"China" - BBC Two's new 4-part documentary

eecsmaster said:

deflect from the main points? The issue here is that your points aren't even valid in the given context.

Click to expand...

You were the one that thought you could undermine my position by implying the UK has a bad human rights record. But I'm not a government rep, nor have I done anything myself. So I can comment on what I like.

I would maintain that the UK has a better record that China, but I will say here that I condemn anything wrong the UK has done/does.

Now can you condemn what happens in China, or are you going to go off and sulk? Or indeed do you have any comments on the show itself? Because we are talking about the show. If you haven't seen it then you can't comment on it.

My advise to you is to stay clear of your political convictions in a military forum.

Click to expand...

Lol, or what? You're going to throw your airfix kits at me?

I am glad you mentioned Panorama, as it was an example on my mind. Panorama is a program intended for a domestic audience to illustrate the problems in their own society. They know the society and can provide their own Balance.

This however was meant for a public without prior knowledge and unable to provide that balance. Thanks Fumanchu, you have nicely illustrated the heart of my complaint and dissatisfaction.

Then your complaint is ill-founded. Panorama talks about specific issues, not an overview of the country. Many viewers will not know much about the issues discussed, so they can't judge the issues and balance them that easily - they're mostly reliant on the views produced on each broadcast.

Britons seeing a Panorama about Salmonela in Cadbury's chocolate would not be able to balance the views aired much better than they would have those raised in the BBC China documentary.

But to cater for any possible differences, the people in the BBC China series were not challenged over their views even if they were propagandist and rather dubious. Also no foreign commentators were brought in, even though they would have given more direct answers on lots of points. The people interviewed were Chinese people from government, academics, activists and journalists - as well as the ordinary people themselves. Who else was there to talk to?

Sampan, I think you're being quite unreasonable.

FuManChu said:

You must be jumping on Sampy's "oh-China-is-always-misrepresented" bandwagon, because the BBC did talk to "ordinary" Chinese on several occasions. Perhaps you should watch something before you make a comment like that next time, so you don't look so silly. This thread is talking about a BBC series that people have actually seen. It's not about your particular feelings concerning how the BBC reports on China. If you want to complain about the BBC, please feel free to start your own thread.

Click to expand...

Actually i'd second Sampan and Roger...so i guess it's all one big
conspiracy to tarnish the 'fair and balanced' BBC...btw have you seen
any independent reports on the BBC's handling of various international
issues recently ?

The BBC consists of a certain elite section of British society who like
to make various self-congratulatory programmes. In fact I remember
the BBC at one point in the 1980's telling the USSR how the majority
of people in Britain lived in semi-detached houses ....

Like most people in the UK i treat BBC programmes with a healthy dose
of scepticism.

Btw FuManchu i have friends who have produced programmes for the
BBC and i've also been on their programmes

Yes, but did you see the series? Yes or no. Roger did not, which is why I said he was jumping on a bandwagon - so far Sampan is the only person to show he did, and I have rebutted his complaints. I have a lot of criticism about lots of things produced by all kinds of media groups, including the BBC. But I don't condemn them unless I have actually seen the report/programme itself.

Unless you are saying the BBC can never, ever make a "fair" report (assuming other media groups can), then you need to tell me whether you saw this or not and raise specific points about it. I don't accuse the Chinese media of always being "unfair", only when I've seen something specific.

I also know people in the BBC, so I don't really see the relevance of your last statement.

I know few guys working at YLE (our BBC)

(read behind the line...don't get too agitated, there is enough tension in this thread. This is suposed to be the members clubroom, a relaxing place, where none should fear any flaiming and trolling)

Gollevainen said:

I know few guys working at YLE (our BBC)

(read behind the line...don't get too agitated, there is enough tension in this thread. This is suposed to be the members clubroom, a relaxing place, where none should fear any flaiming and trolling)

Click to expand...

point taken.

Fumanchu my point is that the BBC draws it's journalists from a certain substrata of society mainly daily mail and times readers....they can't help
but reflect that. They don't have time to get an overall picture before they go back to their semi-detached houses so they will
interview the most extreme people and then try to generalise the opinion.
Since i've stayed over at their places it's been interesting to see how detached they are from the rest of us 'proles'...

Although in some cases the bbc does go too far in order to 'create' a story
for instance in Naples a few years ago when a BBC reporter scattered some
syringes in an alley and had to be rescued by the police from the locals.

I didn't watch ALL the programme but the parts that I did watch seemed to
show close ups of lots of angry people...some with remarkably large amounts
of nasal hair...:rofl:

Considering that to get a decent job with the BBC you need to have a good education, they're hardly going to be recruiting lots of people without degrees, A-levels and other good academic standards unless they can show they have talent and experience. Thus inevitably most people in the BBC are going to be "middle class" (depending on what your definition is).

Out of all the people they interviewed across all four parts (not the people on the "streets"), only the AIDS activist from yesterday was really "extreme" - I would say she was passionate. The others were quite restrained and logical in the points that they made. There was also a fairly wide range of opinion, so your belief that BBC journalists only interview "extremists" and then generalise does not pan out in this case.

FuManChu said:

Considering that to get a decent job with the BBC you need to have a good education, they're hardly going to be recruiting lots of people without degrees, A-levels and other good academic standards unless they can show they have talent and experience. Thus inevitably most people in the BBC are going to be "middle class" (depending on what your definition is).

Out of all the people they interviewed across all four parts (not the people on the "streets"), only the AIDS activist from yesterday was really "extreme" - I would say she was passionate. The others were quite restrained and logical in the points that they made. There was also a fairly wide range of opinion, so your belief that BBC journalists only interview "extremists" and then generalise does not pan out in this case.

Click to expand...

No.

One of my teachers was the father of a BBC correspondent and I can safely
say that she got her job not on the basis of her towering intellect but quite simply because she agree's with the BBC's party line. Of course she satisfies the BBC's requirement for an 'ethnic' component.

Some of the rest of my friends have left the BBC out of disgust at it's frequent kow-towing to the government agenda and joined other news agencies

What about the woman who was yelling like a cornish fisher wife something about the government having covered up the sky with one hand and how tyrannical they were...if they were that tyrannical she would have been made to wear a jumpsuit...

Well none of my friends have left the BBC and are all well educated. That said they're not the kind of people to believe in everything the government says, always follow its policies, etc. So there you go.

Even if the BBC followed a "government agenda", why would that extend to China? Blair and Brown have been doing their best to focus on making money with China - they were all for lifting the arms embargo until China passed the Anti-Secession Law and annoyed the EU/US. So in that respect you're contradicting yourself, because a BBC that followed a "government line" would be saying only good stuff about the PRC, to justify the Labour Party cozying up to it.

You're also still failing to talk about the documentary in question. You claimed the BBC just interviews "extremists", when that is obviously untrue to any observer. However I still pointed out that even in the series there weren't any such individuals, bar one very passionate campaigner. Everyone else was quite measured in their approach - no one started demanding unreasonable political change or anything like that.

So, once more, I challenge you to actually discuss the series on its own merits, rather than keep defaulting to your poor opinion of the BBC because it's what you're comfortable with.