Elliot B. Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 I use the BBC iPlayer Desktop app and BBC iPlayer app on my Android tablet, and on the PC I need to turn the speakers up more than anything else on my system, and I've had to install a volume booster app for the Android app just so I can hear it on the bus (all other apps are load enough). Yes, the program/app volume sliders are turned up. Rather frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 You're probably better off this way. You're not likely to find any journalism on the BBC with or without sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian M. Veteran Posted August 18, 2013 Veteran Share Posted August 18, 2013 Different programs have different volume levels - it drives me insane! Ofcom were supposed to be doing something about it (tv channels were making adverts much louder than programmes). Not sure what happened to their plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJGM Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 You're probably better off this way. You're not likely to find any journalism on the BBC with or without sound. Are you sure you're not confusing the BBC, the world's biggest and most respected news gathering broadcaster, with the Republican biased, sensationalist, low brow claptrap from the Murdoch Money Vultures at Fox News? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Are you sure you're not confusing the BBC, the world's biggest and most respected news gathering broadcaster, with the Republican biased, sensationalist, low brow claptrap from the Murdoch Money Vultures at Fox News? Yes. If the BBC is respected it's because of what it once did, not what it does any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJGM Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Yes. If the BBC is respected it's because of what it once did, not what it does any more. Are you referring to the BBC as in the entire Corporation, or just (the still respected and envied) BBC News? Elliot B. 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Are you referring to the BBC as in the entire Corporation, or just (the still respected and envied) BBC News? The news which is why I mentioned the lack of journalism. I don't think anybody would be surprised by a lack of quality journalism in Eastenders. You can keep banging on about how much respect and envy they receive but it's not going to change the fact that, at best, the BBC is a mediocre news organisation. They never break important stories or produce serious investigative pieces. They represent establishment interests (sycophantically pro-monarchy, pro-military, pro-business, anti-worker, etc.) and toe the government line (regardless of who is in power) to the extent that they could practically be characterised as state-run media. The BBC is the television equivalent of the Daily Mail. They spend far too much time concerning themselves with trivial, low-brow stories and do what they can to avoid holding anyone with any power to account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlintyV Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 The news which is why I mentioned the lack of journalism. I don't think anybody would be surprised by a lack of quality journalism in Eastenders. You can keep banging on about how much respect and envy they receive but it's not going to change the fact that, at best, the BBC is a mediocre news organisation. They never break important stories or produce serious investigative pieces. They represent establishment interests (sycophantically pro-monarchy, pro-military, pro-business, anti-worker, etc.) and toe the government line (regardless of who is in power) to the extent that they could practically be characterised as state-run media. The BBC is the television equivalent of the Daily Mail. They spend far too much time concerning themselves with trivial, low-brow stories and do what they can to avoid holding anyone with any power to account. You consider reports on Syria, Egypt to be low-brow? Odd. "Anti-worker"? lol wtf.. Please enlighten us and tell us where you get your presumably high-brow, intellectually stimulating news coverage from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 You consider reports on Syria, Egypt to be low-brow? Odd. I don't consider them to be anything special given that every news outlet is reporting on them. I do consider all the stories of petty crime that the BBC fill their 6pm news with to be low-brow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_K Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 I don't consider them to be anything special given that every news outlet is reporting on them. I do consider all the stories of petty crime that the BBC fill their 6pm news with to be low-brow. Panoroma isn't part of the BBC news but if you're saying that's bad journalism, you're seriously really ****ing deluded or incredibly mentally unstable. The BBC doesn't care much about who it ****es off with the journalism it has which is what makes it great. They investigated care homes - no-one else did. They investigated GSK's miracle suicide pill, seroxat - no-one else did. Sky had someone investigate criminal gangs, and they did a pretty bad job of it... Are you saying they're even on the same level? OK so the news is of a lower quality than it once was, does that make it just rubbish? No. Does that mean they don't report on breaking news as it happens? No. Does it mean the news is of less quality than it once was (which is still higher than every other news source in the world combined)? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted August 18, 2013 Subscriber² Share Posted August 18, 2013 Jakem1 and I are rarely on the same page. Moreover, I have nothing but respect for the legacy of BBC journalism and it's output. It's with that in mind that I agree. The state of mainstream BBC journalism has become shocking over the last 10 or so years :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Panoroma isn't part of the BBC news but if you're saying that's bad journalism, you're seriously really ****ing deluded or incredibly mentally unstable. The BBC doesn't care much about who it ****es off with the journalism it has which is what makes it great. They investigated care homes - no-one else did. They investigated GSK's miracle suicide pill, seroxat - no-one else did. Sky had someone investigate criminal gangs, and they did a pretty bad job of it... Are you saying they're even on the same level? OK so the news is of a lower quality than it once was, does that make it just rubbish? No. Does that mean they don't report on breaking news as it happens? No. Does it mean the news is of less quality than it once was (which is still higher than every other news source in the world combined)? Yes. I honestly couldn't tell you when Panorama last produced a story that had any impact or was significant in any way. They produce nothing of any importance - they cover stories that are being reported everywhere else in slightly more detail than you expect to get from a standard news bulletin. Big deal. It's just silly to describe BBC journalists as fearless. Nothing could be further from the truth and if you want a perfect example just take a look at the recent revelations about GCHQ and the Ed Snowden affair. The BBC refused to the report on how GCHQ is spying on us the second the government issued its D notice. Most of the time though all it takes is the hint of a change to the license fee to silence a BBC journalist. When was the last time the BBC broke a story like the NSA spying, Murdoch's phone hacking, Wikileaks, MP expenses? I couldn't say because it's been that long. When was the last time they broke a big story of national or international importance and stuck with it until the matter was resolved? God only knows but it's been a hell of a long time. Lots of news is worse than it was but not all news is and that's not an excuse for the rubbish that the BBC produces. Some news organisations still take journalism seriously and still do proper investigative journalism, report on real issues, uncover injustice and avoid tabloid sensationalism. The BBC used to do that sort of journalism and I wish they still did, especially since I'm forced to pay for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Jakem1 and I are rarely on the same page. That's not true :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJGM Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 . . . but it's not going to change the fact that, at best, the BBC is a mediocre news organisation. The BBC is the television equivalent of the Daily Mail. With that last statement, you have lost what little credibility you had in this discussion. To compare the BBC with that nasty hateful ragbag poor excuse of a "newspaper" is pure unmitigated ignorance. The absolute undeniable fact is, the BBC is the world's biggest and best news gathering organisation that other news broadcasting outlets could realistically only dream to be. The huge new BBC News HQ at Broadcasting House in London has around 3000 journalists (despite your ridiculously jaded and ignorant views) production and operational staff working across the News group. with over 240m viewers worldwide, including both BBC News in the UK the BBC World News channel broadcasting in English, plus 26 foreign language news services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_K Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 NSA spying wasn't broken by BBC because it was sold to the highest bidder - guardian. Murdoch phone hacking was and is being reported by the BBC, wasn't broken by the BBC because they didn't know and it's not something you'd think of 'oh lets send in some journalists in to see if they're hacking our phones'... Bradley manning has been reported by BBC, the documents on wikileaks aren't reported, most probably because access to them is technically illegal. MP expenses were reported and broken by the BBC, as was the MPs selling meetings for cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts