Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election has begun. Ask questions, read slogans, and (un)endorse candidates!

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This should be moved to BBC. Nobody ever uses the full company title & the BBC itself very seldom does. Most of our articles on organisation currently known by an abbreviation use the abbreviated version as the title (PBS, PETA, NASA, NAMBLA, etc.) WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Moving in 5,4,3,2... ТyTalk. 17:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile[edit]

Should we cover the Jimmy Savile scandal once the dust is cleared? I'm nto sure if it's entirely on mission, but it's been compared to the Catholic child molestation scandals. Balaam (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

We should have something, the BBC are in the shit about this. The power of celebrity is something RW could have a good go at anyway. SophieWilder 10:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not really on-mission, and I don't think it's as massively relevant to an article on the BBC. Give it a month or so and it'll be one of those forgotten footnotes and we'll be wondering why it's on this page. By all means consider writing it up as a separate piece, perhaps contrast to cover ups by the Church (we apply "fair game" to them, so I suppose a reasonable contrast with the BBC can be made) as that might be an interesting RE-relevant angle. Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator 10:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The scandal is being used by the BBC's usual enemies to attack it but it's not directly relevant to Auntie itself. Hospitals, charities and the government itself were all taken in by Saville. rpeh •TCE 10:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Possibly an article on the Savile scandal itself, then? Balaam (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
And a few months later, after a few more old celebs are taken to police stations... I think the missionality of celebrity itself has gone up a notch. SophieWilder 16:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Its coverage of the British royal family tends to be the most partial[edit]

Is this true? Granted all the channels seem to fall over themselves to arse-lick the royals, but I seem to recall (back when I had a telly) ITV being the worst offender. But then again, it wasn't ITV that did It's a Royal Knockout, the worst thing ever done by anyone ever. SophieWilder 16:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it is massively true. Royal correspondence is mostly arse-licking from all the major television news, but that's specifically Royal correspondence where you don't really expect "Wills and Kate got married, Wills is fucking freeloading scum!" type reporting. None of them as overall networks shy away from stories that are critical of what the Royal Family get up to. I think that's just taking the BBC not being outright and unnecessarily vicious towards them and interpreting it as unfair bias. Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It certainly is. Watch anything with Nicholas Witchell (or however he spells it) talking about the royal family, and remember to bring your sickbag with you. Note also the ridiculous coverage of foreign tours, which are touted to be a huge success. (With any local protest only mentioned in passing, and made to look insubstantial.)--Albannach (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Nicholas Witchell is so awful even Prince Charles hates him. SophieWilder 16:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, he's nicknamed Poison Ivy. That crawler Jenny Bond is just as bad.--Albannach (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)