Hacker News Reader

Comment by have_faith | Hacker News Reader

Great article, easy to follow considering it's far away from my normal domain.

I noticed they didn't mention any brands by name though, why is that?

The BBC has a very strong product prominence policy[0] (i.e. avoid naming brands when possible), being government funded is a large driver of this policy.

[0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/editoria...

EDIT: fixed policy name and added link

It's not Government funded. There's a mandatory TV tax (for TV viewers), the fee of which is set by Government.

You are right, but considering that until recently not paying your TV license was a crime in effect it is government funded; ultima ratio regum and all that...

Stealing my car is a crime too. Today I learned my car is government funded.

Your argument is non sequitur. If others were required to pay for your car via legislation then you might have an argument.

Property rights are a government-funded right, correct.

The roads your drive on are almost certainly subsidised from beyond the direct taxes you pay on your car and fuel too.

"Taxes" are money paid to the government for use in government funded activities.

So, you agree it is taxation?

(Genuinely not clear to me, not trying to be snarky.)

FWIW when I last researched the issue (maybe 3 years ago) there was also funding from direct taxation used for BBC activities; it was in the published accounts at least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...

It's a shame this is so selectively applied.

See, for example:

- The constant mention of speaking to people 'over Skype' on the News

- Publicization of Twitter hashtags on Questiontime and other programs

- Hours worth of Top Gear footage (and the entire Arctic Special) that were effectively Toyota Hilux advertisements

The constant favourable coverage of Google and Apple, always talking about hipster-friendly Flickr when boring old Photobucket was doing 20x the volume... they apply their rules very selectively....

Photobucket was for link sharing to other sites. , no? While flicker was a destination for publishing albums and browsing, with much higher quality photos.

That's imgur you're thinking of

Isn't most of Top Gear about coverage of different automotive brands?

It is. I'm referring to:

- A running gag that, iirc, covered multiple seasons, about the 'indestructibility' of a red 90s Toyota Hilux. Performing destructive stunts and then driving away with minimal/no repairs. No other cars were involved in this segment.

- A special, hour-long episode involving a grueling trip to the pole in a fleet of brand new, red Toyota Hiluxes.

Whichever way you look at it, this was fantastic advertising and brand reinforcement for Toyota.

Many, many hours worth of prime time TV is advertising for movies/books/etc.. "So you're over here promoting your new movie" says eg Mr Norton, "Yeah, I'm getting US$20M for this movie so I appreciate the free advertising here ..." (or some bs the publicist wrote for them) says the guest, "cue trailer".

When I was on the BBC I had to change my logo polo-shirt so as not to advertise my single-location SME business. Yet Nike, et al., logos are fine, as is advertising by sports teams, etc..

It's all very inconsistent.

I mean the hashtags have no real comparison, but those other two are a bit shady.

> I noticed they didn't mention any brands by name though, why is that?

As a public service broadcaster in the UK, the BBC must be very careful about naming specific brands and products due to rules laid out in their legal remit (and fear of legal action if from a party that feels unfairly disadvantaged by a competitor getting a good mention or them getting a bad one).

This is way Blue Peter always use "sticky backed plastic" instead of "sellotape" or "scotch tape", and people on BBC shows "vacuum" where the common parlance is "to hoover" (hoover being a brand name that got verbed like Google -> to google).

(This is almost too petty a point to reply, but "sticky backed plastic" is a sheet of adhesive transparent film, like you'd use to cover books. I think they probably would have said "sticky tape")

The main UK brand of "sticky backed plastic" was Fablon.

I don't know why you are being downvoted because you are correct. I'd further your post and also point out the correct term to vacuum is still "vacuum". The BBC didn't invent that term like they did "sticky backed plastic".

The radio is often quite amusing when there are guests on there who accidentally slip a brand name. Presenters often then reply with the same rehearsed quote:

    "Other brands of [cola] also exist."

They literally did say "sticky-backed plastic" for sellotape, which left me bemused as a nipper

Especially bemused because that's not what they meant. SBP is Fablon or plastic film that comes in a wide (2+ ft) roll and is primarily used to cover books.

> like Google -> to google

Hang on! Surely, "to google" refers to performing a search specifically with Google, right?

Just like a kleenex must be a tissue produced by Kimberly-Clark or one can only xerox on equipment manufactured by a particular company? That ship is in the process of leaving the port :)

Not a chance. To google means "to search online [using a search engine]".

Have you never witnessed someone googling something using Bing?

I have never witnessed anyone using Bing at all! My father used DuckDuckGo once, although he wasn't aware of it.

In any case, if I say "to google", I mean "search using Google". I try not to say it, though, because I think it sounds silly to use product names like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com