More woeful BBC reporting……

[HV71]

Quote
" The win lifts Bournemouth four points above Fulham, who have a game in hand, while Cardiff are 20th and just three points outside the Championship relegation zone."

Last time I looked at the table it was two games in hand.....

So poor .. so very, very poor

[Twig]

Quote
" The win lifts Bournemouth four points above Fulham, who have a game in hand, while Cardiff are 20th and just three points outside the Championship relegation zone."

Last time I looked at the table it was two games in hand.....

So poor .. so very, very poor

If you want to find a stick to beat the Beeb with you'll have to do better than that. Like it or not the statement was entirely accurate. Nothing woeful about it.  Of course they could have devoted a couple of paragraphs to games in hand, current form, goal difference, injury lists, etc. etc. But it was a single sentence and perfectly correct.

[HV71]

The wine must be getting to me Twig but tonight's win does put them 4 points clear and surely they should have written either " Fulham have games in hand or that Bournemouth have played two more games than we have.

[Snibbo]

League Table
Team                         P   W   D   L   F   A   GD   Pts
1   Bournemouth     25   14   7   4   41   20   21   49
2   Fulham                23   13   6   4   51   19   32   45

[MartyFFC]

Nothing accurate about the statement whatsoever, for those that can count

[Stevieboy]

They are 4pts ahead, we have 2 games I hand is about as accurate as you can get !

[graham]

I'm confused by Twig; aren't we 4 points behind Bournemouth, with 2 games in hand?

[Fernhurst]

HV71 is absolutely correct.

What's worrying is points on the board are far better than games in hand (and it gets worse).
There could be quite easily be a chasm between us and a necessity to win all those games in hand  to bridge the gap.
Now..... what else can I worry about??

[RaySmith]

Quote
" The win lifts Bournemouth four points above Fulham, who have a game in hand, while Cardiff are 20th and just three points outside the Championship relegation zone."

Last time I looked at the table it was two games in hand.....

So poor .. so very, very poor

Yes, but you can see from the table that this in an error, probably since corrected - they didn't print the table, or the results, wrongly did they?

You think Sky or other news outlet don't sometimes make similar  errors?

I think the BBC does a  great job in its football coverage, and this is all done  as it happens.
It's commendable that they have so few errors in their coverage, considering how comprehensive and up to date it is.

[HV71]

Ray - I fully respect your points regarding other media outlets and the pressures of ' live ' coverage and in fact 24hour reporting. However, this mistake didn't occur during the ' heat of the battle " it was in the summarisation after the game. They may have had a reporter at the match, they may have used an agency , or they may have had someone just watching the feed. Whatever it was the BBC has an excellent service which shows the table "live" with a normal time lag of only about 5 minutes . Given that the report was done after the game, and was reflecting on the relative positions of the teams using only  three facts - position - points difference and games played then I stand by my statement that it was woeful. Journalists have it rammed into them to check facts and check again. In a world in which ' editing' is being diminished- this is even more important.
As a former media professional who had many journalists working for me - I find mistakes like this annoying. If you were to ask a pro like Paddy Barclay what would have happened in his day he would undoubtedly say he would have been kicked up the backside.
Standards are standards - just as facts are facts

[Bill2]

Quite honestly I have given up with taking the BBC at face value when it comes to facts. While they present the news its accuracy leaves a lot to be desired.

[Twig]

Apologies to the OP, I stand corrected. The Beeb statement was inaccurate, I should have read it more carefully.

[toshes mate]

All that follows is just my opinion and nothing else but I would like to believe I am objective when it comes to making judgements about Internet material having been involved in computer programming for several decades. 

Rather than compare the BBC website with others in a contemporary situation I'd compare the BBC now with the BBC website of a decade plus ago.  Sadly, this comparison shows a marked deterioration in quality, accuracy and content across the BBC website.  Instead of serving its TV license payers in the UK the BBC has simply and unnecessarily joined in the same clickbait competition as others.   Quality left the BBC long ago although one can find the odd example of it to this day.

Errors, omissions and factually incorrect material exist across all the BBC's output and its complaints procedures are simply unfit for purpose.  A decade ago these issues were just part of a trend but now it is embedded into beliefs, thinking and agenda pushing and if you cannot see it then you may need to worry about your critical thinking mechanisms.   The quality and content is now as hit and miss as any other clickbait opportunist.   There are sites that regularly debunk BBC claims and broadcast output and they do so with factual ease.  It is just another corporate monstrosity.

I find it amusing that 'real time' updates gets a special mention on this thread when they have always been available on the internet to anyone who has the nous to embed them into a website.   If you think about it you will hopefully realise the many examples of such provision that date right back to the original Internet, university access, bulletin boards, newsgroups etc.  The confounding issue is now the diversity of devices the BBC (a TV & radio broadcaster FPS) tries to support which have nothing to do with radio or TV!  It's a mess and it is out of control.

And can you think of one good reason why the BBC now covers the NFL on its UK site at the expense of minimal to non-existent lower tier football coverage in the UK?   

[ALG01]

I spotted the error too but felt if i started a thread like this it might seem i was being old and grumpy. As it is i see others feel the same.

I do agree the bbc is not the impartial institutoion it is supposed to be and without offering factual examples that would see the thread locked, i do despair of the very ignorant journalism riddled with bias. I also despair of poor standards.

I also cannot fathom why the nfl a genuine minority affe tation is on the screen when so many other genuine sports, exciting action packed sports, are ignored.

And while talksport is now pretty much unlistenable to, being a non stop lowest common denominator fest, including little more than unfunny so called endless bantz.... the bbc obsesses over the prem and virtually ignores anything below that. Teams in the lower leagues get virtually no exposure and what is happening at sutton utd and forrest green, for instance, is worthyof many more column inches than hearing the ebdless dross of the loathsome klopp repeating himself etc.

[HV71]

Apologies to the OP, I stand corrected. The Beeb statement was inaccurate, I should have read it more carefully.

Thanks Twig, but no apology necessary. We are all supporters who often post in the "heat of the battle " and at speed - we aren't paid , and it's not our job  - unlike the reporter I was criticising.

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

I think that debating a simple error of one match is rather trivial and unnecessary.
Anyone who watches Final Score can see what an efficient service they provide covering matches right across the leagues.
Compare this with Sky, their biased commentaries and in .Fulham's case their inability to mention that certain players may have not had as much game time due to injuries rather than just having been excluded from the match day squad. On a couple of times this season that has driven me mad.

[Motspur Park]

All that follows is just my opinion and nothing else but I would like to believe I am objective when it comes to making judgements about Internet material having been involved in computer programming for several decades. 

Rather than compare the BBC website with others in a contemporary situation I'd compare the BBC now with the BBC website of a decade plus ago.  Sadly, this comparison shows a marked deterioration in quality, accuracy and content across the BBC website.  Instead of serving its TV license payers in the UK the BBC has simply and unnecessarily joined in the same clickbait competition as others.   Quality left the BBC long ago although one can find the odd example of it to this day.

Couldn't agree more. I have become increasingly frustrated reading the BBC website for a number of reasons and I object to the fact my 92 year old uncle now has to again pay a licence fee when he is on a limited pension and tv is one of the few things that give him something to do.

I closed the tab for the last time when a supposed news story appeared from Ian Wright denouncing the AFCON coverage as racism. Apart from the European tournament and the World Cup, I don't see any other international tournament get so much coverage. We see nothing of the Southern Hemisphere tournaments nor of the South American or Asian tournaments on national tv but we do see AFCON on the BBC.

The issue that most fans have with this tournament is the timing of it and the fact that clubs lose influential players for a number of games at such an important time of the season.

[filham]

A minor error but I still look upon the BBC as number one for reliability and impartiality,
Having said that there does seem to be a tendency right now for most football pundits to have some mysterious attraction towards Parker and Bournmouth.

[bobby01]

A minor error but I still look upon the BBC as number one for reliability and impartiality,
Having said that there does seem to be a tendency right now for most football pundits to have some mysterious attraction towards Parker and Bournmouth.

Not surprising seeing as he is always about self promotion.

[filham]

HV71 is absolutely correct.

What's worrying is points on the board are far better than games in hand (and it gets worse).
There could be quite easily be a chasm between us and a necessity to win all those games in hand  to bridge the gap.
Now..... what else can I worry about??

The risk now is that we start counting those games in hand as three points and thereby kid ourselves that we are virtual table toppers. We need to play games, score goals and win matches as soon as ever possible and the postponed matches need to be carefully fitted into the fixture programme without delay.