BBC news coverage of Tiger Woods' apology sparks 'dumbing down' backlash

I know a lot of members on ATS see the media running silly story's that are not really news but it's getting noticed now.

The BBC has faced fresh accusations of dumbing down over its extensive coverage of Tiger Woods apology last week.
Last Friday also saw British Gas report a 50 per cent profit rise despite the economic downturn, while it emerged that another British soldier had been killed fighting the Taliban.
Scores of viewers complained about the golfer being the top story on the day 1,600 workers lost their jobs as the North-East's last steel plant was shut down.
But rather than leading with these stories, the golfer's public apology for a string of extra-marital affairs was chosen as the headline story on BBC1's main evening bulletin.

LINKwww.dailymail.co.uk...
So do you think this will make them think a little about putting real news on tv or same old none stories.
Sorry if in wrong place.

THANKYOU

It's all about what sells.

Integrity, truth, unbias......who cares.

But gossip about a "celebrity," well, heck! That's news!

reply to post by smyleegrl


How is that news it is there responsibility to tell the real news not this crap im sorry but i disagree.

THANKYOU

I agree that the BBC is getting somewhat confused with its priorities. The Tiger Woods story is of little interest to most people and certainly should not have taken such a high profile slot.

I am also increasingly concerned by the amount of coverage there is of US politics, most of which has little relevance, but seems to be designed to support a huge contingent of BBC correspondents in the US. The NASA missions have "live" coverage, but the ESA missions are never mentioned.

BBC, pull your socks up.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


Too right and it's most news channels that are doing it hopefully they will rethink this strategy.

THANKYOU

reply to post by mars1


That's just my point. It's not "real" news, but its what the public wants to hear. It's what the public is interested in....so therefore, its what the news reports.

It's all about money. How much did the television companies make on commercials during the Tiger Woods speech? My guess is quite a lot. Why? Because people tuned in to hear what he had to say....celebrity gossip.

I agree, its not news. But its what sells. Sad, I iknow.

reply to post by smyleegrl


The BBC makes £0 (approximately $0) through advertising.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
It's all about what sells.

Integrity, truth, unbias......who cares.

But gossip about a "celebrity," well, heck! That's news!

The BBC is public paid for, so they do not need these big stories to sell. It's hardly in the public interest, Im glad people have compained. I dont know anyone who cares about Tiger Woods in the slightest

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Okay, thanks for clearing up about the BBC. I'm thinking of American television, which is for profit.

reply to post by smyleegrl


I did not mean it in a bad way but i disagree again its not what most like to see we watch news for news this crap belongs in entertainment.

Like i say i hope this makes them think.

THANKYOU

It's good to see some backlash against these disreputable treasonous media scumbags. Enough is enough already. Seriously, how much horse**** can you feed people until they start puking it right back at you?

Well it's not getting any better for the BBC not related to this story but to the BBC.

BBC 'overspends' on new building projects

The BBC has been criticised for facing "serious difficulties" over its programme of major new building works.
The extension of Broadcasting House has cost £100m more than planned and was due for completion in 2008, a National Audit Office report found.
BBC Trustee Jeremy Peat admitted that licence fee payers were "let down".

Certainly was let down news that's not news and we have to pay for it and these buildings too how nice of them.
LINKnews.bbc.co.uk...


THANKYOU

Does anyone else notice a double standard when Tiger sleeps with like 20 women and is demonized but Warren Beatty sleeps with thousands and is hailed as some sort of Cassanova? I guess the mainstream decided he wasn't Asian after all... Do you think he would have faced such backlash if his wife wasn't a white supermodel?

Thank you for this heartening piece of news ! BBC used to be so reputable... but to answer your question, no I don't think this will make them think a little.
Woods is an invaluable brand that had to be rehabilitated and it focused the public's attention away from the serious issues that you listed in the OP. Sad how we are easy to manipulate.

reply to post by smyleegrl


Apart from PBS, of course.