Talk:BBC/Archive 2

"The British Broadcasting Corporation or BBC is the most widely respected broadcasting organisation in the world."

Now prove it! --Jiang 22:33 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Tannin proved it above. Mintguy 22:48 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The first link did not work. The second link was not only a biased source, but specificially stated that BBC "aimed to be" so. The survey that was brought up did not cover a wide geographic region, and made no mention of other news stations. The third link just discusses BBC's popularity in Kabul. Regardless, no matter how many surveys you provide, this statement cannot be proven since you are assuming all these surveys are valid. I think it should be changed to: "The British Broadcasting Corporation or BBC is one of the most widely respected broadcasting organisation in the world." Just as their are praises, there are attacks. One survey does not and cannot say it all, escpecially when it comes from the people who instigated BBC. --Jiang 04:00 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Note that not even the page you linked to suggests that there is a more widely respected broadcasting organiation. "The most widely respected" does not mean "perfect", it simply means "more respected than any other" - and of this there is no question. Even here in Australia, where we have the superb ABC (which is quite possibly better than the BBC, all things considered), the BBC is known for what it is: the best-respected broadcaster in the world.


 * There are two sins one can commit when writing. One is to say something that isn't true. The other is to not say something that is true. Our job is to tell it like it is - and the BBC is not "one of the most widely respected" broadcasters. No other broadcaster has anything like the same credibility as the BBC. It is the most widely respected, on all five continents. (All 6 if you count Europe as a continent too.) Tannin 04:44 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * You still don't have sufficient proof. Statistics can lie or be made to lie. Do you have links to other surveys not done by the British government, which polls more than a small fragment of the world's population in a few select cities? You may think BBC is credible, but I know people who think otherwise. Try posting the BBC report on Jessica Lynch (and how the story was fabricated by the US) on a conservative American forum and see BBC get shot down in a second. How's adding the phrase "is widely regarded as the most respected..."? Otherwise, you're just endorsing a single govt survey, and that's both illogical and POV.


 * BTW, CNN calls itself "the most respected name in news." This site thinks Reuters is the most respected name in news: . Obviously, people are disagreeing with that statement.


 * --Jiang 05:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The difference is, few people take commercial johhny-come-latelies like CNN seriously - not as credible, respected broadcasters. And CNN only does news - i.e., they are not a full-service broadcaster at all. On the world stage, they are just wannabes. Especially everywhere except the USA. And Reuters isn't even a broadcaster, for the love of Mike! Reuter's is an agency. The statistics you claim are the "proof" are merely icing on the cake. Tannin


 * Saying "few people" take CNN seriously is just a personal opinion, and also unprovable, but that's besides the point...If those statistics are merely "icing," what other studies prove that the BBC is "most widely respected"? I'm modifying the statement with a perhaps, because even if the evidence suggests this to be true, it can never be fully proven. --Jiang 09:41 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is simply no question on this issue. There are no rivals. CNN is simply a news organization broadcasting in English. The BBC is much more than this. The BBC World Service broadcasts in 43 languages. The BBC World service website has interactive content in English, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Spanish. It is the radio station of choice for a vast number of people outside of the UK, many of whom, in places like Zimbabwe don't trust their own broadcasters. BBC News is widely regarded as the premier news organization of the world with more correspondents (un-syndicated) worldwide than any other organization. It is well known throughout the world for its lack of commercialism, unbiased even-handed reporting (although some will always dispute this). Forgetting about news for a moment, BBC produced television programmes (particularly drama, comedy and natural history) are without question extremely highly regarded throughout the world. On to the web, look at Alexa, BBCi sites on sport, history, education, science, technology, languages, news, the arts, health, DIY, H2G2, children's activates, finance, business, gardening, cooking, fashion, natural history etc etc etc. regularly feature in the top five of all these categories. It consistently rates as the #1 site outside of the USA for every category. Various arms of the organisation consistently win awards for excellence in many countries throughout the world. There are so many ways in which the BBC has gained international respect that "without question" it is the most respected broadcaster in the world. Mintguy 11:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * While I certainly count BBC as my favorite and one I respect, I'm not sure how folks here who honestly strive for NPOV can make the outright claim of BBC being "the most widely respected." Might this group consider "the most widely regarded" which Merriam-Webster defines as "to pay attention to : take into consideration or account" which is closer to what most of the people here have argued, and is more NPOV.  It's more subtle, but more accurate.  For those who still like "respect", the third definition of "regard" in Merriam-Webster is "to show respect or consideration for" so perhaps there is something in this word for everyone?  - Fuzheado 23:03 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Respect, regard - I'm happy either way. I'm not happy when out of an overdose of (perfectly laudable) desire to make the 'pedia factual, we water down known facts of which there cannot be any reasonable doubt in order to replace them with bland vagueness. Where does it end? "Many people believe that water usually freezes at zero degress Celsius"? The BBC has a unique position and an unmatched reputation. Any factual article on the BBC must say so, otherwise it's a waste of space. (And not that I am not from the UK and, in general, take a pretty dim view of the place. (Yeah, yeah, freezing point isn't exactly 0 degress, but you get the idea.) - Tannin 23:36 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think it is generally accepted that the BBC World Service is the worlds most respected radio news service across the world, Its probably a bit of a stretch to say that the whole BBC is G-Man 23:53 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The fact that water freezes at 0 degrees C is proven through empirical data time and again. The word "respect" is a matter of opinion. No matter how many surveys you pull up (only one so far) you cannot prove that it is true. The sheer amount of people in the world just makes the margin of error too large. Even if the BBC is most prominent, you cannot prove that it is respected. Some people have no faith in the BBC. How many? Who knows? How is there no reasonable doubt? This is something you fail to prove. You can spice up your opinion, but BBC's ubiquitous presence does nothing to say that is has a good reputation. The fact is your opinion, not mine. Maybe you are right, but I cannot be sure because there will never be data to prove it. --Jiang 01:05 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jiang, in your desire to achieve NPOV, you are losing the plot and throwing out the baby in order to keep the bathwater. So far in this discussion, there has been ONE and ONLY ONE suggestion that any other broadcasting organisation is the most respected - and the CNN suggestion was laughed out of court. (See above.) Unless you count the Reuters suggestion of course - but that one is even more absurd, as Reuters aren't even a broadcaster, they are (of course) an agency. In other words, no-one in this thread has even managed to suggest ONE credible alternative to the BBC. That in itself is very powerful evidence indeed, were more evidence needed, which it is not. Tannin


 * I am not arguing that BBC is not most prominent/well known. However, you keep trying to explain how it is. Prominence does not equate with respect. Respect is an opinon that cannot be proven. Just because BBC is around more than other broadcasters doesn't make it respected. That has not been proven and never will be. --Jiang 13:01 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jiang, I cannot prove that you exist, but without conclusive evidence I am willing to believe that you do and that you are a reasonable guy. The question that Tannin puts is the acid test for this question. Who else can rival the BBC in this regard. Please name some alternative candidates for the position of "most regarded/respected" broadcaster in the world. Mintguy 14:33 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)~


 * Ask yourself, given Wikipedia's dedication to NPOV, is it at all appropriate to be fighting so hard to declare BBC "most widely respected?" There are over 1 billion people in China who don't get BBC and consider People's Daily the final word on matters.  Should we put down People's Daily as the "most widely respected" Chinese publication?  Be proud of BBC, but let's stick to the spirit of NPOV. - Fuzheado 14:40 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. There are millions of listeners to the BBC in China. Mintguy 16:32 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Exactly the point. No-one bar the BBC - and I mean no-one has that kind of respect around the world, in all sorts of places. NPOV requires that we report the facts. Leaving important facts out is a gross violation of NPOV. (And what have I got to be proud of about it? I am most certainly not British!) Tannin


 * No contradiction -- there are indeed BBC viewers/listeners in China, but a tiny minority. That's why it stated "over 1 billion" and not all 1.3 billion.  And even though I'm not British, I am proud of BBC, as the highest example of what Western values can produce -- a multilingual, fair, accurate and globally aware news organization.  But that is my opinion, and I am not about to assume the other 5 billion people outside of the immediate Western influence would agree. - Fuzheado 23:25 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * But this is exactly the point. How many people in the UK listen to the Radio Bejing World Service? How many listeners in the USA listen to the Radio Lesotho? How many listeners anywhere trust the Voice of America? The BBC stands alone, and any article that does not say so is just wank. Tannin


 * What you say may be true, but don't be so quick as to equate that with respect. - Fuzheado 05:59, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/chinese/news/default1.stm


 * http://asp-cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/list.html - Fuzheado

:http://www.bbcworld.com/content/template_clickpage.asp?pageid=2152
 * What about most highly acclaimed broadcaster? Any problems with that? The awards that BBC journalists and broadcasters have received speaks volumes on this. Mintguy 14:13, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Most respected" or "most trusted" are better, I think. Acclaim isn't something that people in an attic listening illegally to the BBC World Service because it's the only news they can trust, and hoping that the secret police don't catch them at it are really big on anyway. Tannin


 * "Most trusted" is even more dubious. - Fuzheado

Back in April, another user put in "The British Broadcasting Corporation or BBC is a United Kingdom broadcasting coporation with a high degree of respect from citizens accross the world. " which was reverted by Tanin. Not that I believe in this solution--it's just a note.

There is no certainty behind something unmeasured such as "respect." If "regard" is taken to mean respect, this article is still not factual. Maybe BBC is the best available alternative for some people, but is that respect? That just shows a comparative preference, but no definate statement of certainty. Is the US military respected just because it is stationed throughout the world and Liberians are now asking for US intervention? I'm not saying it's not respected; it's just impossible to be sure. --Jiang 09:23, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Here is the website of a coalition petitioning the BBC to retain shortwave World Service broadcasts to North America and the Pacific (which the BBC's accountants believe are adequately covered by other methods). I doubt that Voice of America or other broadcasters could rally such support from ordinary listeners. This I think qualifies as respect. http://www.savebbc.org

A figure of something like 138 million people (generally regarded as a gross under estimate) is usually quoted as the number of listeners to the BBC World Service, it's nearest rival in the Voice of America with something like 78 million listeners. The BBC audience is nearly double. This alone says something about which station people respect more and this is only one relatively small arm of the BBC. Mintguy 09:47, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Again, the best/most favored alternative and the largest alternative does not necessarily mean it is the most respected alternative. The 47.4% of the people who voted for Gray Davis did not necessarily respect him. They probably thought he was simply better than his main opponent.


 * American public broadcasting is underfunded and small-scale compared to the BBC. This is why it is not well known, not necessarily because it has bad journalism. People don't listen to Voice of America because it's just not present for them to listen to, not necessarily because they don't like it. --Jiang 23:14, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Folks here don't need to provide any more statistics about how BBC is the most prevalent broadcaster in the world. I believe most people would too.  The point Jiang and others have is, don't jump to the conclusion that this is respect.  Looking at Wikiepdia entries for entities clearly tops in their field (Microsoft, Wall Street Journal, Pulitzer Prize, or even National Public Radio), I do not see the same type of assertions there.  Ubiquity, coverage, prevalence is not respect.  Keep the NPOV.   - Fuzheado 00:01, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is a major power outage really the top (or indeed any) highlight in the BBC's history? dmp
 * The power-cut is only the top because the events are listed chronologically and it's the earlist event anyone has bothered to put under that heading. That said although it is a significant fact, it hardly ranks as a highlight in the overall history of the BBC and it indeed looks out of place.

''However BBC television is perceived by some, as providing a platform for the dissemination of multicultural propaganda. ''
 * I have no idea what this sentence means. Who perceives it thus and what on earth is "multicultural propaganda". I'm removing it. Mintguy 18:22, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Multicultural propaganda, as I see it, means: "Propaganda promoting the idea of a multicultural society". Therefore, the only people I can think of who would have a problem with this would be the BNP and other related groups (although the sentence could possibly be interpreted in different ways). I think it's probably better it is removed. Mark New

Sorry guys, but the first paragraph of the article now says, 'the most widely regarded broadcasting...' which cannot be claimed to be either true or untrue as it's actually meaningless. It SHOULD say either 'highly regarded' or 'widely respected'! DOH! Chris Jefferies


 * Old wounds. It should be neither, but we've been wrangling over this for a while. How about "a highly regarded" rather than "the most highly regarded"?  I'm not happy with the former either, but certainly "the most" is inappropriate for NPOV. Fuzheado 13:45, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Look at these pages and find the word respect.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  , , , , 
 * Mintguy 14:26, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The only page that matters: Fuzheado 16:56, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * It's not a POV to state that a widely held view is a widely held view. You or I may not respect the BBC as a broadcaster but, as has been demonstrated numerous times, it is without question the most widely respected broadcaster in the world. That is a fact (at least today, tommorow it might not be) not a POV. Mintguy 17:19, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * How's this approach? "The British Broadcasting Corporation or BBC is a broadcasting organisation widely respected the world over." It is direct and uses the word "respect" in a context that is not absolute. Mordomo 08:42, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I think it's a better version that what we have there now. Fuzheado 09:31, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * But it is demonstrably untrue. The BBC stands alone as a broadcasting organisation. This is not a fact that is in dispute. The actual worth of the BBC can be questioned, but so far as international respect goes, it is without peer. In months and months of debate here, no-one has managed to suggest even one single organisation that rivials the BBC for worldwide respect. Case closed. Tannin 10:12, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

With all due respect to this thread, I think folks need to review the basics of logic and reasoning. Not being to prove something untrue doesn't make it true. Fuzheado 12:47, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * You have been unable to name even one credible alternative contender as the most respected broadcasting organisation. The winner of a one-horse race is not difficult to identify. Tannin 12:51, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Disappointing that it's getting nasty and personal. So, let's flip it around.  Cite the study, statistic or expert that backs up your claim.  Then put it in the article.  Fuzheado 13:06, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * That's a straw man. I've found 20+ websites (there are plenty more) that say the BBC is THE most respected broadcaster in the world. You can't name a single alternative. Mintguy 13:25, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * 20+ websites doesn't prove anything. The sample is still too small the represent the entire population. --Jiang


 * Put up or shut up. Name one credible alternative. Tannin


 * Please read above. You're not getting it. Don't equate prevalance with respect. --Jiang


 * The winner of that race is not necessarily a fast horse. You are equating being the sole horse with being a fast horse. --Jiang

The Highlights Section
Does anyone have any ideas as to how this can be improved? I personally feel that the paragraph about the "sexed up dossier" could be incorporated into the "Political controversy and neutrality" section. Any comments? -- Marknew 18:24, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Most respected data sources
Please supply your own to add factual basis to claims.
 * Financial Times/ PricewaterhouseCoopers World’s Most Respected Companies Survey, 2002(PDF). Media and leisure companies sector ranks are 1: Disney, 2: Washington post, 3: AOL Time Warner, 4: BBC, 5: New York Times, 6: Financial Times. The BBC is not among the ten most respected companies in the UK. "The research draws on the views of more than 1,000 CEOs worldwide and a selected cross-section of fund managers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and media commentators". This would have the BBC qualify as highly or very highly respected but not as most respected.JamesDay 23:07, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Interesting reading and nice to know that the BBC is highly respected as a financially well-run organisation but I don't see how that source really tells us anything about how it is respected as a broadcaster. After all, it's been put in the same category, Media/Leisure, as McDonald's Restaurants and McDonald's scored higher in the integrity category. -- Derek Ross
 * The report is not a report of financial respect alone. However, instead of debating this report, please seek out alternative reports from well respected sources to build up a collection from which some consensus can be found. There will be ample oportunity for discussion once there are twenty or so worldwide surveys to consider and giving the discussion a little time to cool down would be a good thing.JamesDay 23:55, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The full list puts the BBC at 66 and CNN at 90. Case closed! Mintguy 07:38, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Since when has this list been the definitive authority? MsNBC says it's the most respected name in news. Who is right? Something like respect cannot be proven. And who was arguing that this is not simply about news media, but broadcasting in general? --Jiang 07:56, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Case closed? To quote from Princess Bride, "You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means." :)


 * Seriously though, consider advice from Avoid peacock terms: Believe in your subject. Let the facts speak for themselves. Fuzheado 08:00, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ok then this list is wrong. Fair enough. It doesn't harm my case one bit. I have provided evidence that a whole host of people repect the BBC above and beyond any other broadcaster. And you have not provided one shred of evidence to the contrary. Mintguy 08:04, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * A "whole host of people" is not a plurality of people. Just because another broadcaster with similar amount of cheer squads cannot be found does not prove how BBC is respected. The silent majority could very well not care, distrust, or disregard (all of which do not mean respect) the BBC. People who respect no broadcaster at all cannot be counted in favor of the BBC.


 * I am not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that you could be. --Jiang 08:13, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here's some logic. The statement is - "The BBC is the most widely repected broadcaster in the world" - For this NOT to be true another broadcaster must be equally or more widely repected.

Therefore. - The question is NOT - Is the BBC respected more people than those who do not respect it? - The question is - Is the BBC respected more than any other broadcaster?

In order for the statement to be proven untrue you must provide an alternative. Please provide an alternative. If there is no alternative. Then you can have no argument with the statement. Mintguy 08:24, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Well spoken, Mintguy. It is our job, as 'pedia editors, to report known facts in plain language, and to avoid weasel terms like "according to some". When there is genuine doubt or controversy, it is our job to say so. When there is a clear and well-attested fact, it is our job to say that too. Note well, in all the months that this debate has been running, there has not been one single credible alternative to the BBC as "most widely respected broadcasting organisation" suggested. The BBC has a special place in broadcasting and has done for many years. Outside of the narrow and often trivial interests of UK citizens watching Faulty Towers re-runs, the importance of the BBC World Service as a trusted source of news is crucial. Any article about the BBC that does not mention this key aspect of the BBC isn't worth the paper it is written on. It would be like writing about George W Bush and not bothering to mention that he is the President of the USA. Tannin 08:36, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am fed up of tit-for-tat reversions. I have better things to do with my day. Mintguy 08:31, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Mintguy, there's been pretty shaky logic throughout. I thought through constructive group consensus we would reach something reasonable, but it hasn't. It keeps coming back to exchanges more appropriate for a bar brawl than a collaborative encyclopedia. How sick/bizarre is that, by the way? :) So here's to "putting up":

A Dubious Case for BBC as "Most Respected"
Instead of resorting to a virtual shouting match, try the facts on for size. Doing a simple Google search on the following words (and obviously eliminating BBC's own descriptions of itself) is a good start: bbc most respected news -site:.bbc.co.uk Click here to Google search it yourself

Most of the 21 examples cited by User:Mintguy show up in the top of the search results. With some deeper plumbing, here's what it reveals, in order listed above previously:


 * List - Winthrop, list of news links for a college
 * PR speak - VPR, Member station
 * PR speak - KUOW, Member station
 * Personal Web log - Charleshartman.org, from San Francisco
 * BBC authored - on Ibiblio, job ad written by BBC
 * List - Emojo, list of news links
 * List - Getintola, list of news links, run by Nick Cousins
 * Press release - Fighting Bull, press release announcing co-authored project with BBC
 * Press release - VietnameseS.com, press release in partnership with BBC
 * PR speak - KCSN, Member station
 * PR speak - WFIU, Member station,
 * Article - James Ferrabee, working journalist, Canada and Britain
 * Article - Christopher Long, article on Croatia and BBC, British journalist
 * Article - John Simpson opinion article, published on Telegraph.co.uk
 * Article - PACNEWS article about Vanuatu television picking up BBC, no byline
 * Press release - Info2Cell press release, working with BBC
 * Personal Web log - Daily KOS, author Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, California
 * PR speak - Energis, case study of helping its customer, BBC
 * BBC authored - RWOnline, commentary by Mark Byford, BBC World Service Director
 * BBC authored - BBCtv, Message by Robert Wallace, BBC Radio Kent editor
 * BBC authored - BBCfootage, description from BBC News Archive

What we find is there are major problems using these citations as evidence. Immediately, 12 of the 21 can be ruled out -- they are either written by the BBC themselves or are public relations announcements from folks who do business with BBC. Three are simply in a list of links to news Web sites, so not exactly strong proof either. So we're left with six legitimate articles or personal web logs.

Three of the writers work in the UK or have worked in the UK, and the two Web loggers are from California. The last article had no byline, but reads more like a press release. So in the end, we're left with five viewpoints all of whom are males from either UK or US. (Not to specifically bash males or anything.) Not very convincing evidence of the universality of BBC being the "most respected" in the world, to say the least.

The breakdown summary:
 * Public relations (8) - cases of member stations announcing they are carrying BBC, or a company who worked in conjunction with BBC
 * BBC authored (4) - BBC describing itself as "the most"
 * Articles (4) - of these, three are associated with UK, one has no byline
 * Personal weblogs (2) - two bloggers, both from CA, no comment :)
 * Lists (3) - news source lists, listing BBC and a brief tagline of "the most..."

It's not constructive simply to refute others, so what evidence do we see out in the real world, and what alternatives are there?


 * Being "most respected" is cloudy enough that we should not use it. Other outlets have cited unusual sources as having more "respect".  From Onlinepublishingnews.com (Google result #3), March 12, 2003, "World's most respected international news site: Guardian Unlimited?": The busiest news sites are US-based. But which non-US news source do Americans use most? According to new research the answer is the UK's Guardian Unlimited.   Is Guardian worthy of this title?  Probably not, but herein lies the danger of making these claims.


 * Other journalistic writings don't use absolutes when talking about BBC. We should strive to do the same.  From Atlanta Journal Constitution (Google result #9), BETH GARDINER, Associated Press, July 20, 2003, "BBC confirms dead scientist was source of Iraq report": "The BBC, one of the world's most respected news organizations, would not comment on its reason for making a rare exception to journalists' normal practice of refusing to name anonymous sources."


 * After the first 14 Google results cited above, the next three relevant results #15, #16 and #17 all use phrases that have been reasonably proposed here -- "one of the most respected" or "one of the world's most respected." They may be on to something.  They are indeed credible alternatives.

We're all here because we believe in making a better Wikipedia. Avoid hyperbole and go for credibility. Fuzheado 08:39, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Name an alternative. The Guardian, for the love of Mike, is a Newspaper. Now, let's name a broadcasting organisation, shall we? Tannin