Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?
Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?
News and current affairs broadcasters have a very special role in our society, one which is undermined if their own opinions get in the way. It is their job to present a face of impartiality so that when they pick at the weaknesses in an argument, we, the viewers and listeners, are not inclined to dismiss it as just the presenter pushing their own agenda. They can and must attack poorly thought out opinions that protagonists bring to the table, but their ability to do that effectively is weakened if people think the presenter is batting for one side of the argument. So I do think Vine would have been wiser to have avoided anything that appears to be campaigning.
-
- Posts: 4002
- Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Re: Having one's own life
There’s also the question of exploiting a platform created by their work, without which they would simply be “another person on the Clapham omnibus”.
Difficult one though, because if they were entirely muzzled either by law, contract, or convention there would be the possibility of them being unable to ‘whistle blow’ something genuinely important and of public interest in the real sense.
Difficult one though, because if they were entirely muzzled either by law, contract, or convention there would be the possibility of them being unable to ‘whistle blow’ something genuinely important and of public interest in the real sense.
Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?
This is a very badly written report.Jdsk wrote: ↑31 Aug 2022, 10:06amFound it: the actual complaint, outcome and action:Jdsk wrote: ↑30 Aug 2022, 6:43pm Criticism of Jeremy Vine by the BBC:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... s-says-bbc
includes:
"The BBC has warned staff against expressing support for low-traffic neighbourhoods, after ruling that Jeremy Vine breached impartiality rules by backing safe cycling measures near his London home."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/jerem ... -twitter-0
1 Discussion of the two separate events should be in separate sections or paragraphs.
2 It doesn't provide any way that a reader can see the original material under discussion. Neither the content nor the dates.
3 The findings are based on "the BBC’s Guidance on personal use of social media", "the relevant BBC Guidance" and "the BBC’s editorial standards as they applied to him" but doesn't include those or link to them.
Has anyone found anything more informative on 2 or 3, please?
Thanks
Jonathan
Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?
I would not say they should 'attack' poorly thought out opinions. They should analyse them, deconstruct them and show them to be poorly thought out. This might seem like a quibble, but I think it's an important distinction; 'attack' suggests in fact that they are opposed to the opinion, not its being poorly thought out, and so we're back into personal viewpoints.pwa wrote: ↑1 Sep 2022, 5:24am News and current affairs broadcasters have a very special role in our society, one which is undermined if their own opinions get in the way. It is their job to present a face of impartiality so that when they pick at the weaknesses in an argument, we, the viewers and listeners, are not inclined to dismiss it as just the presenter pushing their own agenda. They can and must attack poorly thought out opinions that protagonists bring to the table, but their ability to do that effectively is weakened if people think the presenter is batting for one side of the argument. So I do think Vine would have been wiser to have avoided anything that appears to be campaigning.
Re: Having one's own life
So what you're saying is that he has no private life in that respect.pwa wrote: ↑1 Sep 2022, 5:14amGenerally speaking, an employer has no right to comment on or dictate what you do or say outside work, so long as it is legal and doesn't bring them into disrepute. But with a news and current affairs broadcaster it is different. They have a special role where it is best if their own views are kept to themselves, or muffled. How else will he manage to appear impartial and fair when speaking to two opposing voices on a topic?reohn2 wrote: ↑31 Aug 2022, 7:48am Should someone be told by his employer what to do and say in his own time?
Jeremy Vine warned of BBC's impartiality rule:- https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... s-says-bbc
So if his child was shot on the street or run down by a speeding motorist he's to remain silent about gun and vehicle crime because he has a current affairs program on the radio and TV?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?
2. would be via his twitter feed, from what I can deduce it was maybe some time last year, assuming he hasnt been asked to delete them already since theyve now been deemed to be impartial, it might also be why they dont link to them publically.Jdsk wrote: ↑1 Sep 2022, 7:57amThis is a very badly written report.Jdsk wrote: ↑31 Aug 2022, 10:06amFound it: the actual complaint, outcome and action:Jdsk wrote: ↑30 Aug 2022, 6:43pm Criticism of Jeremy Vine by the BBC:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... s-says-bbc
includes:
"The BBC has warned staff against expressing support for low-traffic neighbourhoods, after ruling that Jeremy Vine breached impartiality rules by backing safe cycling measures near his London home."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/jerem ... -twitter-0
1 Discussion of the two separate events should be in separate sections or paragraphs.
2 It doesn't provide any way that a reader can see the original material under discussion. Neither the content nor the dates.
3 The findings are based on "the BBC’s Guidance on personal use of social media", "the relevant BBC Guidance" and "the BBC’s editorial standards as they applied to him" but doesn't include those or link to them.
Has anyone found anything more informative on 2 or 3, please?
Thanks
Jonathan
3. would be covered by these
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/policies
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines ... ial-media/
though Im not sure they are that enlightening, its framed as an impartiality issue, but its more that the first step I think is the ECU determined LTNs (and we dont know if it means all LTNs or just Chiswick...Ill be back to this point in abit) counted as a "controversial topic" from whence impartiality rules then apply for journalists (and we can debate the use of the term these days for presenters) on programmes considered factual content, had the topic not been seen as "controversial" Jeremy would have been free to say what he wanted about it.
Though Jeremys own statements since the ruling has been picked up in the press, make it sound like simply had he ridden his bike through the LTN in Chiswick, he'd be free to comment on it, which is Im assuming (and this is the point Im coming back to) just some HR legal speak workaround to say he's not prevented from discussing LTNs as a topic, necessarily, but he has to have "experienced" them somehow, so he cant talk about ones say in Scotland as an example as he doesnt live there, but he could talk about them if the road he lived on was made into an LTN.
all of which sounds a jolly large mountain to make out of a topic that actually the rest of the country really arent that het up about
Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?
Correct.Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑1 Sep 2022, 8:04amI would not say they should 'attack' poorly thought out opinions. They should analyse them, deconstruct them and show them to be poorly thought out. This might seem like a quibble, but I think it's an important distinction; 'attack' suggests in fact that they are opposed to the opinion, not its being poorly thought out, and so we're back into personal viewpoints.pwa wrote: ↑1 Sep 2022, 5:24am News and current affairs broadcasters have a very special role in our society, one which is undermined if their own opinions get in the way. It is their job to present a face of impartiality so that when they pick at the weaknesses in an argument, we, the viewers and listeners, are not inclined to dismiss it as just the presenter pushing their own agenda. They can and must attack poorly thought out opinions that protagonists bring to the table, but their ability to do that effectively is weakened if people think the presenter is batting for one side of the argument. So I do think Vine would have been wiser to have avoided anything that appears to be campaigning.
Re: Having one's own life
He does have opinions, like everyone else, but the particular nature of his job means that he needs to keep private his opinions on matters that are disputed. How does Fiona Bruce vote? What does she think about Brexit? I don't know because she keeps her views out of the public eye. It is part of her job to do that. Naturally, if a newsreader / current affairs broadcaster is a victim of crime they will have their opinions made public, but then be kept away from news items relating to their opinions, for their sake and to avoid contaminating the presentation of the item.reohn2 wrote: ↑1 Sep 2022, 8:23amSo what you're saying is that he has no private life in that respect.pwa wrote: ↑1 Sep 2022, 5:14amGenerally speaking, an employer has no right to comment on or dictate what you do or say outside work, so long as it is legal and doesn't bring them into disrepute. But with a news and current affairs broadcaster it is different. They have a special role where it is best if their own views are kept to themselves, or muffled. How else will he manage to appear impartial and fair when speaking to two opposing voices on a topic?reohn2 wrote: ↑31 Aug 2022, 7:48am Should someone be told by his employer what to do and say in his own time?
Jeremy Vine warned of BBC's impartiality rule:- https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... s-says-bbc
So if his child was shot on the street or run down by a speeding motorist he's to remain silent about gun and vehicle crime because he has a current affairs program on the radio and TV?
Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?
Thanksawavey wrote: ↑1 Sep 2022, 6:18pm2. would be via his twitter feed, from what I can deduce it was maybe some time last year, assuming he hasnt been asked to delete them already since theyve now been deemed to be impartial, it might also be why they dont link to them publically.Jdsk wrote: ↑1 Sep 2022, 7:57amThis is a very badly written report.Jdsk wrote: ↑31 Aug 2022, 10:06am
Found it: the actual complaint, outcome and action:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/jerem ... -twitter-0
1 Discussion of the two separate events should be in separate sections or paragraphs.
2 It doesn't provide any way that a reader can see the original material under discussion. Neither the content nor the dates.
3 The findings are based on "the BBC’s Guidance on personal use of social media", "the relevant BBC Guidance" and "the BBC’s editorial standards as they applied to him" but doesn't include those or link to them.
Has anyone found anything more informative on 2 or 3, please?
3. would be covered by these
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/policies
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines
https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines ... ial-media/
...
Jonathan
Re: Having one's own life
You could've said Emily Maitlis.....pwa wrote: ↑3 Sep 2022, 7:47am He does have opinions, like everyone else, but the particular nature of his job means that he needs to keep private his opinions on matters that are disputed. How does Fiona Bruce vote? What does she think about Brexit? I don't know because she keeps her views out of the public eye. It is part of her job to do that. Naturally, if a newsreader / current affairs broadcaster is a victim of crime they will have their opinions made public, but then be kept away from news items relating to their opinions, for their sake and to avoid contaminating the presentation of the item.
There are those who don't want to rock the boat and there are those who see the boat needs upturning!
Last edited by reohn2 on 3 Sep 2022, 12:45pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?
Define 'disputed'.
Almost everything is disputed by someone.
When it comes to personal opinions I'm not convinced bbc news employees should be restricted in their social media accounts, though perhaps it should be required that they do not use a personal account for bbc business and vice versa (often an issue with politicians as well). Largely because defining what they can and can't talk about becomes a near totally arbitrary exercise, especially as any judgement about the level of dispute will come from social media discourse and anecdata rather than a statistically robust polling/research exercise.
Regarding ltns there is very little dispute on matter amongst people actually experienced and qualified in the field, nor is there actually amongst the public if the electoral (lack of) success of anti-ltn candidates is anything to go on. They're not even a new or radical concept and nobody, even from the small but noisy opposition, is campaigning to have the decades old filters removed. Then again, a few of said noisy opposition actually live in long filtered roads so make of that what you will.
Almost everything is disputed by someone.
When it comes to personal opinions I'm not convinced bbc news employees should be restricted in their social media accounts, though perhaps it should be required that they do not use a personal account for bbc business and vice versa (often an issue with politicians as well). Largely because defining what they can and can't talk about becomes a near totally arbitrary exercise, especially as any judgement about the level of dispute will come from social media discourse and anecdata rather than a statistically robust polling/research exercise.
Regarding ltns there is very little dispute on matter amongst people actually experienced and qualified in the field, nor is there actually amongst the public if the electoral (lack of) success of anti-ltn candidates is anything to go on. They're not even a new or radical concept and nobody, even from the small but noisy opposition, is campaigning to have the decades old filters removed. Then again, a few of said noisy opposition actually live in long filtered roads so make of that what you will.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Re: Having one's own life
Yes, but you don't want your supposedly impartial broadcaster, whose job it is to give you the facts and the angles to allow you to make your own mind up, to come down on one side of a debate that is still active. It is their job not to do that.reohn2 wrote: ↑3 Sep 2022, 9:50amYou could've said Emily Maitlis.....pwa wrote: ↑3 Sep 2022, 7:47am He does have opinions, like everyone else, but the particular nature of his job means that he needs to keep private his opinions on matters that are disputed. How does Fiona Bruce vote? What does she think about Brexit? I don't know because she keeps her views out of the public eye. It is part of her job to do that. Naturally, if a newsreader / current affairs broadcaster is a victim of crime they will have their opinions made public, but then be kept away from news items relating to their opinions, for their sake and to avoid contaminating the presentation of the item.
There are those who don't want to rock the boat and there are those who see the boat needs upturning!
Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?
The problem is precisely that it hasn't been providing the facts. It's been getting two talking heads on, of which at least one, and often both, have zero expertise or experience in the area they're talking about to have public school style 'debate' which inevitably turns into a matter of rhetoric where facts are a hindrance (because promising the moon on a stick works far better in such conditions) and fiction is spouted with typically zero challenge from the presenter/interviewer who are themselves often remarkably ignorant even in the areas they're supposed to be competent in and so often don't have the knowledge and wit to provide that challenge (doesn't help that about half of them appear to have gone through the same oxford ppe mickey mouse degree as the guests).
Providing facts and actually digging out some genuine experts, would actually require journalistic effort and even where that does happen, it rarely makes it to the mainstream shows.
Similarly resorting to someone from the tufton st collective because you can't find a credible expert to be the required opposition is not impartiality, that is actually very partial in favour of the fringe viewpoint.
Providing facts and actually digging out some genuine experts, would actually require journalistic effort and even where that does happen, it rarely makes it to the mainstream shows.
Similarly resorting to someone from the tufton st collective because you can't find a credible expert to be the required opposition is not impartiality, that is actually very partial in favour of the fringe viewpoint.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?
I'm very critical of the BBC's recent adoption of false balance in the news and current affairs programmes to which I do listen. But its coverage of a wide range of issues in documentaries remains exemplary. For example The Briefing Room, which was praised in another thread about fuel supply and prices.
Jonathan