Well done to the BBC


Status
Not open for further replies.
So, it won't stop corruption, so why bother?

I agree. Similarly, they should stop reporting about the war in Iraq, as it won't stop it.

And the weather, as it's going to happen regardless.

I think the point to be made is "what corruption?".

The programme made plenty of suggestions but it didn't prove anything. I'd like to think that the BBC, non-ignorant to the damage they were about to do, would have at least required their "investigators" to dig some actual proof up before they made their ridiculous attempt at whistle-blowing.
 
So, it won't stop corruption, so why bother?

I agree. Similarly, they should stop reporting about the war in Iraq, as it won't stop it.

And the weather, as it's going to happen regardless.

It is concievable that the timing has had a seriously deterimental effect on our bid and thus costing the country a shitload of money. David Dein has alluded to the effect. The timing, 2 days before the vote, was typical our sensatoinalist media. I'm just saying the timing should have been very different and as a publically funded body they need to be accountable and explain why they has to air it 2 days before the bid.
 
So, it won't stop corruption, so why bother?

I agree. Similarly, they should stop reporting about the war in Iraq, as it won't stop it.

And the weather, as it's going to happen regardless.

Do you think the BBC will report on its own corruption, or do you think they aren't corrupt??

EVERY massive organisation has elements of corruption, there will always be people who use their position to feather their own nest at all levels of society.

The BBC stooped to tabloid tactics with this programme which is what has p1ssed me off, sensationalist bollox.
 
It is concievable that the timing has had a seriously deterimental effect on our bid and thus costing the country a shitload of money. David Dein has alluded to the effect. The timing, 2 days before the vote, was typical our sensatoinalist media. I'm just saying the timing should have been very different and as a publically funded body they need to be accountable and explain why they has to air it 2 days before the bid.

In other words, let's pick and choose when we expose corruption?

Would that not make us just as corrupt?
 
Do you think the BBC will report on its own corruption, or do you think they aren't corrupt??

EVERY massive organisation has elements of corruption, there will always be people who use their position to feather their own nest at all levels of society.

The BBC stooped to tabloid tactics with this programme which is what has p1ssed me off, sensationalist bollox.

Exactly my thoughts. As I said David Dein alluded to this and I think they need to be seriously taken to task. The media in this country has some major positives but also some major negatives. This is an example of the negatives.

In other words, let's pick and choose when we expose corruption?

Would that not make us just as corrupt?

They've known about it for ages. Why not report on it as soon as they knew? So they have 'picked and chosen' when to report it. As I said it is concievable that the timing has severly hampered our bid.
 
Do you think the BBC will report on its own corruption, or do you think they aren't corrupt??

EVERY massive organisation has elements of corruption, there will always be people who use their position to feather their own nest at all levels of society.

The BBC stooped to tabloid tactics with this programme which is what has p1ssed me off, sensationalist bollox.

So what you're saying is, because most people have corruption, then we should just let it slide, right?

As for corruption in the BBC, why should they report it. I mean, everything has corruption, so why bother reporting on it at all?
 
Exactly my thoughts. As I said David Dein alluded to this and I think they need to be seriously taken to task. The media in this country has some major positives but also some major negatives. This is an example of the negatives.



They've known about it for ages. Why not report on it as soon as they knew? So they have 'picked and chosen' when to report it. As I said it is concievable that the timing has severly hampered our bid.

They got the documents in October. Since then, they've spent the time actually making the programme and giving Fifa the right to reply (a right they gave them repeatedly, and which Fifa repeatedly turned down).
 
Following the BBC documentary on corruption i think it is particulary ironic that the world cup has been awarded to possibly the most corrupt county in Europe.

The BBC should be ashamed of themselves tbh, as publishing the documentary 2 days before the vote was just sensationalist journalism and fuck the bid tbh.... could easily have been done 2 days after the bid instead.

And to those who say the BBC has a duty to report these things. Firstly, see para above, timing is everything, they could have done this at a less sensationalist time.

The key question is though, have we won by taking the moral high ground, being the only nation to report the corruption in FIFA. I would suggest not, and in fact we have gained nothing by this.

BBC should be shot with shit.
 
So what you're saying is, because most people have corruption, then we should just let it slide, right?

As for corruption in the BBC, why should they report it. I mean, everything has corruption, so why bother reporting on it at all?

Their timing was about ratings. Even you must see that. Interesting now David Davies is suggesting that 'the media' has affected the bid.
 
So what you're saying is, because most people have corruption, then we should just let it slide, right?

As for corruption in the BBC, why should they report it. I mean, everything has corruption, so why bother reporting on it at all?

Your arguments are nonsense for the sake of it...I am done.
 
They got the documents in October. Since then, they've spent the time actually making the programme and giving Fifa the right to reply (a right they gave them repeatedly, and which Fifa repeatedly turned down).

Why 2 days before though? coincidence that their documentary was ready then? or sensationalist timing? i suspect the latter.

So what you're saying is, because most people have corruption, then we should just let it slide, right?

As for corruption in the BBC, why should they report it. I mean, everything has corruption, so why bother reporting on it at all?

What have we gained as a nation by exposing the corruption? A warm smug feeling inside maybe?
 
In other words, let's pick and choose when we expose corruption?

If it involves delaying the exposure for about four days, in order to serve the best interests of the country and people you were set up, and are legally funded to serve, then yes, of course that's what it means. Particularly when there is absolutely NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER to exposing it at the earlier time.

Would that not make us just as corrupt?

No, that would just make us clever enough to not shoot ourselves in the foot for no apparent reason.
 
so, the message on here is

"Corruption - it's bad. But everyone has it, so who cares."

Bit of a depressing attitude really.
 
How can exposing corruption ever be seen as a bad thing?

For me the BBC knew what was coming ie we were never going to get it and decided to go with it.

I want to see more exposure of FIFA's corruption, not less. Fuck them. If it was me in charge of the FA I'd be withdrawing us from FIFA in protest. Not exactly a great loss with the state of our team at the moment....

They insult us time after time (4th in the bidding despite being able to hold a world cup tomorrow ffs) and yet we still go crawling to them on hands and knees. Time for someone to make a stand, expose the lot of them.
 
Don't give a fuck to be heonst, the FA and FIFA are a shambles from top to bottom. They've dug their own grave over this, fingers crossed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top