On 19/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >> >> On 19/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >> >> >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3409155.stm >> >> >> >> I can't really say I agree with them, but hey... >> >> >What drivel ... >> >> The article is taking some snippets of fact, some snippets of >> misinformation, and chucking them into a pot in an awkward context, and >> as a result, is an utter bag of shite. Very bad journalism for the Beeb. > > >Whoa, everybody! Step back and take another look at it. > >The average target audience for this article isn't you, or me: >it's my mother-in-law (a roll of film lasts her almost a year, >and she throws away the negatives), or my nieces (snap away >with wild abandon, hardly even bothering to look through the >viewfinder).
[snip] John, your sentiment is honourable but i stand by my remark. The article has been 'dumbed down' and is below par for what i would consider the BBC to average as a journalistic enterprise. Sad because it's happening all over. Sure, in the pages of What Photo! or Digicams Rock magazines, but come one - this is the BBC. Objectivity straight out the window and film sucks cuz digital is where it's happening man. Sorry, I don't buy it. It's typical of the 'don''t you worry folks, modern technology can get you out of any fix you care to try and isn't it just wonderful' attitude that permeates our societies today. A few years down the road and you won;t even have to think for yourself as there will be a box to do that for you. </rant> Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
