³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ in the news, Friday
| 10:47 UK time, Friday, 17 November 2006
The Sun: ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ presenter Adrian Chiles writes about the time he was asked to become "a real-life James Bond". ()
The Guardian: Reports that, "in a policy U-turn, the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has decided to pay viewers who send in pictures and videos" - the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has denied this story, and Vicky Taylor, editor of interactivity, will write on this subject on this blog later today. ()
Comments
I think the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ [b]should[/b] pay a substantial fee to persons who provide their news and other outlets with very good pictures, tips etc.
Darren:
why should they? If people are happy to send them in for free? This is our money you know and if they did pay for every single picture etc they recieved there would be one of two outcomes:-
1. Our license fee goes up
or
2. Far few user submitted pictures etc would be published.
Neither option is acceptable to me. I guess the big question is are the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ now going to sue the guardian for defamation? If these claims are untrue as the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ says they are then sueing is the only course of action.
Incidently the comments link on the main story is broken.
The question is what if these free-senders realise that they would like money for their content and stop sending it to ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ? Will ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ suffer? If not, it is ok. But if they might suffer, then it is better to adopt a fair policy now than have to do a volte-face under coercion later and also look like idiots.
PS: As for licence fee, I don't think ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ uses it well with pretty-faced newsreaders being paid much higher wage packets than reporters who generate the content from the frontlines. So let's not even get started on that.
re the sory about Newsnight filming the vandalising of cars with St George's flags etc.
Peter Wishart SNP MP referred to anger, presumably he was referring to the anger felt by the English at the desecration of their flag.