The BBC piece "Click" focusing on Star Citizen

[Montoya]

Im not sure what I should have expected.

They said they would be investigating... which I guess they did, and the conclusion was that its got a big dedicated fanbase, raised a lot of money and is taking a while to finish.

I was half hoping it would be an attack piece, I enjoy those a bit more.

The overall tone is positive and its mostly informative, rather than trying to draw conclusions from any sort of bias.

Filthy neutrals.

bbc - Streamable

Check out this video on Streamable using your phone, tablet or desktop.

streamable.com

 

[Blind Owl]

Well shit, positive (ish) press? What to do now? Call DS?

 

[Montoya]

Yeah, at least throw in some strangulation, Hollywood mansions and mafia connections or something!

 

[Joehockey]

Honestly, the last thing I expected was a well thought out post. And a post less than 6:30 minutes was pretty damn surprising as well. I guess I just assumed it would be another poorly investigated 20min slander piece.

 

[Blind Owl]

Yeah, at least throw in some strangulation, Hollywood mansions and mafia connections or something!

Right? Jesus, I thought BBC would be able to keep up to Forbes. Colour me disappointed.

 

[Devil Dog Hog]

Ugh, such pussy footing around. Its like they have a lets wait and see additude for the game to either be a wild success (which we all know it will . . . . right) or a complete failure (kinda like derek smarts revolutionary game that was unforgettable. . . damn what was its name again?) And this is why they cant seem to "Get Brexit Done".
EDIT: Just so my brother brit-TESTIES know, that was sarcasm and in no way shape or form a commentary on your excellent choice in backing this awesome BDSSM game . . . .you know, Best Damn Space SiM, not the whole whips, chain and ropes with vinyl masks and gags. . . . ANYWAYS, much love and god save the queen.
PS EDIT: I think I need another beer, I'm starting to sober up.

 

[Montoya]

Yeah, WTF BBC? You have disappointed me for the last time!

 

[Blind Owl]

I do like BBC for objective reporting.



Well, as objective as reporting can be, really.

 

[SoloFlyer]

The overall tone is positive and its mostly informative, rather than trying to draw conclusions from any sort of bias.

Filthy neutrals.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Holy hell Click did a piece on SC?!

Thank you, Glorious Leader!

I'll be back in a minute...

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

That was cool! I looked for the episode on the UK BBC catch- up service iPlayer but it seems they don't like putting all episodes of Click on there anymore. I couldn't find it, anyway

The BBC's charter is to "Inform, Educate and Entertain" and reporting neutrality is in the charter. If there is found to be as little bias as possible in their news reporting they can be shut down by having the License Fee revoked which would basically pull funding immediately. It's a unique way of funding a media orginisation as they can be fairly sure what the budget is going to be, to be able to make stuff. They can cater to viewers who wouldn't usually get stuff made for them because of this, it's not like they have to make a show then sell it to death, they can take a risk on a show and can get low views and not bankrupt the company and still be considered a success, like with Red Dwarf, to give an example, which wasn't the success it came to eventually be during its first season.

People bitch about the Licence Fee but without it you just would not get things like local reporting, local radio in most places, and informative pieces like this on niche subjects that don't make $bank$ like commercial media companies have to do to survive.

That's why there is a lack of sensationalism, they don't have to force it to sell like commercial concerns do. Different, isn't it? Almost refreshing

 

[August]

That was actually not a very good piece. It provided no conclusions; only more publicly available information.

And as NaffNaff mentioned it's a bit annoying it's not on iPlayer!

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Woah it's on BBC One right now! (6.49am local time)

EDIT - Found the episode on iPlayer I was just being incompetent:

BBC News - Click, China vs Silicon Valley

Click looks at social media innovation coming out of China.

www.bbc.co.uk

Segment starts 14:40 in.

Strangely, the TV cut of the report included a short establishing dialogue with Roberts and the Interviewer. On the stream version the interviewer says "Whats going on" in a seemingly super curt way and they just get into it, on the TV the interviewer first said "We last met in 2016" and CR says "That long ago, huh?" and they share a chuckle, then the interviewer says "whats going on?" the introduction making it seem a lot friendlier, more natural and the smiles lasted longer on screen. Don't know if there were any other differences but the report was basically identical otherwise.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

That was actually not a very good piece. It provided no conclusions; only more publicly available information.

And as NaffNaff mentioned it's a bit annoying it's not on iPlayer!

I would agree, if it wasn't for the fact it's almost an introduction to what SC is: If 20% of SC's backers are from the UK that's 400,000 people in the country who know what SC actually is. There are 60 million people in the UK. About 6 percent of the potential audience know what SC is so to go in saying "Look what we found!" would be out of context for 94% of the audiance who would then be misinformed without a much longer piece explaining what it is before moving on to the new info.

I would personally have preferred them to have gone into what actually makes SC so different from games that have come before. No loading screens. Ship interiors you can enter and wonder around in while the ship is flying. Full millions of square km planet and moon surfaces you can walk every inch of. None of that came across but are the answers as to why is it taking so long.

EDIT - I found it on iplayer I was being incompetent not being able to find it

 

[Blind Owl]

That was cool! I looked for the episode on the UK BBC catch- up service iPlayer but it seems they don't like putting all episodes of Click on there anymore. I couldn't find it, anyway

The BBC's charter is to "Inform, Educate and Entertain" and reporting neutrality is in the charter. If there is found to be as little bias as possible in their news reporting they can be shut down by having the License Fee revoked which would basically pull funding immediately. It's a unique way of funding a media orginisation as they can be fairly sure what the budget is going to be, to be able to make stuff. They can cater to viewers who wouldn't usually get stuff made for them because of this, it's not like they have to make a show then sell it to death, they can take a risk on a show and can get low views and not bankrupt the company and still be considered a success, like with Red Dwarf, to give an example, which wasn't the success it came to eventually be during its first season.

People bitch about the Licence Fee but without it you just would not get things like local reporting, local radio in most places, and informative pieces like this on niche subjects that don't make $bank$ like commercial media companies have to do to survive.

That's why there is a lack of sensationalism, they don't have to force it to sell like commercial concerns do. Different, isn't it? Almost refreshing

Well shit. I had no idea about their charter and funding. I use BBC extensively (BBC Monitoring) in my line of work, and quite like them.
I can't stand biased media, and honestly believe that media may be one of the "great evils" (highly dramatic name, haha) because of their ability and willingness to drive public opinion based on who's pouring money into their coffers. The masses of humanity (especially western society) will believe whatever the media spoon feeds them, without ever doing any research for themselves. This makes the media entirely too powerful for my liking (it also points to the laziness and stupidity of many people).
So yes, I find unbiased media to be highly refreshing.

I would agree, if it wasn't for the fact it's almost an introduction to what SC is: If 20% of SC's backers are from the UK that's 400,000 people in the country who know what SC actually is. There are 60 million people in the UK. About 6 percent of the potential audience know what SC is so to go in saying "Look what we found!" would be out of context for 94% of the audiance who would then be misinformed without a much longer piece explaining what it is before moving on to the new info.

Very good point my friend. I agree wholeheartedly. It may seem like an information piece, but you need to inform before people can then make an informed decision.

This is great because it will expose the game to millions of new people.

 

[Radegast74]

I can't stand biased media, and honestly believe that media may be one of the "great evils" (highly dramatic name, haha) because of their ability and willingness to drive public opinion based on who's pouring money into their coffers

what's wrong with Capitalism? Or are you some Canadian Communist who is gonna try to force free medical care on us?
/s

 

[CosmicTrader]

Im not sure what I should have expected.

If you are familiar with the Click show then you would know that it is a 'What is it' show.
More about reporting new 'Techie' stuff.
So, that is what they mean buy saying "they would be investigating ".

I do like BBC for objective reporting.

BBC objective is like saying military intellegence......

 

[Blind Owl]

what's wrong with Capitalism? Or are you some Canadian Communist who is gonna try to force free medical care on us?
/s

Let me extol the virtues of a good socialist government!

BBC objective is like saying military intellegence......

Haha, it's an occupation, not a requirement.

 

[Montoya]

So, that is what they mean buy saying "they would be investigating "

Makes sense.

I thought "investigation" implied there was something fishy, so they are going to look into it!

 

[Ayeteeone]

I enjoyed the article, and as the video includes the back of my head, happy they got my good side :)

Neutrality is a great concept in theory, but in today's politics has almost no meaning. A position I consider neutral (based on fact, logic and history of course! ;) has been derided by both poles here in the US as being 'too far' left *and* right, depending on who I'm arguing with.