A very silly article was posted on the BBC website yesterday. Cindy Gallop is identified by the Beeb as "an advertising consultant and commentator on cultural issues" (well, that makes all of us, surely). In her article she suggests that instead of trying to compartmentalise our lives and only share certain information with certain people, we should just not worry and make everything public, and instead concentrate on our image. Worries about privacy on social networks are unfounded, she implies.
By managing our image, she means that we should be consistent in our behaviour and not be one thing to one person and something else to someone else. If you don't want your boss to see photos of you as an idiot drunkard puking your guts out in the city centre, then don't be an idiot drunkard puking your guts out in the city centre. Just don't do stuff you'll be ashamed for other people to see.
Well, that's a sound argument; it's not one I disagree with. But it completely misses the point.
I'm not ashamed of what I do or of who I am. If I take my family on holiday for a couple of weeks, that's not something I hide from the world because I'm ashamed of it. But if I plaster the fact that my house is going to be empty for a fortnight all over the internet, that's a massive security risk.
My date of birth and mother's maiden name are nothing to be ashamed of. Sharing them could turn out to be pretty useful - more birthday greetings perhaps, and maybe a friendly genealogist might trace my family tree for me. But publicising information banks use to reset online accounts is never a wise move.
I agree with Cindy that it's silly to pretend you're something you're not, that telling lies is a bad thing, and being open, honest and transparent is good. But to pretend that privacy of information doesn't matter, that it's ok to share everything about you, that worries about what Facebook might do with your information are unfounded - well, that's just daft. It's embarrassing.
It's something to be ashamed of.
Showing posts with label bbc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bbc. Show all posts
Have your say: BBC got it wrong
Occasionally I'll post something on the BBC News website's Have your say section. If you haven't seen it before, it's not a discussion board in the traditional sense, but asks you to comment on a specific news story. It then publishes your comments, and everyone can then vote on one another's comments by choosing whether or not to click the "recommend" button that appears below each one. It's quite a neat system.
Naturally, the beeb have put some controls in place to filter out abuse, and posts that don't obey the house rules. The subjects are all time-limited too, so if they don't get around to checking your comment in time, it doesn't get published. When you're reviewing your previous posts, you can see whether your post was published (and how many recommendations it received if it was), unpublished (it wasn't processed in time before the subject was closed) or rejected (it broke the house rules).
Knowing that most of my posts were made several hours before a subject closed, it was disappointing how many of my posts were unpublished, but what was more interesting was the one post that was rejected. The subject in question combined two of the BBC's favourites for the Have your say forum: "Is the Church of England obsessed with sex?"
My answer was pretty simple, and to the point: no, the CoE isn't obsessed with sex but the media are; in addition, the media (and particularly the BBC) are quite keen to undermine Christianity, so there's little surprise that these two obsessions keep combining to produce headlines that involve both.
You might not agree with the view I expressed, but if you have any clue which of the BBC's house rules I'm supposed to have broken by expressing it I look forward to reading your comments below!
Regarding my viewpoint itself, I think both of the media's obsessions are self-evident. Sex sells, and the tabloid press know that better than anyone. And you only have to watch or listen to the Beeb's programmes aimed at Christians (such as Radio 2's Good Morning Sunday or the infamous Songs of Praise) and compare it with the vibrant, buzzing CCM scene (as evidenced by the brilliant Cross Rythms radio stations springing up over the country) to ascertain that the BBC's view of Christianity is outdated to say the least.
Thatchergate: BBC got it right
There's been widespread criticism of the BBC for sacking Carol Thatcher from The One Show for her comments likening a tennis player to the "golliwog" character from old Robertson's jam jars (in fact the character and word predates that depiction, as the Wikipedia article explains). The Beeb's critics say that the remarks were made in private - by which I think they mean "off air", which is something entirely different - and that it was meant as an innocent joke.
A joke. Well, that's ok then, isn't it? Of course not - you just cannot use language that you know is offensive, especially while at work. Just because Thatcher wasn't broadcasting at the time is no excuse - she was there as a representative of the BBC, in their employment, and should have acted accordingly. As BBC1 controller Jay Hunt said,
What Carol decides to say in the privacy of her own home or in a private conversation with friends is one thing. What she says in a green room space, when there are 12 people, in her capacity as a roving reporter for The One Show is a rather different thing.
Clearly the remarks were not made in private - they were in a corporate workspace, akin to an office environment, and when in such a place a certain decorum is sorely needed. As for the "innocent joke" thing, well that's fine if it's true. But if you're making a genuinely innocent joke and you accidentally make a faux pas and actually offend someone, then you jolly well apologise for it. The BBC1 controller said that the main reason why Thatcher was sacked was not so much for the remark itself, but for her lack of remorse:
What I find sad about the entire situation is that we have given Carol ample opportunity to apologise for offence that was caused to key named individuals.
"She felt unable to do that and, for that reason, it is not appropriate for her to work on that particular show, but she will continue to work for the BBC and indeed is.
Sounds more than fair to me.
Strictly Come Voting
Oh dear, I'm blogging about a reality TV show again. This must stop. But not now.
Well, I'm feeling slightly smug that my "what will happen" prediction was absolutely spot-on, but I must admit that Tom's showdance was a gnat's whisker ahead of Rachael's. Ultimately though the point is that Tom shouldn't have even been in the final - the judge's scores in the semifinal meant that he should have been in a dance-off with one of the other couples, after which he would almost certainly have left the competition.
I was very much in favour of the BBC's decision at the time to allow all three couples through, since viewers' votes could not stop Tom being in the dance-off. But that alone was not why I supported the decision - the reason for my support was because the presenters had urged the public to "vote if you want to save your faviourite from the dance-off" - yet no amount of viewers' votes for Tom could have done that, so the BBC had to change something or they would have misled viewers.
The key point is, where was the mistake? It was not in the voting system, it was in the fact that viewers were urged to do something that, in effect, was impossible. Lesson learned, won't happen again.
Until the Christmas episode was filmed, that is, when this happened.
But here the BBC made completely the wrong decision. They changed the system to fiddle the results, so that those who didn't stand a chance of winning (because the judges marked them so low that the audience vote wouldn't be sufficient) suddenly did again. Well, so what? As long as the audience were informed that voting for the bottom two couples would be a wasted vote, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the system as it stood.
Any student of basic game theory will tell you that there is no perfect voting system. Any system of scoring and counting votes can be manipulated, result in ties, etc. In my book it's wholly correct that the judges and audience share half the vote each, and the scoring system they use is fine by me. But that does mean that sometimes the audience will be powerless to save their favourite, or for their favourite to win. That's no bad thing; often the judges know better and what's the point of having them if their opinion is to be undermined by the producers rigging the voting system every time they don't like the result?
Well, I'm feeling slightly smug that my "what will happen" prediction was absolutely spot-on, but I must admit that Tom's showdance was a gnat's whisker ahead of Rachael's. Ultimately though the point is that Tom shouldn't have even been in the final - the judge's scores in the semifinal meant that he should have been in a dance-off with one of the other couples, after which he would almost certainly have left the competition.
I was very much in favour of the BBC's decision at the time to allow all three couples through, since viewers' votes could not stop Tom being in the dance-off. But that alone was not why I supported the decision - the reason for my support was because the presenters had urged the public to "vote if you want to save your faviourite from the dance-off" - yet no amount of viewers' votes for Tom could have done that, so the BBC had to change something or they would have misled viewers.
The key point is, where was the mistake? It was not in the voting system, it was in the fact that viewers were urged to do something that, in effect, was impossible. Lesson learned, won't happen again.
Until the Christmas episode was filmed, that is, when this happened.
But here the BBC made completely the wrong decision. They changed the system to fiddle the results, so that those who didn't stand a chance of winning (because the judges marked them so low that the audience vote wouldn't be sufficient) suddenly did again. Well, so what? As long as the audience were informed that voting for the bottom two couples would be a wasted vote, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the system as it stood.
Any student of basic game theory will tell you that there is no perfect voting system. Any system of scoring and counting votes can be manipulated, result in ties, etc. In my book it's wholly correct that the judges and audience share half the vote each, and the scoring system they use is fine by me. But that does mean that sometimes the audience will be powerless to save their favourite, or for their favourite to win. That's no bad thing; often the judges know better and what's the point of having them if their opinion is to be undermined by the producers rigging the voting system every time they don't like the result?
Is the BBC going tabloid?
As I write, the lead story on the BBC Sport website is: Rooney and Gray row in restaurant. But reading the story, it seems the Beeb are reporting on a storm in a teacup, if that. You could even argue that the BBC are making up news stories to attract visitors.
What does the actual news story tell us? Wayne Rooney was out for a meal with his fiance and some other friends. Michael Gray was at the same restaurant and approached Rooney's table, uninvited. Rooney asked Gray to leave them alone. Rooney's spokesman said "It was a brief incident" and "As far as Wayne is concerned, he bears no ill-feeling towards Michael." So, presumably, Gray did as he was asked. We're told that "Wayne asked him to go several times" but does that equate to a row?
The headline implies a full-scale bust-up, raised voices, shouting... yet none of that is reported to have taken place. Just what is the BBC's definition of a row? This is the kind of sensationalist journalism that we really don't want to see. It's about as far from public service broadcasting as you can get, because the headline does not match the facts given in the report. That's hardly public service, is it?
In the BBC's defence, other news sources are giving slightly different versions; Sky report "Wayne Rooney is alleged to have punched Blackburn defender Michael Gray in the face". But this still doesn't make the BBC's headline correct - that's a fight, not a row!
There are a couple of other moans to be groaned about this story. Yes there are footballers involved but is it really a football / sport story? It's nothing to do with sport, and it's not a major incident, so why is it the lead story on the country's leading sport website? My final moan is the whole "alleged" thing. I know the journalists don't want to be sued but do we really have to hear and read the word "alleged" in every sentence? If their sources are that unreliable that they have to put such a disclaimer in every statement they make, why bother publishing the story at all?
"Alleged" isn't news, "alleged" is speculation. Will somebody please bring back real journalism?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)