I shit you not . . . you just couldn't make it up.
The BBC Radio 2 site, which gathers “tweets”, from presenters such as Chris Evans, Jonathan Ross, Alan Carr, Claudia Winkleman, Richard Madley and Simon Mayo has no followers.
The BBC Radio 5 Live site, which gathers "tweets" from the likes of Victoria Derbyshire, Richard Bacon and Jonathon Agnew has just two.
Tory MP and former Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe said: “This seems like a very odd use of time, particularly as the people tweeting are paid by the licence payer. It is yet another example of the BBC not understanding that it is funded by the licence payer.”
Rather amusingly, in reply, a BBC spokesman said: “Social media websites are an effective way of engaging with our audiences."
What about "BBC Arabic", I hear you ask. Well it has 2,250 followers but, rather entertainingly, that site appears to have been duplicated with one called "Arabic BBC" which has just 122 followers.
Yet another example of BBC bollocks . . . but why should they care though? It's our money that they're pissing up the wall, time and time again.
They just don't give a fuck.
11 comments:
Oh dear. As usual we have some journalists who fail to understand just how Twitter works. Aggregating these tweets is done completely automatically and involves absolutely NO time, money or effort whatsoever.
The individuals whose tweets are aggregated have their own individual followers. Chris Evans has 44,000. Simon Mayo has 21,000. Winkleman has 65,000 and so on.
I wouldn't expect the ageing virgin, Widdicombe to know much about how this stuff works but Express journalist, getting paid to write this stuff, really should know better.
Sorry to spoil a good story
Thanks for the info Mike and a delightful demonstration of BBC damage limitation.
Have you actually clicked through on the links in my post?
Hmmm, thought not ;-)
This is exactly why I haven't paid a TV licence in two years. I know I'm on "the database" and all that, but frankly, it's all piss and wind, certainly as far as I've been concerned so far (no offence, Mike).
As for the case of the aggregators, someone was still paid to sit on their arse compiling and testing the output of these lists, which is the point I think Mike misses (and I freely admit I haven't clicked through to the Express article ;-)).
Sorry G.O.T. but I too think you've shot slightly wide of the mark this time.
The links to the BBC Twitter pages indeed have very few followers but they are just aggregate 'lists' that take seconds to set up and then run automatically without any further intervention.
Just as you currently appear on 5 Twitter lists, so the presenters on Radio2 and Radio5 appear on the lists you linked to.
Yes I did click through, as a matter of fact, which is how I knew they were aggregate sites.
I don't give a fuck about the BBC. And, as you will eventually realise, I hope, there is no need for any 'damage limitation' in any case - as I was trying to make clear to you.
I was just trying to stop you looking as silly as the journalists and politicians do about this nonsense.
The Express story is utter tosh, as is the Virgin Widdicombe's gormless reaction to it.
Fortunately another commenter, 'manwiddicombe', has also attempted to explain what is actually going on, so perhaps you 'get it' now?
Fair comment MW, but I still fail to understand the point of wasting time and money in setting those sites up when we all know that they were never intended to be used ;-)
Mike
I always did get it but it's not unknown for me to do a post which will deliberately provoke a reaction ;-) Incidentally, I even went to the trouble of inserting the correct links into my post. The site that those twats at the Express mentioned, actually has over 12,000 followers (hee hee).
Fair enough. BTW, it would have only taken about five minutes to set up those sites and Twitter is, of course, completely free to use, even for the BBC. :-)
You should get on Twitter youself. Perfect for ranters like me. Shameless self-promotion ;-)
G.O.T. - I agree that the twatterers seem to be ignoring them and therefore they are generally lacking in a reason to exist but the time/effort thing is miniscule IMO.
MP said You should get on Twitter youself.
Aha aha aha hahahahahaha
Thank you. I've not laughed like that for ages.
Ah yes, I'd better get on to that ;-)
Bwoarhahahahahaha
Don't care, got no telly, don't pay telly tax.
Not interested in who is right or who is wrong in this argument but dear BBC, please refrain from burning my fucking license money then pissing on said bonfire when I complain.
BTW, why is Anne Widdicombe's age or sexuality a point of interest because she had a go at the BBC? That's the sort of reaction I'd expect from a rebuttal unit.
Post a Comment