The BBC's version of the article at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60014514.
> The BBC has declined to comment.
Nothing more BBC than the BBC writing an article about the BBC saying that the BBC haven't commented.
> The BBC has declined to comment.
Nothing more BBC than the BBC writing an article about the BBC saying that the BBC haven't commented.
I’ve never really understood the rage the licence fee provokes in a certain type of voter and I have little faith that any replacement proposed by this government will be an improvement.
A large contingent of the UK population can be reliably provoked into outrage when the necessity arises. This is largrly how unchecked power is wielded in British politics. Splitting the country down the middle in a fit of fury over Brexit and then sewing it back up was similarly provoked.
Places like the BBC Television Centre were engrained in the public zeitgest, and thus newsworthy.
This clearly isn't the case any more, there's far more choice, and the generations that grew up with "Auntie" are getting older and older.
Pretty sure people had books, radio, theatre, cinema, etc, in the 70s and 80s.
Those still exist and presumably attract similar numbers, but there are far more options in the 'sitting on couch' area, hence TV viewership is massively down, and what remains is split amongst far more options
You missed a step. The story has to be about "TV Licencing", with the Beeb saying something to the effect of 'we asked TV Licensing to comment'.
The point being that "TV Licensing' is a brand of the BBC. So in effect 'we asked ourselves'.
BBC is caught between a rock and hard place. Its journalists 'need' to report the story or risk being accused of 'censorship' for not reporting on the rumour/leak/background-briefings when other news organisations are reporting those, but at the same time the BBC board [0] (10 non-execs and 4 execs) will presumably have been preparing a measured response to publish once the UK government makes the 'official' announcement.
They edited the story as it developed to later refer to 'sources' within the BBC. Publishing an anonymous leak from themselves given to themselves because they wouldn't comment themselves? It's a farce.
Can't have Nadine Dorris* being offended can we?
*The closest thing the UK has to Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Reporting on yourself but not even noting to the reader that you're reporting on yourself is worse yet.
Writing a named-author analysis piece about yourself, which they have here at the end of the article, is reaching insanity level.
The BBC shouldn't report on the BBC.
1. are there any news outlets that abides by this rule?
2. if I get my news from listening to BBC on the radio or whatever, then am I just out of luck?
>Reporting on yourself but not even noting to the reader that you're reporting on yourself is worse yet.
I get how including a disclosure makes sense if the affiliation isn't obvious (eg. washington post reporting on amazon), but do you really need a disclaimer to let the reader know that the BBC in the article is the same BBC that wrote the article?
Maybe not - but others are their own business, rather than funded by a tax on the people like the BBC.
And the BBC do seem to be particularly weird and breathless about reporting on themselves. They've edited the article in place and they're now quoting insider knowledge from an anonymous tip-off... that they've given themselves.
It's like that in other areas as well - people working at the BBC once commissioned a sitcom about... people working at the BBC. And when they report on the winner of one of their game shows as news, or when they report that it's a headline that someone said something in an interview from their own interview shows.
> if I get my news from listening to BBC on the radio or whatever, then am I just out of luck?
For getting objective reporting on the BBC then yeah you are, either way. Is that surprising? Obviously they can't objectively report on themselves.
I think they should possibly have a headline on the front page, but it should link to another outlet's reporting. But then choosing the outlet isn't objective either.
Could've ended with "other news organizations are available".