It is good to see that almost anything goes in the 'Potting Shed' - let's say what we think. It was significant that many news channels devoted hours and hours to the tragedy whereas Londoners had the right idea and drank tea and carried on. There was a really good piece written by an American student who was attending a course in London barely a mile away from the tragedy but everyone around was just doing what they always did. The student received all sorts of frantic calls from the States and she explained to them that this is London. It wasn't like the Blitz.
Our daughter was visiting my cousins in Maidenhead and visiting the Science Museum the Iranian embassy siege started. There were police everywhere and no-one could get near - except my cousin Joy, a lady not to be gainsaid. She got through to take her two sons and Kathryn home - British spirit don't ya know.
Got to go and do something far more important now in the garden.
But I do wish to watch and hear. I want to watch and hear FACTS, not speculation, supposition or rumour on news programmes. I don't want to see reporters shoving microphones in people's faces and asking 'How did you feel' immediately after a life altering event. I don't even have a problem with speculation, supposition or rumour on discussion programmes, I simply ask that news programmes broadcast facts.
At least the BBC did avoid the claim made by Channel 4 News to know the perpetrator, and then name a person who is currently in prison!
The priority for broadcasters seems to be to be first with anything, rather than first with an accurate report.
KT, I am with you, those reporters are on an ego trip to be first with everything, accuracy is not important even if (and they do) get it wrong, they just claim it was the information they had at the time which proved incorrect a cop out by my standards. If some one shoved a Mike in my face after something like that awful event they would be speaking Latin into it from the wrong end of the body, I do not wish to see people sobbing their hearts out from shock fear and distress at what they have just seen happen. Even they must realise some things cannot be given out at the time as security services had to weigh it all up then dash round the country searching places so evidence was not destroyed, or is that too much for simple brains to understand.
Also with you DR, I knock the sound off or switch over when they do that to Athletes who have just given their all, fail or not they are all winners.
I don't go on social media so have no knowledge of what's posted there. The big difference between that and the BBC is that the BBC should be expected to act responsibly.
WillDB, Social Media is the Forum in Roman times, people who are not going to get hurt feeding innocents to the Lions. I am not on any of it, would not go on any of it and cannot understand why people would put their whole lives on such a media where it is almost an invitation to be abused. That twittering thingee is to me for twits, that is the kind word. Point one who is interested as to who went to a certain coffee shop and paid a ginormous sum for hot water milk and a few grounds of pick me up, point two who the H@@@ are the people who would read such stuff, they need to get a life, something like gardening, growing things, not destroying ego's on a trip. OK bite me and you will be bitten back and not in one throwaway line either.
Just to clarify one wee point here. Martin McGuinness never held the presidency of ireland. He stood for election once. In the last election. Our president these days is michael d Higgins, who won that election, a strongly opinionated social rights supporter. Easy to tell him apart from Mr McGuinness. He is still alive and going strong, and devoting a lot of time to fighting social injustice around the world.
I think you meant to type deputy first minister rather than president. Moreover, the progress of peace in northern ireland - regardless of your own political persuasion - was only achieved through the hard work and devotion of Martin McGuinness and politicians on all sides.
And yes we do live in a mad world. Watching the news is now more complicated than ever. You have to establish sources and check them. Even the rte or BBC news is tainted to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. When I do a presentation to a new client, my first question is "would a squaddie understand this?" I think the news stations are doing the same
Clueless, I should have explained the person I spoke of was not in Ireland, the shoot on sight poster was in a Desert in a country that if you say its original name on here the post disappears, I was never in Ireland although we did train for Street fighting at one time. It is a complicated mad world. As to would a Squaddie understand it, they do understand a lot more than the people who send them off into the bad places. We knew we would change nothing, often were on the side of the opposition but carried out orders for an easy life, the people who you use as an example should not be the Squaddies but the politicians and they question would be "How will they change this to suit their own ends"?
Posts
Not going to have an argument Doghouse, it really is just too nice a day.
It is good to see that almost anything goes in the 'Potting Shed' - let's say what we think. It was significant that many news channels devoted hours and hours to the tragedy whereas Londoners had the right idea and drank tea and carried on. There was a really good piece written by an American student who was attending a course in London barely a mile away from the tragedy but everyone around was just doing what they always did. The student received all sorts of frantic calls from the States and she explained to them that this is London. It wasn't like the Blitz.
Our daughter was visiting my cousins in Maidenhead and visiting the Science Museum the Iranian embassy siege started. There were police everywhere and no-one could get near - except my cousin Joy, a lady not to be gainsaid. She got through to take her two sons and Kathryn home - British spirit don't ya know.
Got to go and do something far more important now in the garden.
But I do wish to watch and hear. I want to watch and hear FACTS, not speculation, supposition or rumour on news programmes. I don't want to see reporters shoving microphones in people's faces and asking 'How did you feel' immediately after a life altering event. I don't even have a problem with speculation, supposition or rumour on discussion programmes, I simply ask that news programmes broadcast facts.
At least the BBC did avoid the claim made by Channel 4 News to know the perpetrator, and then name a person who is currently in prison!
The priority for broadcasters seems to be to be first with anything, rather than first with an accurate report.
KT, I am with you, those reporters are on an ego trip to be first with everything, accuracy is not important even if (and they do) get it wrong, they just claim it was the information they had at the time which proved incorrect a cop out by my standards. If some one shoved a Mike in my face after something like that awful event they would be speaking Latin into it from the wrong end of the body, I do not wish to see people sobbing their hearts out from shock fear and distress at what they have just seen happen. Even they must realise some things cannot be given out at the time as security services had to weigh it all up then dash round the country searching places so evidence was not destroyed, or is that too much for simple brains to understand.
Also with you DR, I knock the sound off or switch over when they do that to Athletes who have just given their all, fail or not they are all winners.
Frank.
Far worse than the news coverage is the response on social media. I won't go into it here but some of the stuff I've seen has been disgraceful.
I don't go on social media so have no knowledge of what's posted there. The big difference between that and the BBC is that the BBC should be expected to act responsibly.
Last edited: 26 March 2017 10:04:25
Precisely, KT.
WillDB, Social Media is the Forum in Roman times, people who are not going to get hurt feeding innocents to the Lions. I am not on any of it, would not go on any of it and cannot understand why people would put their whole lives on such a media where it is almost an invitation to be abused. That twittering thingee is to me for twits, that is the kind word. Point one who is interested as to who went to a certain coffee shop and paid a ginormous sum for hot water milk and a few grounds of pick me up, point two who the H@@@ are the people who would read such stuff, they need to get a life, something like gardening, growing things, not destroying ego's on a trip. OK bite me and you will be bitten back and not in one throwaway line either.
Frank.
Hi plaid
Just to clarify one wee point here. Martin McGuinness never held the presidency of ireland. He stood for election once. In the last election. Our president these days is michael d Higgins, who won that election, a strongly opinionated social rights supporter. Easy to tell him apart from Mr McGuinness. He is still alive and going strong, and devoting a lot of time to fighting social injustice around the world.
I think you meant to type deputy first minister rather than president. Moreover, the progress of peace in northern ireland - regardless of your own political persuasion - was only achieved through the hard work and devotion of Martin McGuinness and politicians on all sides.
And yes we do live in a mad world. Watching the news is now more complicated than ever. You have to establish sources and check them. Even the rte or BBC news is tainted to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. When I do a presentation to a new client, my first question is "would a squaddie understand this?" I think the news stations are doing the same
Clueless, I should have explained the person I spoke of was not in Ireland, the shoot on sight poster was in a Desert in a country that if you say its original name on here the post disappears, I was never in Ireland although we did train for Street fighting at one time. It is a complicated mad world. As to would a Squaddie understand it, they do understand a lot more than the people who send them off into the bad places. We knew we would change nothing, often were on the side of the opposition but carried out orders for an easy life, the people who you use as an example should not be the Squaddies but the politicians and they question would be "How will they change this to suit their own ends"?
Frank.