BB
Meaning what exactly?
This is hardly a frequent occurrence, as the article points out. The BBC's official response referred to it as an "isolated lapse", and even Channel 4's head of history called it "unprecedented". I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here.
stuartfanning posted:
Are we that surprised?
Meaning what exactly?
This is hardly a frequent occurrence, as the article points out. The BBC's official response referred to it as an "isolated lapse", and even Channel 4's head of history called it "unprecedented". I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here.
LO
maybe, post hutton, he is making an inferrence about the slipping standards at the bbc?
these are, as you say, isolated incidences, but in the mind of joe public, its these that stick in peoples minds, not all the good that the bbc does, even though in both cases, the whole episode was sparked by one or two people being lazy.
these are, as you say, isolated incidences, but in the mind of joe public, its these that stick in peoples minds, not all the good that the bbc does, even though in both cases, the whole episode was sparked by one or two people being lazy.
BB
*yawn*
What a thoroughly worthless point to make, and in the laziest way possible too.
Well in response to the thread-maker's original question, no I can't say I am surprised; I'm becoming increasingly accustomed to tedious BBC-bashing for the sake of it, and attempting to illustrate downward trends where none exist. That's not to say I advocate the practices mentioned in the story; clearly this plagiaristic approach to programme-making is unacceptable - especially at the BBC which should rightly be held to a higher standard - but if you were trying to imply some kind of continuity in this kind of practice, perhaps you could present some evidence, instead of the rather weak "Are we that surprised?"
Dr Sigmund Mohammad posted:
maybe, post hutton, he is making an inferrence about the slipping standards at the bbc?
*yawn*
What a thoroughly worthless point to make, and in the laziest way possible too.
Well in response to the thread-maker's original question, no I can't say I am surprised; I'm becoming increasingly accustomed to tedious BBC-bashing for the sake of it, and attempting to illustrate downward trends where none exist. That's not to say I advocate the practices mentioned in the story; clearly this plagiaristic approach to programme-making is unacceptable - especially at the BBC which should rightly be held to a higher standard - but if you were trying to imply some kind of continuity in this kind of practice, perhaps you could present some evidence, instead of the rather weak "Are we that surprised?"
LO
*yawn*
What a thoroughly worthless point to make, and in the laziest way possible too.
in what way? how do you think i should have made it?
surely the hutton debacle is indirectly relevent his viewpoint? had it not happend, do you think he would be been more or less suprised?
BBC LDN posted:
Dr Sigmund Mohammad posted:
maybe, post hutton, he is making an inferrence about the slipping standards at the bbc?
*yawn*
What a thoroughly worthless point to make, and in the laziest way possible too.
in what way? how do you think i should have made it?
surely the hutton debacle is indirectly relevent his viewpoint? had it not happend, do you think he would be been more or less suprised?
BB
*yawn*
What a thoroughly worthless point to make, and in the laziest way possible too.
in what way? how do you think i should have made it?
surely the hutton debacle is indirectly relevent his viewpoint? had it not happend, do you think he would be been more or less suprised?
Well he hasn't really made a point. In fact, he hasn't made any attempt at explaining his viewpoint, and that's why it's the laziest way of going about it. If he's trying to imply a trend of descending standards at the BBC, I'd like to see some evidence of this beyond "are we that surprised". If it's Hutton that he's referring to, the BBC has already pulled up its socks, and tightened its editorial policy and lines of accountability. The type of incident that led to the Hutton castigation of the BBC was very much an aberration. However, as a result of this, standards have been improved in the way the BBC works internally, and in the way it delivers its news service.
In the same way, this kind of utterly dreadful approach to programme-making - by blatantly plagiarising the work of others - is also "unprecedented", to use the words of the rival channel. The two are not directly comparable, so I refuse to entertain any possible arguments like "they obviously haven't learnt their lessons from Hutton", as the lessons from Hutton simply wouldn't need to have a significant impact in programme-making of the kind under scrutiny here.
So on the one hand we have a fairly isolated incident in the running of BBC News, from which it is clear that lessons have been learnt, fingers have been pointed, heads have rolled, and things have improved. And on the other hand, we have what is recognised as an isolated incident in the lazy approach to making the offending history programme. I see no trend towards descending standards here.
This is my point. The task of proving or disproving a trend towards descending standards is not upon my shoulders, but upon those of the original poster, as the point that he was trying to make really isn't as obvious as his glib opening remark suggests he thought it was.
I would expect to come under no less criticism for starting a thread based upon a MediaGuardian article suggesting that, for example, BBC ONE had poor ratings on a particular night, and merely included a link to the article, and the words "hardly surprising". Well, why is it hardly surprising? Is it because I think BBC ONE programmes are terrible? Is it because I think the channel has poor scheduling? Is it a dig at Lorraine Heggessey?
This is a forum for discussion, and I can honestly see no merit in lazy posts like that which make no point but which think they're being clever.
Dr Sigmund Mohammad posted:
BBC LDN posted:
Dr Sigmund Mohammad posted:
maybe, post hutton, he is making an inferrence about the slipping standards at the bbc?
*yawn*
What a thoroughly worthless point to make, and in the laziest way possible too.
in what way? how do you think i should have made it?
surely the hutton debacle is indirectly relevent his viewpoint? had it not happend, do you think he would be been more or less suprised?
Well he hasn't really made a point. In fact, he hasn't made any attempt at explaining his viewpoint, and that's why it's the laziest way of going about it. If he's trying to imply a trend of descending standards at the BBC, I'd like to see some evidence of this beyond "are we that surprised". If it's Hutton that he's referring to, the BBC has already pulled up its socks, and tightened its editorial policy and lines of accountability. The type of incident that led to the Hutton castigation of the BBC was very much an aberration. However, as a result of this, standards have been improved in the way the BBC works internally, and in the way it delivers its news service.
In the same way, this kind of utterly dreadful approach to programme-making - by blatantly plagiarising the work of others - is also "unprecedented", to use the words of the rival channel. The two are not directly comparable, so I refuse to entertain any possible arguments like "they obviously haven't learnt their lessons from Hutton", as the lessons from Hutton simply wouldn't need to have a significant impact in programme-making of the kind under scrutiny here.
So on the one hand we have a fairly isolated incident in the running of BBC News, from which it is clear that lessons have been learnt, fingers have been pointed, heads have rolled, and things have improved. And on the other hand, we have what is recognised as an isolated incident in the lazy approach to making the offending history programme. I see no trend towards descending standards here.
This is my point. The task of proving or disproving a trend towards descending standards is not upon my shoulders, but upon those of the original poster, as the point that he was trying to make really isn't as obvious as his glib opening remark suggests he thought it was.
I would expect to come under no less criticism for starting a thread based upon a MediaGuardian article suggesting that, for example, BBC ONE had poor ratings on a particular night, and merely included a link to the article, and the words "hardly surprising". Well, why is it hardly surprising? Is it because I think BBC ONE programmes are terrible? Is it because I think the channel has poor scheduling? Is it a dig at Lorraine Heggessey?
This is a forum for discussion, and I can honestly see no merit in lazy posts like that which make no point but which think they're being clever.
Last edited by BBC LDN on 28 May 2004 5:45pm
ST
From the original article
It also raises issues of trust and authenticity: the programme was billed as "written and presented by Dan Cruickshank", although it appears he did not write the disputed passages.
****************************************************************************
Dan Cruickshank was allowed to plagiarize someone elses work and presumeably he and the BBC production staff hoped nobody would notice.
It also raises issues of trust and authenticity: the programme was billed as "written and presented by Dan Cruickshank", although it appears he did not write the disputed passages.
****************************************************************************
Dan Cruickshank was allowed to plagiarize someone elses work and presumeably he and the BBC production staff hoped nobody would notice.
BB
And why are we not surprised by this...?
stuartfanning posted:
From the original article
It also raises issues of trust and authenticity: the programme was billed as "written and presented by Dan Cruickshank", although it appears he did not write the disputed passages.
****************************************************************************
Dan Cruickshank was allowed to plagiarize someone elses work and presumeably he and the BBC production staff hoped nobody would notice.
It also raises issues of trust and authenticity: the programme was billed as "written and presented by Dan Cruickshank", although it appears he did not write the disputed passages.
****************************************************************************
Dan Cruickshank was allowed to plagiarize someone elses work and presumeably he and the BBC production staff hoped nobody would notice.
And why are we not surprised by this...?