Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hi guys,

    what do you think of this? please express your opinions (emotions as well if you have some)

    my personal opinion - knowing that there are 22 voters only for the World Cup 2018, everybody including BBC would have understood that every opinion about the voters will be crucial.

    BBC panorama chose to present the FIFA story, a quite ooooold story, three days before the bidding. what's your view on why BBC did this and did this affect the vote?

    I think that BBC panorama should not have really done this. if the story they were telling was a fresh one, perhaps yes, I would accept that, as a news however bad any story is, it should be presented. but, having quite a strong assumption that BBC over many years has collected this information waiting specifically for a moment of FIFA bidding with England being one of the bidders to show this program, i think it was wrong. the question I ask is why? why now? to increase popularity of BBC panorama and to extend the number of people who know about BBC panorama? if so, they have achieved it, but in all honesty, they've achieved it in a disadvantage to them - for me personally ive lost my confidence in that program in terms of them being helpful to the country.

    and if the program was only aimed at telling the truth to the people, ok the truth is horrible, there is corruption all over the place - does it mean we have to stop wanting FIFA world cup to be hosted in England? none of us care how much corruption there has been in the FIFA and how big the pockets of the FIFA representatives are and even if we do then it's a completely different case, but what we do care about is World Cup being hosted in England - so why mix these two things together, just like panorama did, which would make it less likely for the UK to be voted for?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the BBC on this one. FIFA deserve to be ousted as the corrupted company which they are. For a company that claims they are a charity, they point blank refused local businesses the right to sell goods during the World Cup this year. For me, they should be shown for what they are and have the public decide on what should be done about them. Sepp Blatter has much to answer for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The BBC panorama didn't help but I doubt it was the reason we lost.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrundleThe...?)
    I agree with the BBC on this one. FIFA deserve to be ousted as the corrupted company which they are. For a company that claims they are a charity, they point blank refused local businesses the right to sell goods during the World Cup this year. For me, they should be shown for what they are and have the public decide on what should be done about them. Sepp Blatter has much to answer for.
    i completely agree with u, its completely disgusting to have FIFA so corrupt, but thats a completely different question from mixing the corruption of FIFA with the purest sport we all love. i mean, i would accept BBC having 100 times more disgusting things about the FIFA, but would it mean i dont want the world cup in the UK? not at all ,football is very different from FIFA and football should not suffer because of FIFA ..perhaps BBC should have shown this after the bidding, shouldnt it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im with the BBC on this one.

    Whats the point of exposing FIFA's corruption after the World Cup vote.

    It was best to have broke it before the vote. Freedom of Expression should always win when it comes to exposing corruption.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skyhigh!)
    The BBC panorama didn't help but I doubt it was the reason we lost.
    so what was the reason? another corruption, this time from Russia? lol

    no, i agree, it would be extraordinary to have one programme a reason why a country can lose a bidding, but im sure considering how small the number of voters are, surely every single vote is crucial isnt it? lets say out of 22, at least 3-4 of the voters were put down by the programme and did not vote for UK, even though 3-4 votes are not neccessarily crucial and decisive, surely nobody who wants a country to win can afford such a risk to put down 3-4 votes right?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    A few comments from various people seem to be appearing that suggest many would rather have the world cup than a free press.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vahik92)
    hi guys,

    what do you think of this? please express your opinions (emotions as well if you have some)

    my personal opinion - knowing that there are 22 voters only for the World Cup 2018, everybody including BBC would have understood that every opinion about the voters will be crucial.

    BBC panorama chose to present the FIFA story, a quite ooooold story, three days before the bidding. what's your view on why BBC did this and did this affect the vote?

    I think that BBC panorama should not have really done this. if the story they were telling was a fresh one, perhaps yes, I would accept that, as a news however bad any story is, it should be presented. but, having quite a strong assumption that BBC over many years has collected this information waiting specifically for a moment of FIFA bidding with England being one of the bidders to show this program, i think it was wrong. the question I ask is why? why now? to increase popularity of BBC panorama and to extend the number of people who know about BBC panorama? if so, they have achieved it, but in all honesty, they've achieved it in a disadvantage to them - for me personally ive lost my confidence in that program in terms of them being helpful to the country.

    and if the program was only aimed at telling the truth to the people, ok the truth is horrible, there is corruption all over the place - does it mean we have to stop wanting FIFA world cup to be hosted in England? none of us care how much corruption there has been in the FIFA and how big the pockets of the FIFA representatives are and even if we do then it's a completely different case, but what we do care about is World Cup being hosted in England - so why mix these two things together, just like panorama did, which would make it less likely for the UK to be voted for?

    Why are people blaming the BBC?

    The Times carried an article last week outlining the allegations of corruption.
    No uproar.

    What about the Birmingham City stadium yesterday?

    Perhaps London had the olympics and other well known events being held in the UK, FIFA thought Russia deserved a chance.

    How is the decision of FIFA influenced by the BBC? The BBC brought these allegations of corruption to the public attention- part of the public role as a media organisation to act as a check and balance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 'James Hunt')
    Im with the BBC on this one.

    Whats the point of exposing FIFA's corruption after the World Cup vote.

    It was best to have broke it before the vote. Freedom of Expression should always win when it comes to exposing corruption.
    but the point is that this is not politics , this is not a question of democracy and therefore a question of freedom of expression! if it was government elections, then yes, everybody should know the truth about candidates, but in here the question is about two very different things - FIFA, who BBC clearly hates, and the football - who im sure the majority of people love. unfortunately, FIFA has the full power to choose many aspects of football, it's just the way it is, doesnt it mean as a nation, the UK, who generally wanted world cup to be hosted in their country, be more careful about FIFA to get the world cup?

    in other words, was the winning of Panorama worth the loss the UK just had? was ashaming FIFA more valuable than losing the world cup bid?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If the fifa members change their vote based on a television programme they are corrupt and do not deserve to vote.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm.

    Organisation throwing a hissy fit over (justified) accusations about high level corruption within said organisation.

    Or.

    Organisation exercising it's right to investigate and report news issues freely and expose corruption in bidding for the biggest team sports competition in the world.

    I think I know which one I agree with, and I don't care whether the BBC's decision had a major impact on FIFA's since they were always in the right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vahik92)
    but the point is that this is not politics , this is not a question of democracy and therefore a question of freedom of expression! if it was government elections, then yes, everybody should know the truth about candidates, but in here the question is about two very different things - FIFA, who BBC clearly hates, and the football - who im sure the majority of people love. unfortunately, FIFA has the full power to choose many aspects of football, it's just the way it is, doesnt it mean as a nation, the UK, who generally wanted world cup to be hosted in their country, be more careful about FIFA to get the world cup?

    in other words, was the winning of Panorama worth the loss the UK just had? was ashaming FIFA more valuable than losing the world cup bid?
    I didn't mean to use the term as a legal right but more as a general freedom. The Panel would have wanted Panorama to keep shut but it was more important that we knew the truth. Imagine the outrage if the government had a legal provision to keep Panorama shut? I think it's in the public's interest that they showed FIFA for who they are, after all they pay towards the BBC and would have paid towards the World Cup.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 'James Hunt')
    I didn't mean to use the term as a legal right but more as a general freedom. The Panel would have wanted Panorama to keep shut but it was more important that we knew the truth. Imagine the outrage if the government had a legal provision to keep Panorama shut? I think it's in the public's interest that they showed FIFA for who they are, after all they pay towards the BBC and would have paid towards the World Cup.
    so, are you saying that because FIFA is corrupt you choose not to have World Cup in the UK? if you are, then i completely disagree with you, in my opinion FIFA is a completely different thing from football
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's because of the typical arrogant English attitude is why England didn't get it. Thinking they had it in the bag, pfffftttt. Pathetic!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vahik92)
    so, are you saying that because FIFA is corrupt you choose not to have World Cup in the UK? if you are, then i completely disagree with you, in my opinion FIFA is a completely different thing from football
    For as long as FIFA govern the voting on the World Cup and does not clear it's corruption then yes.

    By all means have football in England, you can even have a World Cup governed by Disney providing it was a clean governing body and voting proceedure then i would support it being held in England.

    Untill FIFA is clean from corruption then THE FIFA World Cup should not be in England.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 'James Hunt')
    I didn't mean to use the term as a legal right but more as a general freedom. The Panel would have wanted Panorama to keep shut but it was more important that we knew the truth. Imagine the outrage if the government had a legal provision to keep Panorama shut? I think it's in the public's interest that they showed FIFA for who they are, after all they pay towards the BBC and would have paid towards the World Cup.
    in addition, i am not saying panel should have kept panorama shut, the minute it did UK would lose its reputation as a democratic country. it should have been the decision of panorama, the programme that you rightly mentioned was funded by the public and therefore under a duty to do whatever is good for the public. but then u say the truth is for the public good - well, yes, the truth is generally good, but in this case the truth costed the UK a lot, a truth that would never ever affected life adversely of any of the UK's public.

    then you said taxpayers would fund the world cup. well, the world cup generally is expected to bring benefits to any country, indirectly. ok, government will spend money on organising it. but just think about the amount of tourists coming to the UK for world cup only and the amount they would have spent which they won't now, - world cup generally is expected to indirectly boost economy and bring money to the country, something which the UK really really needs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 'James Hunt')
    For as long as FIFA govern the voting on the World Cup and does not clear it's corruption then yes.

    By all means have football in England, you can even have a World Cup governed by Disney providing it was a clean governing body and voting proceedure then i would support it being held in England.

    Untill FIFA is clean from corruption then THE FIFA World Cup should not be in England.
    why shouldn't it? do you know how much it would've boosted the economy? how much jobs it would've created?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We lost, get over it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    FIFA 2-1 BBC

    Like I said in another thread.The smart thing that BBC could have done is put the documentary after the decision and not risking our bid. But they got on their high horse and done 3 days before it, which was massive blow to the bid. Now we're paying the price for BBC self-righteousness.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.