Poll: Bad News For the BBC
- Thread starter Rainboq
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yea, compared to the famous Fox news report, I don't think this will get too much attention. I mean, they interview Moot, allow him to have his say.
I'm actually quite proud of the BBC, it didn't really give off any vibe of "ban this sick filth" or "cyber terrorists are going to kill your baby". Seemed fairly reasonable, and the bad things that they do mention would be pretty hard to refute (the NSFW qualities of the website).
I'm actually quite proud of the BBC, it didn't really give off any vibe of "ban this sick filth" or "cyber terrorists are going to kill your baby". Seemed fairly reasonable, and the bad things that they do mention would be pretty hard to refute (the NSFW qualities of the website).
Some of the comments are irritating. Particularly the one about "hoody culture". It's just such a typical daily mail comment. "Oh the youth are going down hill, and it's the internets fault, etc etc..." Pisses me off. If the youth have gone hill, it's because of those who raised them. If the internet has corrupted them, it is because it has been allowed to happen. If you don't understand the risks, you should learn them. If a parent wants a child to avoid the nasty bits of the internet, then instead of raging that these places exist when the child finds them, they should be putting measures in place to stop the child from doing so. And frankly, this generation is not that bad. Not in some kind of generalised fashion anyhow. I hate the people who make out that everything is worse. Yes, there are probably things that are. There have been improvements too though. But the media just continues to sensationalise, and is, in my opinion, actually one of the worst things about this time period...
Anyhow, more on topic. Anon do have the ability to do some damage to the BBC. They potentially have the ability to do a considerable amount. They are a very large group, with an easy means of communication.
However, while they are potentially powerful, they don't often manage to co-ordinate, and get enough peple on board, to do as much as they could. This is probably because of the people who use the website casually. So unless the action is easy to take, these people aren't likely to get involved.
Anyhow, more on topic. Anon do have the ability to do some damage to the BBC. They potentially have the ability to do a considerable amount. They are a very large group, with an easy means of communication.
However, while they are potentially powerful, they don't often manage to co-ordinate, and get enough peple on board, to do as much as they could. This is probably because of the people who use the website casually. So unless the action is easy to take, these people aren't likely to get involved.
quote one paragraph as:
"Rob Manuel of B3ta.com, a British website founded on similar, albeit more whimsical lines, says 4chan's success has been founded on turning "trolling" - essentially, annoying other internet users - into an art form."
Last line should have been:
into a art form.
"Rob Manuel of B3ta.com, a British website founded on similar, albeit more whimsical lines, says 4chan's success has been founded on turning "trolling" - essentially, annoying other internet users - into an art form."
Last line should have been:
into a art form.
The article isn't really that negative, so I doubt we'll see 4chan taking any action.
eBaums and Something Awful - now those might get offended.
eBaums and Something Awful - now those might get offended.
I was more commenting on the BBC specifically, as many of the newspaper media owners also have large interests in satellite, cable or other TV stations, and would very much like to see the BBC put out of business, or at least the licence fee killed off (which I think would kill the BBC, or at least reduce to the level of another ITV, being forced to make mediocre 'lowest common denominator' stuff to appease advertisers.
What's most amusing is the Mail's cries of outrage whenever the BBC shows some nudity or broadcasts a naughty word, when the Mail's owner is pretty much a porn baron. Sure there's two sides to this, but I suggest the print media's constant bashing of the BBC ( and rarely any other station ) is not 'to protect your children from corruption'.
Off topic, but in case there's a BBC debate, I read a wonderful quote recently that sums up the BBC wonderfully 'the BBC is not a taxi service, you don't get to demand exactly what you want, what happens is you get on and it shows you everything, and you can get on and off where you like, but don't complain because we drive thru some areas you don't like, you don't have to get off there.'
Personally I'd like it more if they stopped trying to please the mythical 'average viewer even more, and left the ratings battles to ITV and channel 4 and 5, but, sadly they've been dragged into ratings battles to prove 'value for money'.
Another thing is I believe the BBC news is one of the most balanced news services out there, and while not perfect, less biased than most. In fact usually the only time I hear it called biased, it's generally followed by 'and they've hired another bloody darkie to read it too, can't understand a word' and other such charming stuff.
I'm not the most positive person on here I know, but I do think the BBC is one of the few things remaining Britain can be proud of, and we'll feel the loss if it's broken down for scrap. for me, Mock the Week and QI are worth the £12 a month or so that I pay. Anything else is a bonus.
What's most amusing is the Mail's cries of outrage whenever the BBC shows some nudity or broadcasts a naughty word, when the Mail's owner is pretty much a porn baron. Sure there's two sides to this, but I suggest the print media's constant bashing of the BBC ( and rarely any other station ) is not 'to protect your children from corruption'.
Off topic, but in case there's a BBC debate, I read a wonderful quote recently that sums up the BBC wonderfully 'the BBC is not a taxi service, you don't get to demand exactly what you want, what happens is you get on and it shows you everything, and you can get on and off where you like, but don't complain because we drive thru some areas you don't like, you don't have to get off there.'
Personally I'd like it more if they stopped trying to please the mythical 'average viewer even more, and left the ratings battles to ITV and channel 4 and 5, but, sadly they've been dragged into ratings battles to prove 'value for money'.
Another thing is I believe the BBC news is one of the most balanced news services out there, and while not perfect, less biased than most. In fact usually the only time I hear it called biased, it's generally followed by 'and they've hired another bloody darkie to read it too, can't understand a word' and other such charming stuff.
I'm not the most positive person on here I know, but I do think the BBC is one of the few things remaining Britain can be proud of, and we'll feel the loss if it's broken down for scrap. for me, Mock the Week and QI are worth the £12 a month or so that I pay. Anything else is a bonus.
They might, but not to a large extent. Not to the extent the dog drowning girl is getting or that girl who got death threats. Probbaly just get the shit spammed out of their web box.
Not really, they are one stupid prank away from becoming watched by every major government in the world.Liberaliter said:
All it takes is one stupid kid on there to try something on Government computers and the entire userbase will suddenly become the targets of some very interested men in black suits who like to make people disappear.
