Talk:Newsround

Untitled

How many bulletins are produced each day? One each for BBC One and CBBC Channel? 220.253.149.118 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

See this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4810000/newsid_4813700/4813752.stm

This page is not NPOV. The criticisms section is anecdotal and uses emotive language. 163.1.42.251 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the section you mentioned. I think it's ok now Damson88 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Any other comments about the Criticism section? Damson88 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK removing the NPOV tag Damson88 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ammanjordan 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry forgotten to sign last message about the arabic newsround rpogramme.... ammanjordan

Press Pack

There is no mention in this page of the Press Pack - I believe this warrants a mention? It is the club which viewers can join. By submitting journalistic articles, they can win the chance to present reports on Newsround itself.

(Kjh888 14:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Denied by the BBC's DG

Newsround altered their 9/11 text after the fuss about alleged anti-US bias. Is there a reference for the DG's denial of bias? Damson88 (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Newsround's 'birthday'

On BBC1 today, the last Newsround story began "And finally our 35th birthday ..." before a recap of the last 35 years. However the 'birth date' given on Wikipedia (and IMDB) is 4 April 1972. So there seems to be a discrepancy in the date. Damson88 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Newsround's website confirms 4 April 1972 as the correct date:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7120000/newsid_7121200/7121296.stm

Damson88 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Other opinions requested

My revision this morning at 10.24 has been questioned as being "written in a one-sided POV way using weasel words."

The programme has been criticized by young people, on its own CBBC message boards, as being "patronising." On diversity, some have accused Newsround of discrimination against older children and LGBT people, pointing out, for example, a reluctance to include relevant issues or stories[9].

Newsround's website operated an age discrimination policy from summer 2006, which meant that feedback from older kids was discarded.[10] As of 2008, this website discrimination policy has been relaxed[11]. In 2007 website coverage of 9/11 was criticised by some as biased against the USA. [12] The coverage was subsequently amended.

Please could I request other opinions on my wording.Damson88 (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, my reasons for reverting were;

a) for the use of weasel words ("some have accused", "criticised by some"). It needs to say exactly who has made the accusation and thus show how representative that viewpoint is.

b) the lack of suitable verifiable evidence - e.g. only citing the contents of (what appears to be) a POV blog) and presenting opinion as fact. (The results of an age distribution summary of comments posted to the website does not prove an active policy of discrimination against the inclusion of comments made by teenagers - e.g. it could simply demonstrate that older children do not identify with the programme (whch is amed at 6-12 year olds.) And if such a policy existed it could be explained by a desire to only include comments received from the target audience - e.g. would it be controversial to exclude comments posted by adults?)

c) not presenting a neutral point of view. I would guess if there is evidence of a widely-held viewpoint that Newsround is biased against LGBT issues, there would be evidence of an opposite viewpoint. (Even if that viewpoint is purely from people who think it is not appropriate for a news programme aimed at 6-12 year olds to cover issues of sexuality and sexual identity.)

It's very easy to include one-sided criticism - but as an encylopaedia, Wikipedia articles must be balanced - and the onus is on the person adding content to ensure that the cntent is balanced, verifiable and free of weasel words. DrFrench (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and for helping to clarify your reasoning.

I will reply in detail in a few days but in the meantime could you let me know why, on 27 July 2008, you took out the reference to a deleted post by MzKiedis (U6934819) on Newsround's message board? Thanks Damson88 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've considered what you say, and think that you are right about the weasel words remark. I disagree with some of your other comments. For example, you say that there is a lack of evidence of discrimination against teens. Whilst I agree that this could not be proved with absolute certainty, the evidence is statistically significant to a high degree, and therefore could be characterised as 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. As a children's programme Newsround could reasonably refuse posts from adults, but I don't think under the particular circumstances that it is reasonable to refuse older children, and certainly not without a warning.

Taking into account what you said, I redrafted the section, and would appreciate your views - or those of a 3rd party - if you are still concerned in any way:-

The programme has been criticized by young people on its message boards as being "patronising". Messages of concern about the the handling of LGBT issues have appeared on Newsround's website, and there is a suspicion on the boards of a reluctance to allow coverage. The suspicion was confirmed, for example, by MzKiedis' message and its peremptory removal by the BBC.

Newsround's website operated an age discrimination policy from summer 2006, which meant that feedback from older kids was discarded. As of 2008, this website policy has been relaxed. In 2007 arguments arose over a perceived anti-American bias in website coverage of 9/11. The coverage was subsequently amended.

Damson88 (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well firstly, thanks for taking the time to review the text - but I don't feel you have adequately addressed the issues. Wikipedia is not an outlet for original research; so reliable, verifiable seondary sources are required. POV blogs do not meet that criteria.

A news programme for 6-12 year olds with an approx 8 minute running time is not going to cover every story. It will have an editorial policy about the kind of stories it will cover if that is available online, it could be refernced and quoted to give some context to the article. I think many parents would expect that certain 'controversial' subjects are handled with extreme aution or avoided altogether. Whatever your (or my) personal opinion is, I think you'd have to agree that sex, sexuality and sexual identity are amongst those topics. For example I can quite believe that many parents would be uncomfortable (at the very least) if Newsround covered isses such as abortion or date-rape - and similarly many parents would not feel that LGBT issues are a suitable topic for the programme. Any criticism must - to be fair - be placed in that context. As for the age discrimination policy - again there is only supposition and not fact. DrFrench (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

Kids' remarks about reluctance to cover LGBT issues were on the message boards for the whole world to see, so there's no original research involved. I didn't include any links in the proposed wording for brevity.

Your point about adult issues is interesting, but we're not discussing date rape or abortion here. Don't you think it's reasonable to report and tackle the topic of homophobic bullying? And is it reasonable to report celebrity marriages, but only when the partners are not lesbian or gay? Am I right in thinking that you personally believe LGBT issues simply should not be covered on Newsround?

What are you disputing on the age discrimination point? Even the BBC seems to have accepted it should not have happened, and accordingly relaxed the policy in January this year.

Look forward to your further comments. Thanks Damson88 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mark Easton

Current BBC Home affairs editor Mark Easton eventually took over from John Craven after being the regular stand-in towards the end of John's stint. Hes hould be added to the list of presenters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.135.235 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

John Watson

Any reason why John Watson was removed from the list of presenters? Damson88 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2011 ( UTC)

When did "Newsround" "begin?

This article says that "Newsround" began in April 1972. On Front Row tonight, it was said that the programme had ran continuously for seventeen years, but the article implies that it has run for nineteen years as of November 24 2011. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

List of presenters

The link to Paul McDowell may be slightly off... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.224.68 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Logo

The logo was changed last week and thus needs replacing on the page. Digifiend (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsround "firsts"?

The article states that "The programme was also first in Britain to report an assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in Vatican City in 1981 and provided the first reports from the Windsor Castle fire of November 1992." I have a clear recollection of the first report of the 1981 shooting. The Pope's photo appeared on screen, followed by a brief "official" newsflash from BBC News. Newsround followed immediately afterwards, so strictly speaking it didn't break the story, although it was certainly in the reporting frontline on that occasion. (I seem to remember news of President Sadat's 1981 assassination breaking as Newsround came on air, but can't find any references to confirm this). News of the 1992 Windsor Castle fire broke around lunchtime - it was on Radio 4's The World at One - so how can Newsround have "provided the first reports" of that story? 85.255.233.92 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Newsround Specials

The list of NR Specials is getting quite long, and they are to be increased now the programme only has one bulletin a day - would it be worth creating a new page to list the episodes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.76.75 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

More about creation

Seeing social media coverage of today being the 50th anniversary of the show, I came to look up how the show first came about, but we don't have any real detail there.

I'm downgrading the article to C-class as a result. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)