From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

The news channels fills assorted gaps - I think not just where the international version has advert.s - with little clips from old reports,
I think to draw your attention to other specialist reports on the channel.

I find them irritating, though, as they play them without any warning,
so the unwary might think they're a new report. (There was a
particularly alarming one a few weeks ago about a car running into a
crowd; I _hope_ they stopped running that one because of complaints,
though I suspect not.)

The selection is random - and what triggered me to post this (albeit
I've only got round to it, and the occurrence was at 4:44 two or three
days ago) was it showing the same clip twice in succession (obviously
nobody monitors the outgoing). And then within a few hours one bunch of
such clips had the same one with only one other in between.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

looking like one who had drunk the cup of life and found
a dead beetle in the bottom. - Wodehouse

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 16/05/2026 15:44, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

The news channels fills assorted gaps - I think not just where the international version has advert.s - with little clips from old reports,
I think to draw your attention to other specialist reports on the channel.

I find them irritating, though, as they play them without any warning,
so the unwary might think they're a new report. (There was a
particularly alarming one a few weeks ago about a car running into a
crowd; I _hope_ they stopped running that one because of complaints,
though I suspect not.)

The selection is random - and what triggered me to post this (albeit
I've only got round to it, and the occurrence was at 4:44 two or three
days ago) was it showing the same clip twice in succession (obviously
nobody monitors the outgoing). And then within a few hours one bunch of
such clips had the same one with only one other in between.

Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person left watching the BBC News Channel.

I gave up on it a long time ago.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2026/5/16 16:30:34, Mark Carver wrote:
[]

Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person left watching the BBC News Channel.

I gave up on it a long time ago.

Thanks for considering me intelligent despite that :-) ! As for
"watching", I wouldn't go that far; there are times I have it _on_. But
Sky are as bad a lot of the time (haven't had them on enough to make a judgement of their trailer/clip policy, and as for GBN ... Bring back
RT; at least you _knew_ where they were coming from, and there was a
fair chance they wouldn't be carrying the exact same feed as the other
three at times like PMQ.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Heaven forbid today's audience should feel bombarded with information
or worse, lectured. Dont'scare the horses by waving facts around.
- David Butcher, RT 2014/11/29-12/5
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:

Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.

I gave up on it a long time ago.

Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.

It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.

Summer is nearly here and we may get a warm day or two and then it
will be - scientists say.... But now that the IPCC has marked it's
own work as implausible, you never know they go quiet.


Bob.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:

Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.

I gave up on it a long time ago.

Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.

It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.

but = That is decision by Parliament - not of the BBC's.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:

Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.

I gave up on it a long time ago.

Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.

It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.

The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or Sky
News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop, and you
get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether you watch
it or not.

If you want free news on your TV, then Al Jazeera is one of the few
suppliers.

Every news station has its own bias, and I have noticed that with the
BBC, those who are right wing in their thinking believe it has a left
wing bias and left wing thinkers believe it is biased to the right. No
matter which way the Government of the day leans, they believe that the
BBC is not on their side...

Like every other news service except the Muslim ones, it is scared stiff
of annoying Israel's current Government.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 18/05/2026 12:53, John Williamson wrote:

On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
-a-a Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:

Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.

I gave up on it a long time ago.

Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.

It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.

The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or Sky
News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop, and you
get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether you watch
it or not.

If you want free news on your TV, then Al Jazeera is one of the few suppliers.

Every news station has its own bias,

It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.

News is only what the editor or producer has decided to report upon

I don't regard sports results, or the winner of Eurovision to be news,
but they will push other items such as the Trump war, down the running
order.

Currently the Starmer-a-thon caused the media to largely ignore the
Trump-Xi summit, and when was the last time you heard anything about Gaza ?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 18/05/2026 13:16, Mark Carver wrote:

On 18/05/2026 12:53, John Williamson wrote:

On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:

Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.

I gave up on it a long time ago.

Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.

It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.

The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or
Sky News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop,
and you get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether
you watch it or not.

If you want free news on your TV, then Al Jazeera is one of the few
suppliers.

Every news station has its own bias,

It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.

News is only what the editor or producer has decided to report upon

"decided to" = "has been asked or told to"

That is where the bias creeps in. If the editor wants to keep their job,
they conform to their boss's biases.

I don't regard sports results, or the winner of Eurovision to be news,
but they will push other items such as the Trump war, down the running
order.

For many of the audience, they are far more important than what an
Orange dementia sufferer is doing thousands of miles away.

Currently the Starmer-a-thon caused the media to largely ignore the
Trump-Xi summit, and when was the last time you heard anything about Gaza ?

Last time the situation changed, The same as Ukraine, nothing new is happening, which is why everyone dropped the dedicated tabs on their
news pages. Civilians in both places are still being killed and are
starving for no very good reason.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:

On 18/05/2026 12:53, John Williamson wrote:

On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
-a-a Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:

Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.

I gave up on it a long time ago.

Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.

It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.

The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or Sky
News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop, and you
get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether you watch
it or not.

If you want free news on your TV, then Al Jazeera is one of the few
suppliers.

Every news station has its own bias,

It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.

News is only what the editor or producer has decided to report upon

I don't regard sports results, or the winner of Eurovision to be news,

My wife would disagree with this last statement.

Everybody is different, and serving all those differences is impossible.
Seems that a lot of people want a service tailored to their wishes and viewpoint.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

Bob Latham wrote:

Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.

Hasn't their new broom arrived today?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 18/05/2026 13:44, Tweed wrote:

Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:

On 18/05/2026 12:53, John Williamson wrote:

On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:

In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
-a-a Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:

Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.

I gave up on it a long time ago.

Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.

It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.

The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or Sky
News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop, and you >>> get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether you watch
it or not.

If you want free news on your TV, then Al Jazeera is one of the few
suppliers.

Every news station has its own bias,

It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.

News is only what the editor or producer has decided to report upon

I don't regard sports results, or the winner of Eurovision to be news,

My wife would disagree with this last statement.

Everybody is different, and serving all those differences is impossible. Seems that a lot of people want a service tailored to their wishes and viewpoint.

Well, yes, and you can these days build your own newsfeed.

I just wish they'd put the weather before the sports news, then I could
switch off and get 10 mins extra sleep !
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2026/5/18 12:53:4, John Williamson wrote:
[]

Every news station has its own bias, and I have noticed that with the
BBC, those who are right wing in their thinking believe it has a left
wing bias and left wing thinkers believe it is biased to the right. No matter which way the Government of the day leans, they believe that the
BBC is not on their side...

Indeed; as you say, each side thinks it's biased the other way, so I
think it's roughly got the balance right.

Plus, on the whole, I think they criticise whatever government's in
power more than they do the opposition(s); this is _probably_ as it
should be, as the one that's in has more power, so should be criticised
more.

Like every other news service except the Muslim ones, it is scared stiff
of annoying Israel's current Government.

(Yes, I'm still waiting for a _British_ Jewish group to criticize - or,
at least, be _reported_ as criticizing - Israel's behaviour.)

More in next post.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Listen, three-eyes, don't you try to out-wierd me, I get stranger
things than you free with my breakfast cereal.
(Zaphod Beeblebrox in the link episode)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2026/5/18 13:16:44, Mark Carver wrote:
[]

It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.

And (this applies to all of them, not just the BBC) monostoryism and the Westminster bubble (and the hyaena pack).

Monostoryism: they _all_ have a tendency to glom onto a single story,
and then use 2/3 or more (usually more like 9/10) of the entire bulletin
on it, excluding everything else. (They sometimes insert about _one
line_ about the rest of the news - I suspect so they can say they did,
rather than actually wanting to.)

The Westminster bubble (again, _all_ of them): this, along with
monostoryism, has such a strong tendency to drive everything else out.

The hyena pack: for goodness' sake, I've never voted Labour; but, I do
find it sickening how they all - I'm not sure what the trigger point is
- pick on, in particular, leaders, such as Mr. Starmer at the moment; I
find him dull but carrying on in a very difficult situation, and dull
isn't necessarily a bad thing. (I'm not really a sports fan, but I've
sensed they sometimes do the same with e. g. football managers.) They
usually succeed in bringing down whoever-it-is, so wonderful hindsight
can be used to claim "we were right, weren't we!" _after_ they've
toppled someone. History is written by the victors - never more so than
in the case of political leaders, where any good points the vanquished
had are buried (and, at least not for decades, anyone defends them at
anyone's peril).

News is only what the editor or producer has decided to report upon

I don't regard sports results, or the winner of Eurovision to be news,
but they will push other items such as the Trump war, down the running order.

Currently the Starmer-a-thon caused the media to largely ignore the
Trump-Xi summit, and when was the last time you heard anything about Gaza ?

Yes; when Westminster bubble combines with monostoryism, any chance of
hearing about _anything_ else goes out the window.

I'd favour some rule that NO story should take more than a third of a
bulletin - NO EXCEPTIONS; that sounds a bit harsh, but if you allow an exception, it will be abused. And, really, is there usually enough
_about_ a big story, to start with? for example, when the Queen died.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Listen, three-eyes, don't you try to out-wierd me, I get stranger
things than you free with my breakfast cereal.
(Zaphod Beeblebrox in the link episode)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2