Preusmably the agency who filed the story came up with it and whoever posted it on MOTD unknowingly copied it. If wouldn't surprise me that the BBC staff involved don't know who Bertie is, or who uses it
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge
- Thread starter Prestwich_Blue
- Start date
manctheknife
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 1,993
The 'no blue glasses' clearly references the 'Magoo' appendage to 'Bertie'. So, even if the original pic arrived entitled just Bertie, as claimed, someone in there knew the script and added the caption to suit.Absolutely true PB!! I first saw it as I was travelling to the game with the caption you mentioned. It may have had something saying '' No blue glasses? Poor effort!'' or similar too.
Their sly piss taking of our club and fan's has been steadily growing, while they keep on, as usual, lauding the rags. Then we have that twat's Stone's interviews with Pep where he keeps on goading him in an aggressive manner to get a reaction, like the ''You don't sound very happy'' after the Burnley game. In the old days Mickey or one of the boys would have dished out a bit of short sharp warning that he was overstepping the mark, he would certainly have got the message!
As I said, I complained as well, but I accept their reply. It doesn't sound that unlikely to me.Trolling?the irony.
So you don't think the BBC is infested with the wankers?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
No that's not how it happened Marvin. They buy the picture from the agency, not the caption. They then caption it and they've used it before (about a year or so ago when I saw it) with the caption "I wonder who he's supporting today?" Do you understand so far?Preusmably the agency who filed the story came up with it and whoever posted it on MOTD unknowingly copied it. If wouldn't surprise me that the BBC staff involved don't know who Bertie is, or who uses it
So they've got a stock picture of Pete that they've used before but someone at the BBC presumably added the derogatory caption on Sunday. When they were challenged, they reverted to the earlier caption.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Looks like pretty much same letter sent out to all of us!!!
'Many thanks for getting in touch with us about our recent social media post.
The picture you refer to was used after it had been filed by a national picture agency, captioned “Bertie”, and was used in good faith and in a congratulatory way to celebrate the fan’s dedication to Manchester City. None of the team on the BBC Sport website were aware of “Bertie” as being a derogatory term to describe City fans – and other City fans also shared the post and mirrored our congratulatory tone.
As it was never our intention to cause offence, we have now removed this post for the avoidance of doubt. We are proud of our inclusive and celebratory approach to social media and work hard to ensure we are balanced across the sporting spectrum at all times.
We’re sorry you’ve had cause for concern.
Kind regards
Katherine Tsang
Deputy Complaints Manager
BBC Audience Serviceshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Is the 'T' silent, as in tcünt?
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
I would be very surprised if the staff involve didn't know.Preusmably the agency who filed the story came up with it and whoever posted it on MOTD unknowingly copied it. If wouldn't surprise me that the BBC staff involved don't know who Bertie is, or who uses it
OK. I thought there was a ring of truth about their reply. As I said I completed their online complaint, but I did not ask for a reply, I just told them they were out of order.No that's not how it happened Marvin. They buy the picture from the agency, not the caption. They then caption it and they've used it before (about a year or so ago when I saw it) with the caption "I wonder who he's supporting today?" Do you understand so far?
So they've got a stock picture of Pete that they've used before but someone at the BBC presumably added the derogatory caption on Sunday. When they were challenged, they reverted to the earlier caption.
When I read their comments to another complainant I thought it sounded reasonable. They'd investigated it, apologised for causing offence and said it was done unknowingly.
Correct - media outlets buy pictures from various sources not captions. Those they add themselves and in theory the head of a department should ok the captions although in reality this is almost impossible to do these days such is the wealth of contentNo that's not how it happened Marvin. They buy the picture from the agency, not the caption. They then caption it and they've used it before (about a year or so ago when I saw it) with the caption "I wonder who he's supporting today?" Do you understand so far?
So they've got a stock picture of Pete that they've used before but someone at the BBC presumably added the derogatory caption on Sunday. When they were challenged, they reverted to the earlier caption.
Presumably the photo must have been placed in some kind of context by the agency or whoever filed it otherwise it would be meaningless to some recipients. Couldn't the BBC just have copied the information that came with it? If I sent a photo to someone professionally, I'd include something about what the subject was, and when it was taken.Correct - media outlets buy pictures from various sources not captions. Those they add themselves and in theory the head of a department should ok the captions although in reality this is almost impossible to do these days such is the wealth of content