Forum Topic

Papal visit

So who's been to see him?I'm off to cricket again.

Graham Weeks ● 5854d43 Comments

In spite of vitriolic rhetoric regarding the Papal visit,it was a resounding success.So much so that it was impossible to get tickets.Unlike the CRICKET,there was no fraudlent 'fixing' involved,just a very inspiring and enjoyable experience...

Marie Anne OConnell ● 5848d

You would never get a man of god using vitriolic rhetoric, now would you?!?!

James Brown ● 5848d

I saw three games Friday to Monday. No evidence of fixing. On the way to Lords on Saturday I talked to a group of six police on the tube. They said they were going to Marble Arch for the papal visit. There must have been a last minute rush for Benedickets as earlier it was reported sales had been fewer than planned. It might be an alternative explanation for empty seas at Lords too.

Graham Weeks ● 5848d

The report about slow ticket sales although it appeared on the BBC seems to have been false. A couple of Catholic friends of mine say available tickets in their different local parishes were taken up some time ago. They only had the option of going to Westminster to watch the motorcade from the road. Although I was personally against the visit I did fine the BBC's news coverage quite unnecessarily hostile so perhaps they just made the story up.

Andy Jones ● 5848d

I loved the split in BBC complaints re the coverage. Approximately half the people complaining of hostility and the other half of them being too pro the visit...

James Brown ● 5848d

I don't think that is actually contradictory. There was far too much air time devoted to the visit and I understand 400 BBC staff were involved in the outside broadcast. Clearly excessive. On the other hand the news coverage was often overtly hostile with BBC journalists often abandoning objectivity and stating opinion as fact.

Andy Jones ● 5848d

"On the other hand the news coverage was often overtly hostile with BBC journalists often abandoning objectivity and stating opinion as fact."But that's what humans do isn't it Andy? In fact you may have just done it as well. Until the advent of digital people (either a yes or no answer),there isn't an option to remove your perceived bias,but the fact that the BBC got criticized by both camps seems to me that they probably got it about right.

Tony Wood ● 5847d

One complaint they did not get was the one I did not send. Earlier in the week before Benedict arrived the only piece on the visit in BBC 1 News at 10 was about protests at a mass for homosexuals. That being the only item told me more about the BBC than the Pope.I thought he was great in Westminster Hall, very quotable.

Graham Weeks ● 5847d

..........is it relevant at all if he's here at all?

Penny Crocker ● 5847d

Not really sure what you are saying Tony but the implication seems to be that the BBC, in terms of news reporting, should abandon the quest to be objective as possible. This is a tradition that has stood them in good stead for decades and has given them a global reputation for reliability and balance. There is no need for me to be objective in what I write on a discussion forum as I'm not funded by the license fee.There isn't really a neat division into two camps on this issue. Some people are unhappy about the excessive airtime for papal visit coverage, some people are concerned about poor journalistic standards; I'm sure there are many like me who think both are concerns. An increased number of platforms has probably led to a dilution of quality at the BBC but I don't think decline should be accepted.

Andy Jones ● 5847d

Hi Andy  Going back to your 09.38 post,you state "There was far too much air time devoted to the visit and I understand 400 BBC staff were involved in the Outside Broadcast.This is subjective,it's your view,I think there are too many Hospital Dramas on TV,my wife disagrees,who's right?There weren't 400 BBC staff involved, BBC OBs was privatized years ago and is now run by a company called S.I.S. and as far as I can remember there weren't 400 involved at Charles and Dianas wedding, so I really doubt that figure.You then go on to claim that "the coverage was overtly hostile with BBC journalists often abandoning objectivity and stating opinion as fact." How on Earth can you claim that? To do so means that you have an alternative source of news that you totally trust as being unquestionably true and unbiased, let me guess Rupert Murdoch?In your post at 15:25 you're not sure what I'm saying but you assume that what I'm saying is that I'm in favour of the quest for the BBC to be as objective as possible in news reporting.   I can't imagine what makes you think that, what I was implying (as gently as possible) is that it takes two to tango,no use the BBC being objective if the audience is going to say that they've paid for a licence and that they have a right to only see programmes that they agree with.

Tony Wood ● 5847d

"In your post at 15:25 you're not sure what I'm saying but you assume that what I'm saying is that I'm in favour of the quest for the BBC to be as objective as possible in news reporting."Sorry that doesn't make sense,should have read through a couple of times before pressing "Go".Should of course be that you seem to think that I was implying that...."the BBC should abandon the quest to be as objective as possible."

Tony Wood ● 5847d

..........is it relevant at all if he's here at all?That may depend on whether or not you have Protestant concerns. I am sure the Bishop of Rome wants this island back in his fold hence the beatification of the 19th century's most famous convert. However, any such plan is I believe less of a concern than the secularists and privatisers of religion. While rejecting any authority from Rome I applaud the pontif's views expressed in his Westminster hall speech.

Graham Weeks ● 5847d

Tony, whether or not the staff were directly employed by the BBC or not isn't really relevant. They are all paid for by the licence fee. Whatever the actual number or cost the amount of air time given to the event was too much in my view. Obviously this is subjective but you still seem to be missing the difference between someone sounding off on a message board and a BBC journalist making a news report.I didn't watch much of the coverage as you could imagine but I was immediately struck by a number of comments made by the BBC's reporter. In a short period he made at least three comments which I knew would have been vehemently disputed to be false by many. The reporter's personal views on the Pope were very evident and I'm not necessarily saying that he was wrong just that he wasn't being very professional. I'm not sure why you think this means that I prefer Sky News. I don't watch it but am aware of its overt bias. It disappoints me to see the BBC going the same way.

Andy Jones ● 5847d

I see the BBC bias as leftish multiculturalism. What do you see as Sky's? I see it as even more secular.

Graham Weeks ● 5846d

Well, thank God that the pope didn't visit Ealing.The Sky Ride was disruptive enough.

Alan Brainsby ● 5846d

"I see the BBC bias as leftish multiculturalism. What do you see as Sky's? I see it as even more secular."That reinforces my argument Graham,it's probably true to say that you are fairly right of centre (ex Tory councillor etc) so I would expect you to perceive the BBC as having a leftish bias. If I could ask Tony Blair his views I'm pretty sure he'd say they were all right wingers.(the Dr.David Kelly affair springs to mind)It's really bad science to have a pre existing bias and then form opinions as if the bias doesn't exist. Of course we all have them, but it's quite interesting to try doing away with them and starting each "judgement" with a blank sheet of mind. Nice trick if you can do it!I can't comment on Sky News,I don't watch it.

Tony Wood ● 5845d

'It's really bad science to have a pre existing bias and then form opinions as if the bias doesn't exist. Of course we all have them, but it's quite interesting to try doing away with them and starting each "judgement" with a blank sheet of mind. Nice trick if you can do it!'You have shown there is no impartial science in such judgements. We are all biased. There are no blank minds. There can be no such tricks. The Beeb once boasted independence and objectivity. It no longer does so.

Graham Weeks ● 5845d

Of course it does:BBC Editorial Guidelineshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/

Sara Nathan ● 5845d

"You have shown there is no impartial science in such judgements. We are all biased. There are no blank minds. There can be no such tricks. The Beeb once boasted independence and objectivity. It no longer does so."I'm confused then, if there is no impartial science and we are all biased, how did the BBC once boast independence and objectivity, what has changed, what did the BBC have that it's now lost? Is it possible that it's us that has changed as we've aged?

Tony Wood ● 5845d

..."what did the BBC have that it's now lost?"...Alvar Liddell?

Alan Brainsby ● 5845d

Tony said, 'I'm confused then, if there is no impartial science and we are all biased, how did the BBC once boast independence and objectivity, what has changed, what did the BBC have that it's now lost?' Impartiality is an aim and continues to be an aim for the BBC. It is difficult, if not impossible to achieve a total lack of bias in any reporting and the BBC has always had some. The worry is that recently it seems to have become more blatant as if the quest for objectivity is being abandoned.I perhaps have been a bit harsh on Sky as a friend who works there has pointed out they aim to exceed the standards of objectivity at the Beeb. The negative view I have of them comes from the reputation of Fox News in the US.As for the multiculturalism of the BBC I think that on the contrary it is one of the most monocultural organisations in the country. In both news and light entertainment it is dominated by middle class, university educated (predominantly Oxbridge), social liberals. Although diverse in terms of race, gender and sexual orientation the section of the population they recruit from is remarkably narrow. This isn't necessarily a bad thing and they do give the BBC a very distinct identity but there is a danger that they are becoming increasingly remote from the bulk of the population particularly those outside London.

Andy Jones ● 5845d

The difficulty in providing objectivity and balance on a Papal visit does this mean interviewing atheists? Or should they create balance by showing Ian Paisley in his Garden? The other trouble for journalists is to balance the protestors against the enthusiasts. They want a good story or soundbite. But the Panorama and the Peter Tatchel programmes provided real balance about the issues surrounding the Catholic Church. So whilst I was not that bothered about the trip it appeared that it was well covered and also issues were also well covered.The point about the Oxbridge influence in the BBC is very true. It is a small base generally from which it is drawn. It will be funny how they manage when they all have to move to Salford!!

Peter Chadburn ● 5844d

'In both news and light entertainment it is dominated by middle class, university educated (predominantly Oxbridge), social liberals. 'Exactly. It is not what it was. Jerry Springer - The Opera is aired. But they would never show say, Mohammed the Movie.

Graham Weeks ● 5844d

The may be social liberals in public, but i bet there are many closet tories amongst them

Peter Chadburn ● 5844d

'The may be social liberals in public, but i bet there are many closet tories amongst them'I didn't know William Hague worked for the BBC.

Andy Jones ● 5844d

I have a friend in the Beeb. He says he needs contact with the likes of me for a difference from his work environment.

Graham Weeks ● 5844d

If you are really into this stuff then read John Bridcut's excellent report on Impartiality "From Seesaw to Wagonwheel" in which he argues that it is no longer enough in so many areas just to have two opposing voices and describe that as impartiality but that a range of opinions needs to be expressed and that is what "due impartiality" means.And for real anoraks: if you are interested in the BBC's impartiality and the reporting of science specifically then you will be gripped to know that the Trust has recently commissioned an impartiality review led by Professor Steve Jones. I think there's a consultation to which you can give your views.

Sara Nathan ● 5843d

Good stuff Sara!The obvious drawback in Bridcut's argument is that you'd need 60 million opinions to keep everyone in Britain completely happy (that's questionable). That's what I was alluding to with "Digital People",unless we can all say yea or all say nay, then there is a problem.In computing there is a technique called Fuzzy Logic aka Machine Learning.It's based on the way that humans reason and uses a scale of 1 to 10 rather than the normal 0 and 1. We all use F.L. every and all day to make decisions, we don't wake up and think I'll buy a new car today without weighing up the wider implications, food for kids, mortgages etc. On a scale of 1-10 we rarely get anywhere near the 1 or ten,more likely 3 to 8 which most are comfortable with. I guess that is the target that the BBC is aiming at, sort of "you might not like it but we hope you don't hate it"!  There will of course be some 1s and 10s in the audience (usually the noisiest) and I'm afraid the answer to them has to be "tough" or "sorry" if one is feeling polite :0). Basically it's learned bigotry,it can't be stamped out except by another bigot,but it can be ignored as they are a minority and the tail can't be allowed to wag the dog.

Tony Wood ● 5843d

Much of the problem of impartiality is in the nature of the newsreaders and presenters. Aside from bad English - among/amongst, less/fewer, none were - and the like, and poor pronunciation, there is a bias in intonation, and where viewable, facial expression.Hence my earlier remark about Alvar Liddell.Obviously the BBC has to find people to give both sides of an argument as their recruitment office must find it nearly impossible to hire anyone capable of creating a balanced view. This of course is my unbiased opinion.

Alan Brainsby ● 5843d

"Aside from bad English - among/amongst, less/fewer, none were - and the like, and poor pronunciation, there is a bias in intonation, and where viewable, facial expression."Cripes! You need an Avatar reading the news."Hence my earlier remark about Alvar Liddell."He did have a great voice and diction and I did have a smile at that. It's not often the Swedes put us to shame with our own language,excepting ABBA that is.m m

Tony Wood ● 5843d

In the specific broadcast under discussion it wasn't so much that a range of views weren't being broadcast but that rather the reporter was so obviously disapproving of the event itself and this seemed odd. You wouldn't get a republican commentating on a royal wedding or a Manchester City fan commentating on a Manchester Utd game so it seemed a strange choice for the Pope's visit.Having Steve Jones chair an impartiality review suggests someone at the BBC has a very wicked sense of humour. I am an admirer of his books, or at least the one I have read, but he is totally inappropriate for the role. If Wikipedia is to be believed he has stated that people with certain religious views should not be allowed to become doctors and he was a very vocal opponent of the Pope's visit. It is an appointment that does tend to confirm the lack of objectivity at the BBC noted earlier.

Andy Jones ● 5843d

Maybe the BBC would be more objective if the TV licence fee were scrapped...... or maybe it wouldn't.

Alan Brainsby ● 5843d

Actually, Graham, I would contend that there are quite a few people like you in the BBC.One of the trends I have noticed at the corporation is the way in which they have tried to rehabilitate the legacy of the late Enoch Powell and make him out to be some sort of great lost leader.Michael Cockerell's documentary about him was full of fawning admiration (accompanied by sweeping tragic classical music, presumably intended to signify his supposed brilliance).The BBC's "White Season" - which asked the question "Is white working class Britain becoming invisible?" - erroneously sought to characterise him as a representative of people in my social/ethnic group (and even tried to imply that 7/7 somehow proved his "Rivers of Blood" prophesy).At the BBC, both Powell and Thatcher are treated as icons, whereas Heath (who bravely fought against their excesses) is routinely rubbished.Give me Channel 4 any day.

Robin Taylor ● 5843d

"The BBC's "White Season" - which asked the question "Is white working class Britain becoming invisible?" - erroneously sought to characterise him as a representative of people in my social/ethnic group (and even tried to imply that 7/7 somehow proved his "Rivers of Blood" prophesy)."Are you saying that you characterise yourself as white working class?

George Knox ● 5842d

Well, George, it's pretty difficult to see how I can be classified as anything else:> I'm white> I rent property in a densely packed urban area> I do an unskilled manual job> I earn an annual 4-figure sum

Robin Taylor ● 5842d

It's a review of science - not religion at all - and he's pretty good at that.And I suggested/persuaded him - so not done with wicked sense of humour!

Sara Nathan ● 5842d

"Give me Channel 4 any day."It just goes to show that you can't please all of the people at any time.www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2800169/Channel-4-accused-of-pro-Muslim-bias-by-Catholic-priests.htmlwww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298516/Channel-4-accused-having-bias-white-people.html

Tony Wood ● 5842d

Sara, perhaps I have misunderstood his role. If he is there to carry out a Ben Goldacre style oversight to ensure 'good science' on the BBC then he is very well qualified. The first thing to mind for me when impartiality and science was brought up was ethics which I know is the most fraught topic within the scientific community at the moment. Steve Jones is has nailed his colours to the mast on quite a few of these questions so he won't have the confidence of many scientists if he is called upon to make judgments in this field. If that is the case the appointment looks ill-judged to me with all due respect.

Andy Jones ● 5842d

It was so much easier when TV was only black and white...

Alan Brainsby ● 5842d

That might make you eligible to  claim for HB. Is that what you do?

George Knox ● 5841d

I don't think it would.For a start, part of my income is derived from the interest on my savings - and that issue raises all sorts of complications.I just prefer to avoid benefits, because it involves too much hassle and I'd prefer to use the energy trying to make what I do more viable.I have no complaints, though naturally I'm going to be pre-disposed to voting for the party that is least likely to raise VAT!

Robin Taylor ● 5841d

Channel Four challenges and unfortunately some people will object.

Peter Chadburn ● 5840d