunity by the player , but he is able to comment on the otto/sane coming together , do the BBC actually send a reporter to games nowadays or is the bias towards the Rag/Dippers so ingrained .
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
If you want to be amused look at McNulty's BBMUTVC report on their sport website the headline reads "City salvage a point" and then completely omits to mention the Milner foul on Sterling only referring to the incident as a missed opportunity by the player , but he is able to comment on the otto/sane coming together , do the BBC actually send a reporter to games nowadays or is the bias towards the Rag/Dippers so ingrained .
Click to expand...
Think you have answered it with the last part of your post,it's all about appealing to a certain readership...
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
If you want to be amused look at McNulty's BBMUTVC report on their sport website the headline reads "City salvage a point" and then completely omits to mention the Milner foul on Sterling only referring to the incident as a missed opportunity by the player , but he is able to comment on the otto/sane coming together , do the BBC actually send a reporter to games nowadays or is the bias towards the Rag/Dippers so ingrained .
Click to expand...

Says it all that someone as limited as McNulty has such a lofty title. Average halfwit full of his own bluster - if he said it was going dark of an evening I'd wait and see.
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
If you want to be amused look at McNulty's BBMUTVC report on their sport website the headline reads "City salvage a point" and then completely omits to mention the Milner foul on Sterling only referring to the incident as a missed opportunity by the player , but he is able to comment on the otto/sane coming together , do the BBC actually send a reporter to games nowadays or is the bias towards the Rag/Dippers so ingrained .
Click to expand...

Um. it has this line:
"...while City were furious their penalty claims were ignored as Sterling went down under a challenge from Milner as he closed in on a finish in the six-yard area."

You've read the first mention, but no the one later on, unless it's been edited of course!
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Um. it has this line:
"...while City were furious their penalty claims were ignored as Sterling went down under a challenge from Milner as he closed in on a finish in the six-yard area."

You've read the first mention, but no the one later on, unless it's been edited of course!
Click to expand...
I particularly liked this one from his write up:-

"Liverpool felt they were denied a penalty when Sadio Mane tumbled under a challenge from Nicolas Otamendi in the first half, although the striker also inadvertently made contact with his own leg as he shaped to shoot after escaping the City defender with embarrassing ease."
 
Tba9YFv.png


Apparently knowing how to use quotation marks are no longer a requirement to be a BBC journalist, as evidenced by this fabricated quote on their home page.
 
Gray said:
I particularly liked this one from his write up:-

"Liverpool felt they were denied a penalty when Sadio Mane tumbled under a challenge from Nicolas Otamendi in the first half, although the striker also inadvertently made contact with his own leg as he shaped to shoot after escaping the City defender with embarrassing ease."
Click to expand...

It's badly written, but I think it's meant to mean that Mane was the one made the contact.
I could argue that Otamendi didn't make a challenge, but it's not the worst line ever written.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Um. it has this line:
"...while City were furious their penalty claims were ignored as Sterling went down under a challenge from Milner as he closed in on a finish in the six-yard area."

You've read the first mention, but no the one later on, unless it's been edited of course!
Click to expand...

just looked at the report again and McNulty appears to have edited the Oliver section of the report , his original only mentioned the Sterling miss in the first paragraph , wish i had posted the link of the original , back tracking BBC strike again.
 
Another reply to my second follow up complaint. Thick at the complaints team ?

BBC complaints team said:
Dear Mr mcvs


Reference CAS-4264**** -+++++

Thanks for contacting us again regarding ‘Match of the Day’.

It’s unclear from your comments why you’ve contacted us again; what your point is or what you’re asking.

Please know that we responded to your previous correspondence on the 24 February – we provide a copy of that response again here for your convenience:


“Dear Mr MCVS

Thanks for getting in touch with us.

I’ve looked into this issue with my colleagues at BBC Sport and after further investigation we have found that the picture which was sourced from the Press Association had the name “Bertie” added in error without the due diligence we would normally expect from any level of BBC journalism and output following the name appearing on Twitter underneath the picture from the BBC Sport account. Originally, our editor thought that ‘Bertie’ came from our picture source.

After internal discussions, we are satisfied that there was no malice intended towards the individual pictured, or to City fans in general.

We accept that this was a sloppy error and fell well below the journalistic standards the audience rightly expects from the BBC.

We apologise again for any offence caused.

Kind regards

Katherine Tsang

Deputy Complaints Manager
BBC Audience Services”


We hope this is helpful and thanks again for getting in touch.

Kind regards

Stuart Webb
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Click to expand...
 
See John Stones is being slagged again by Waddle and Custis on Radio 5. These morons can barely string two words together. The quality of journalism on the BBC has never been lower. They we're put to shame by the German journalist Raph Honigstein.
How can someone who does not even do basic research like Custis steal a living. Why is the BBC pandering to the tabloid agenda?
Stones has been our best player for the last two months and easily the best English defender in the Premier League.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
See John Stones is being slagged again by Waddle and Custis on Radio 5. These morons can barely string two words together. The quality of journalism on the BBC has never been lower. They we're put to shame by the German journalist Raph Honigstein.
How can someone who does not even do basic research like Custis steal a living. Why is the BBC pandering to the tabloid agenda?
Stones has been our best player for the last two months and easily the best English defender in the Premier League.
Click to expand...

Better than Phil Jones? Now you're just being silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top