On 23/11/2010 10:52, George wrote:

In fairness that was a fairly minor error although it is sloppy and
unprofessional, the best one I heard (can't remember which radio
station) was a report of delays on the Hammersmith Line and also
delays on the City Line, they hadn't realised the H&C is one line

I've seen that in "official" material at least once.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Mizter T wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:13*pm, Bruce wrote:

Fat richard wrote:

I appreciated that you was just stating the obvious from the outset
and the chain is often broken at then end where the names of TOCs and
locations involved tend to be unknown by the pretty face / voice.
Their lack of knowledge of the system is, to be honest, undertsandable
as they tend to be the journos at the star of the process to becoming
a top flight presenter with brains, that said the appalling offerings
on Skys rolling news does not instill confidence that the (w)anchors
have a clue what they are "on about".

I think the Sky News anchors/presenters are probably chosen to be less
than totally bright in order not to make the channel's target audience
feel that they are being talked down to.

Kay Burley... shudder!


I think you meant Ms Whiplash. ;-)

She's the exception that proves the rule. She talks down to (and
upsets) everyone, especially politicians, celebrities and famous
people.

The worst possible thing to happen was for Bill Clinton to let it be
known (on a visit to the UK) that he fancied her, having seen her on
breakfast TV. It went completely to her head. Perhaps no-one had the
heart to tell her that Bill Clinton fancies anything in a skirt, and
completely loses all self-control when a blue dress is involved. ;-)

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 01:08:00 -0800 (PST), Offramp
wrote:

The British Broadcasting Society is controlled by analphabets who can
only just barely speak English. None of them can read, so you can't
blame the man who wrote the press release.

Broadcasting House is constructed from papier-mâché made from chewed-
up diplomas in Art History, Marine Biology and Surf Studies.

At least they're not smoking the same stuff as you are.

On 23/11/2010 13:35, Graham Harrison wrote:

This is true. Let's face it when some of us were younger we just headed
off and hoped. On the other hand we are where we are. Look at what
happened to Rolls Royce recently, the Trent on the Qantas Airbus blows.
RR put their head down to identify the problem and say nothing in the
meantime. What happens? Armchair experts and "the markets" all panic and
the share price drops. That's just an example of how we all react these
days. Bottom line seems to be that these days we assume no news is BAD
news.

And it often is.

I suspect much of the public sees Qantas and Airbus, not Rolls Royce.
And when the public thinks "Rolls Royce", most them aren't thinking of
aeroplanes but of a totally unrelated company.

Was it ever any different? Didn't someone famous make his fortune
gambling on the result of Waterloo; he had no more information than
anyone else, but knew people thought he might have?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Nov 23, 10:46*pm, MIG wrote:

On Nov 23, 10:40*pm, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 23/11/2010 09:04, Chris Tolley wrote:

MIG wrote:

The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour.
You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague
idea about transport in London.

Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention
London in the things they read out to be Londoners?

Could be interesting for the shipping forecast...

I'd expect whoever organises the shipping forecast to know something
about shipping and weather, and I'd expect whoever organises London
travel news to know something about London and travel.

Well, not any more I wouldn't.

Blimey, I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill
about this, I really do.

On 23/11/2010 13:23, Mizter T wrote:

I think they're well aware of the reach of their signal, particularly
w.r.t. travel news (for general news it's not unreasonable to expect
that listeners would turn to their local, home counties station

Do the BBC ever do much general news which is heavily slanted towards
things of interest in the home counties?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 2010\11\23 22:52, Arthur Figgis wrote:

Didn't someone famous make his fortune
gambling on the result of Waterloo; he had no more information than
anyone else, but knew people thought he might have?


Well, it was always obvious the other Scandinavian countries would vote
for it.

On Nov 23, 10:55*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:46*pm, MIG wrote:





On Nov 23, 10:40*pm, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 23/11/2010 09:04, Chris Tolley wrote:

MIG wrote:

The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour..
You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague
idea about transport in London.

Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention
London in the things they read out to be Londoners?

Could be interesting for the shipping forecast...

I'd expect whoever organises the shipping forecast to know something
about shipping and weather, and I'd expect whoever organises London
travel news to know something about London and travel.

Well, not any more I wouldn't.

Blimey, I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill
about this, I really do.


Really? I just made a comment in what, in my haste, I saw as a
particular context, and came back to find fifty-odd responses, mainly
inferring a different context, so I've explained it a bit better.

In other words, much of this mountain didn't need to be piled on my
molehill.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:00:58 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 23/11/2010 13:23, Mizter T wrote:

I think they're well aware of the reach of their signal, particularly
w.r.t. travel news (for general news it's not unreasonable to expect
that listeners would turn to their local, home counties station

Do the BBC ever do much general news which is heavily slanted towards
things of interest in the home counties?

Every day about 1800 and 2200. ITN is not a lot better.

On Nov 23, 11:06*pm, MIG wrote:

On Nov 23, 10:55*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Nov 23, 10:46*pm, MIG wrote:

On Nov 23, 10:40*pm, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 23/11/2010 09:04, Chris Tolley wrote:

MIG wrote:
The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour.
You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague
idea about transport in London.

Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention
London in the things they read out to be Londoners?

Could be interesting for the shipping forecast...

I'd expect whoever organises the shipping forecast to know something
about shipping and weather, and I'd expect whoever organises London
travel news to know something about London and travel.

Well, not any more I wouldn't.

Blimey, I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill
about this, I really do.

Really? *I just made a comment in what, in my haste, I saw as a
particular context, and came back to find fifty-odd responses, mainly
inferring a different context, so I've explained it a bit better.

In other words, much of this mountain didn't need to be piled on my
molehill.

OK, fair comment - though I was really (over)reacting to your specific
comment above, the "not any more I wouldn't", though I see in turn it
was itself a response to others comments. (You will see that I did
take up Chris Tolley on his comments - though actually it might have
been better to leave you to answer his questions.) This is all getting
kinda jumbled up so I'll step away from it now!