h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So how come we cannot swear here, but when the BBC has a grudge against a public official it is acceptable:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4247237.stm

Surely any underage person could log onto BBC news in the same way they log onto hooto and read on the BBC news site a swear word?

I havent even read the link but Im guessing tha your talking about the same man who went radio rental on Channel Four news and brought us the Dogdy dossier.

News that a man who pretends to be civilised but is willing to tell lies in support of innocent people being killed in a war he will be totally untouched by is an angry foul mouthed bully is worthy of reporting.

News that you or I have got a different swear word for every day of the year isnt news or necessary to print in the "public interest".

Which Im guessing is something like what the BBC would say if you asked them.

one love

No doubt....

And dont get me wrong anything that makes Mr Campbell uncomfortable is fine by me.

However I still think it rather undermines the house rules saying swearing is a no-no because young people could read it. They would not quote Mr Campbells email say on the News at six so why on BBC online?

The same E-mail was reported on in E-mail Newsletter from Newsnight where the offending words where bleeped out:

>> "Now f**k off and cover something important you tw*ts!"

Last night's advice in a misdirected e-mail to the Newsnight team from
Alastair Campbell, the former Downing Street Communications Director.
Tonight, we're taking his advice and covering something important. <<

So it would appear that the News Editors work to a different set of standard than h2g2 and the Newsnight editors.

Donald

PS. The something more important is the Middle East Ceasefire.

The really shocking thing for me is that Al Campbell uses txtspk in his emails.

B

Does he! I thought it was just bad spelling.

I like the way the repeat it spelling mistakes and all .

No grudge there then ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/music/muze/index.pl?site=music&action=discography&artist_id=1114

Somewhere else on BBC where swear words (this time defcon 4) can appear brazenly even though a minor could see it .

The difference is that it's editorialy justified to quote people who should know better, and if that's what the band is called, that's what it's called.

That's totally different to researchers just saying 'oh f*ck h2g2's broken again'.

On the other hand, perhaps it was someone's last day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ if you really want to complain (that's the bit of the BBC I wanted to work for, and they wouldn't let me ).

I dont want to complain, I personally have no problem with swearing.

Still though would it be acceptable to qoute what someone said on BBC news before the watershed?

I think not. So why is online different?

I'd suggest because passive viewing doesn't really happen on the internet. You tend to have to be looking for things to find them. On tv any kid in the room will hear when the tv person says f*ck or tw*t. Not many small children are likely to be reading the news.

I'm not exactly anti-swearing, but I have to say that's a pretty flimsy explanation.

Anyone over the age of 4 knows that the best way to find anything on the Net is a search engine. If you look for f*cks, you find f*cks (so to speak). If the BBC is where you find them, that doesn't reflect too well.

B

I think if you type 'f*ck' into a search engine, you'd need to go through a lot of pages of search results before you found articles about a government spin doctor's attitude to journalists.

**spends an entertaining half hour wandering through diverse Google results**

You're right, but that's not really the point.

B

"think if you type 'f*ck' into a search engine, you'd need to go through a lot of pages of search results before you found articles about a government spin doctor's attitude to journalists."

Then ditto the h2g2 covo forums...

Look I am being a little bit silly with this thread to be fair but my point stands I think.

either because of the nature of the internet and its availibilty to be read by any one at any time, swearing is not appropriote on BBC online or it is ok.

If it is ok then why can we not swear here, if not why do my links exist?

I dont want them blanked out but I do think there is a double standard here.

I repeat - you can't swear here because it's impossible for the staff to check each f*ck to see if it is editorially justified. The ones they come across that are, are left up - as TM found out when mentioning a town on Austria. There are Guide Entries on DNA where there are naughty words - try Collective for a start.

And thank's to Master B for proving my unspoken point that you'll never find the f word on the Beeb through Google! It's not kept out of conversations for the same reason at all - it's kept out so that here is a pleasant place to be, and for those schoolchildren who might well use the words in the playground but don't need to be reading them when they are having a conversation online with friends (and their parents are happy for them to be using the site), and that all the mums/dads/other that use the site don't have to worry what granny will see over shoulders, that they can introduce real life friends to, and that they can use the site with their kids around.

Phew. Rant over.

So then why do they not swear on the new at 6 if it is editorial justified?

For the same reasons I have heard given for why certain content cannot happen on hootoo.

I am sorry Mina but your argument seems to me to be frankly tosh. In the UK media, and specifically the BBC, there are certain turns of phrases considered unsuitable for a mass audience, editorially justified or not.

This has been religiously upheld on DNA sites (fair enough I cannot argue as I understand the logic) but on BBC news and in relation to a public figure the Beeb has a beef against it isn't.(which again I dont have a particular problem with). It is just the double standard that amuses me.

You think what I'm saying is tosh because you aren't actually reading what I'm saying. I've already answered your first question in a previous post.

But whatever, you don't like it, I think it's sensible. No point me carrying on discussing this any further with you really is there?

Okily dokily lets agree to disagree then.

My inkling is that they will quite happily quote the word in a news report online until some purple rinsers cause a stink. And as for not allowing swearing on h2g2 - well, I'd say they're just covering their backs by saying that in the rules, but nobody really seems to give a shit. When I've seen posts yikesed, it's always been because the message of what they actually say and not the language.