So the BBC missed the opportunity to screen a new series of Yes, Prime Minister. Imagine how pleased they must have been to report that it was 'panned by critics':
The article says the Independent slammed it, but it didn't. It just reported that others had criticised it. In fact much of the BBC article is lifted straight from the Independent round-up:
boo, someone else said it was shit
So, the BBC was a bit disingenuous to say the Independent hated it, but it does sound like some others hated it instead. So who were they?
The Radio Times, who are associated with the BBC. The Guardian, who are the political wing of the BBC. And an obscure website.
So the BBC slagged the programme off in its magazine, a newspaper reported that the BBC had slagged it off, and then the BBC reported it as 'news' that several sources had hated it.
The Telegraph quite liked it, so did a few other sites. Some criticised it for not acknowledging 'the thick of it', presumably because they're now so used to the BBC constantly cross-referencing any new output to give the impression it's not all tired repeats.
Reporting the opinions of TV critics as 'news' in this way comes across as a bit 'sour grapes' by the BBC. Frankly, I think it stinks.
Grrr. Had to get that of my chest.
The second episode of Ripper Street was much better than the first, though. It shows they can still manage to make the odd thing that's watchable, rather than just jealously slagging off things they completely fucked up on.
Did they ever manage to report how good Sky's 'Moone Boy' was? I guess they forgot. Probably a busy news day.
