Thursday, December 15, 2011

Personification news

One minor joy of Twitter is no more. A number of wags at the BBC have taken to assuming the mantle of inanimate objects, or their occupants - @bbctvcentre, @bushhousemice, and @killingstation.

This morning, one of the more recherche, @n6gallery is no more.  The gallery, which normally drives the BBC News Channel, has in the past been heigh-tist about Matthew Amroliwala, tan-ist about Tim Willcox and ear-ist about Andrew Marr.  And downright rude about other galleries working in BBC News.

Now it seems the wag responsible has been outed at a Christmas party (they still have them ?) for those working on The One O'Clock News - and the account has been closed down.

1 comment:

  1. I can't really respect the BBC's social media policy for staff. As I understand it, if you are identifiable as a member of BBC staff, you are subject to rules requiring you to observe 'due impartiality' and not 'bring the BBC into disrepute'. I get the latter - clearly you don't want staff slagging the Corp off online - but the former? Does every single member of the Corporation have to watch their p's and q's when saying something a bit political?: 'The Tories are stifling the recovery. On the other hand Labour left the country in a mess'? Just in case someone at the Daily Mail sees it and wants to use it as evidence that the BBC is a nest of lefties - something it believes and promulgates often enough without supporting evidence?

    There seems to be no distinction made between, on the one hand, on-air presenters, people in editorial roles, and on the other, backroom techies and support staff. Everyone has to sign a 'declaration of personal interests' which includes employees telling their boss not only if THEY belong to a political party, but whether any of their 'friends or close personal contacts' do. In other words, their family. That sounds a teeny-weeny bit OTT, not to say totalitarian. In this case, do the spoof Twitter accounts bring the BBC into disrepute? From what I've seen of them, no.

    ReplyDelete

Other people who read this.......