Slashdot Mirror
BBC to Provide Extensive RSS
Georgie2032 writes "The BBC News Online's Editor states that beginning in the middle of May, the BBC will be 'completely liberating the availability of its content' using its Really Simple Syndication (RSS) tool. 'So in May we'll be happy for outside websites to dip in and take our headlines'"
Oops, never mind. What's new is that BBC will now allow external websites to feed on them. But why would they want to do that? Considering AFP's suit against Google and all, it seems rather strange they would allow other websites to have BBC's news on their pages.
must be a *really* slow news day... In other news, almost every other website on the planet provides RSS feeds.
Its a hell of a lot easier to parse and put into your news system if its in XML than HTML. HTML makes it look pretty, XML/RSS makes it look machine readable.
Nah, I'm sure it won't be the whole stories, just all the headlines and some snippets so you can send other people to their site from yours. Half-assed viral marketing.
I willingly pay that sum every year, because I think it's worth it. The quality of programming found on BBC, is generally far higher than what the competition can come up with. And there's the lack of adverts. I like that. I've seen TV in the US, where it seems every 5 minutes, there's yet another ad break. The commercial stations over here leave it about 15 minutes between breaks (excepting sporting events, where it'd be 45 minutes) - and they have to, because they can't push further than what's tolerable in the eyes of the public, in comparison to the competition.
However, all is not well with the news content. The BBC is famous for switching to "propaganda mode" whenever British interests are involved, as good as they are with things that are far away. Also, there are been repeated charges of a systematic anti-Israeli bias in their coverage.
They do great work, but for all the gushing, do remember they have their share of problems.
"Extensive Really Simple Syndication?" So it's both extensive (Large in extent, range, or amount) and simple (composed of only one element). Hmm.
Kinda like the MPEG-4 "Advanced Simple Profile," maybe.
With blatently bies news outlets spining to the left hard when Fox trys to give "fair and ballenced" they end up bodyslamming into the right.
There is no reasonable guide for what is "fair". The extreams (both left and right) have been bashing away at the means of determining if something has gone off ballence.
At best Fox provides a diffrent spin from the rest of the news media.
I've watched the BBC news feeds and while there is spin it's not that bad.
Between BBC, CNN and Fox you'll have enough peaces to figure out what is spin and what is fact.
I don't beleave it's remotely reasonable to expect any news agentcy to be entirely free of bies so it's up to the viewers to be fair and balenced due to there being no such animal in the press.
I don't actually exist.
Ummm.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the 'honestreporting.com' site does seem to have a single aim of increasing the amount of PR favouring Jewish interests.
If you are after balance, it strikes me as odd that you would refer
I am not a particular fan of the BBC, and its 'youth' shows are shockingly bad, especially radio 1, which is for tards. But its news is pretty good, in an up-itself British sort of way.
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
I think thats probably due to the israeli's killing their reporters and carmera men. Its kind of a hard thing to get over experically when its all caught on film. Maybe another reason for it is there is a general anti-Israeli sentiment in british society. Note this is not the same an anti-semitism but related to the israeli-Palestinian conflict, which many find abhorrent.
:)
Considering the amount of disagreements the BBC has had with the goverment of the day durin its time maybe it should be called an Anti-Propaganda Mode.
The BBC while not perfect is generally held to alot higher standard then other broadcasters, and I think that is something to be proud of.
Shoot me
Personally, I'd point to the recent election broadcasts as evidence that the BBC aren't especially biased. If they have any point of view, it is a cynical point of view regarding *all* politicians. Which, in a democracy, is only healthy.
Relative to the US media, they are left wing. But the US broadcast media is very right wing, in any case.
British. The word you're looking for is British, not English.
What about Channel 4 News? They go into much deeper into issues of the day than any other newcast, and press guests when they don't answer the question asked (i.e. doing a Blair).
As for papers, have you ever read the Independent? The story on the front page is actually a story. They don't publish stories about David Beckham's latest haircut, and the don't publish idle celebrity gossip (in fact, no mention was made of the Blunkett affair until it transpired that he may have used his powers inappropriately). Admittedly, sometimes they can be a bit heavy with the anti-Bush sentiment, but I think they are the most impartial of the dailies.
Allergy advice: Contains eggs.
At least with commercial TV there is CHOICE. You pay for what you WANT to see.
Is that why I can't get *any* satellite or cable subscription with just the channels I want, and none of the shitty shopping channels, evangelical Christian channels and other crap I'm not interested in?
Channel 4 do many programmes that are at least as good as the BBC if not better.
And ITV and Sky show many, many programs that utterly without merit (IMHO, of course). We could throw examples like that at each other all night, but it's essentially meaningless.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
There's no anti-Israeli bias in the British media, or indeed the British population in general.
The reason that these allegations are made is because the Israeli government is used to the overwhelming pro-Israeli bias in the US media. When foreign (not just British) media displays any kind of balance (by, say, criticising a decision made by the Israeli government) then cries of 'Anti-Semite' go up.
I read a while ago an article (IIRC from The Guardian, whom almost certainly finds BBC as it's biggest competetor online) complaining how BBC websites are paid by the domestic licence fee and yet a massive chunk of it's cost is from foreign readers.
You cant just buy that kind of advertising of British culture, or influence of British values. Nobody ever complained about people in Africa learning English (proper English, I might add) from BBC Worldwide. Online: Americans, Chinese, Iraqis, perhaps a few North Koreans read from a perspective alien to their domestic news corporations. Anyway how many of these foreign connections are British overseas? Pretty much every Briton I know who travels reads BBC website every time they get 'net access in order to catch up with whats going on at home.
I don't think that is bias. You seem to be suggesting that if it weren't for the BBC the british would love guns just as much as the americans.
In actual fact here reporting was reflecting the fact that your average man on the street in Britain is opposed to gun public ownership.
At the risk of taking this further OT - Hutton Report! That's just a joke to most of us in the UK. Subsequent events have quite clearly shown how much truth there was in the assertion that our government "sexed-up" a dossier on WMD. I'd stand by my argument that the BBC is unbiased. Both the major political parties here complain about BBC bias, a pretty good indicator that it's doing a good job.
Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones.
Fox news also considers itself to be fair and balanced. Does that mean it is actually fair and balanced? Self-recognition means nothing.
US news is right leaning because (a) there is no left wing analogue to Fox news, (b) government has far greater degrees of control (implicit and explicit) on what reports can say. It is further right leaning, because outspoken political criticism is taboo - it simply does exist in the mainstream media.
Of course, we need major qualifiers on this. Firstly, we need to work out how this lot translates from US politics to the international scene. The US 'centre' generally maps not to the international centre but to the centre right - many of Kerry's policies would have been unacceptable to the European left. The attack that the US media is right-leaning extends beyond the media itself to the way the US political scale is calibrated. Secondly, we may have to concede that the media's right-lean may not be a right lean, but a pro-government lean - a basic lack of the skepticism used by their non-american counterparts on the left, and on the right.