UKC

Somewhat overshadowed by the Lineker debacle. This is no less disturbing:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/10/david-attenborough-bbc-wild-i...

One would have thought this would have been blocked too but no, it was indeed a very good watch

https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/proginfo/2023/10/paul-whitehouse-our-troubl...

The bbc is looking bad, I'm sure there's no connection between the boss and the tory party, all purely coincidence. I'm still recovering from Ken Bruce going and about to be replaced by a mediocre game show host. 

It's only disturbing if you take the Guardian spin.  Otherwise the facts are:

- BBC commissions a 5 part series

- 2 third party organisations commission and pay for an additional episode to meet their marketing / lobbying objectives

 - BBC does not broadcast this additional episode

And your spin is more valid because....?

It’s not spin. It is a statement of fact

Welcome to the TotaliToryan Britain

How can we verify that claim?

It's a summary of the statements made by Silverback and the BBC in the Guardian article; unless people want to believe that the 2 charities would commission and pay for a dedicated TV episode beyond the 5 commissioned by the BBC with no intention of doing so to further their own causes.  

I did actually double check with a contact familiar with the project from one of the 2 charities that this was the case before posting, but I appreciate that isn't a way for you to verify the claim.

I should probably elaborate: I'm not coming at this from a right wing agenda, but from an "I don't trust the printed press" perspective.  I believe passionately that British democracy needs a visibly independent, trusted and impartial BBC, more so now than ever with the growth of social media and the decline in quality of the printed press: not just the worst offenders like the Fail but also the  broadsheets and former broadsheets, all of whom write to their audience. 

I think it stinks that Sharp is still Chairman after recent events and Emily Maitlis' revelations at the MacTaggart Lecture are of massive concern.  But I also don't believe that Guardian headlines should be taken at face value, and that article seemed to me to be a pretty obvious example of spin.

There's some reading between the lines needed here. The BBC agrees to work with 2 other groups on a series, clearly the content requirement of those two groups doesn't fully align and results in a "6th episode" only commissioned by WWF/RSPB but with same production company and narrator.

There is still a reason why the BBC, who the purchased this 6th episode for iPlayer aren't broadcasting it, and that is the story.

Thanks. I agree - it's a misleading headline.

Yes, my guess it is some form of messy compromise. When the series and additional episode comes out we can all revisit this thread with a bit more info. It will be interesting to see what the content is.  My guess it is very promotional of the charities which causes the BBC some difficulties, but that is very much a guess.

If that was the case, surely they would not put it on the iPlayer either. Although, if the last few days has taught us anything it is that the BBC can be pretty inconsistent in its decision making.

The quotes from the production company in The Guardian article?

No - I'm not disputing any of the quotes, nor Hovercraft's interpretation. My initial post was based on an insufficiently careful reading of the article in the printed edition of the paper.

It’s only a story if you still take your viewing material through the traditional broadcast channels and believe the TV to be the primary driver for viewing. For every man and his dog who the ‘go to’ is now iPlayer (or equivalent) then it’s no story at all. Are there figures available that say either way how many still rely primarily (or perhaps more importantly, wholly) on over the air broadcast?

As it stands, yes there will be a reason. It may be that budget constraints restricted them to purchasing a streaming only licence, it may never have been offered on a broadcast basis, there could have been scheduling pressures, or indeed there could be some meddling from a Tory somewhere up the BBC hierarchy. It’s important to bear in mind the contracts to purchase this series will have all been drawn up potentially as far as 2 or 3 years ago - perhaps even longer what with Covid delaying everything. So the ‘political’ picture at the BBC should also be reflective of that time.

Sadly it seems that an awful lot of intelligent people are doing the same thing.

Given the tendency of papers to lead with sensational and often slightly misleading headlines it is rather worrying to observe how well it works.

The BBC is particularly confusing with headlines on the website.  I see this frequently now.  Last week there was a headline on their news site along the lines of "Dog Walkers to be charged £60 for access to estate" and on reading it it seems the charge was reportedly being imposed on "dog walkers and other people".

I notice increasingly poor use of grammar across the BBC's output whether it be highly paid Today presenters or internet output.  The poor choice of words or poor grammar is often misleading, ambiguous or confusing.

So, I'm embarrassed to admit, do I.  I fight against it, but it's difficult to escape the limitations of one's education. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0f0t5dp

Just a quick bump to remind folk that Wild Isles is on, and the footage they've been getting is astonishing.  Grasslands this week: the eagles -vs- hares footage, the adders and especially the hen harrier sequence - wow, just wow!

I don't know if the script has been bowdlerised compared to what David Attenborough would prefer to say, but he does at least mention that the reason most of us stand so little chance of seeing a hen harrier with our own eyes is the fecking grouse moors murdering them on sight.  (He doesn't say it quite like that.)

I think one of the locations may have been Uig Sands on Lewis which has a brilliant camp site I’ve used a couple of times for climbing?

The footage is ravishing. You can start taking some of these efforts for granted - buy they really are good.

On the other hand, I am getting sick of the music score which accompanies the footage. To my mind (and ears), it gets rather cheesy.

I immediately thought of Uig when they showed that first shot of a vast expanse of sand too, but I don't know. 

It was probably several different locations, I don't think the location of the big sweeping landscape shots and the footage of all the chicks on the machair were the same.  I don't think there were any obvious clues to the precise location of the latter, and I guess that would have been on purpose.  (So if anyone on here immediately recognised it - might be best to just keep schtum on the forum, dunno.)

As to the former, I just had another look and I think my best guess for this bit of landscapey drone footage would be N Uist, looking North towards Harris.

It was a shot with a meadow in the foreground and bay behind it, and a shot looking down from the hill inland (or from a drone) looking down on the bay, maybe with the red roofed house where you pay for camping. If so I was surprised of no mention of the corncrakes with their unique call waking us up early morning. Must get back their with my kayak

Glad it’s not just me - everyone seems to go on about how glorious it is. To me, it’s “orchestral “ music for people who don’t like actual orchestral music. I’d be much happier with something more folky for the British Isles.

I was surprised there was no mention of corncrakes. I suppose there are only so many species that can be looked at in a one hour programme, and it's not impossible that they did try to film corncrakes without success, but I was expecting a mention of some kind. Perhaps they're not sufficiently sexy or dramatic. 

I was surprised they didn't feature so I looked up this RSPB article if anyone is interested in learning more about them.

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/bird-a-z/corncra...

Thanks, I hadn’t appreciated they had become so rare