BBC News Values
Doublethink
Shipmate
So I’m still not over the massive pro-Tory press bias, though the BBC is not the worst for this - it is definitely an issue as various academic studies have verified. In the BBCs case it continues - see total lack of focus on Johnson’s prominent absence in the recent pass.
But actually:
My beef at this moment is that:
And what is the BBC website headline as at 20:28 8th Jan 2020 ?
“Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals”
For fuck’s sake !
But actually:
My beef at this moment is that:
- War between the US and Iran may just about have been averted
- An airliner has crashed in Tehran killing over 150 people
- Australia is on fire
- Yesterday the most prolific rapist in British legal history was convicted, and reporting restrictions have only just been lifted so there are matters to be reported
- The UK government has set a budget date that legally obstructs the ability of the Scottish government to set its budget
And what is the BBC website headline as at 20:28 8th Jan 2020 ?
“Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals”
For fuck’s sake !
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This is why I have deleted the BBC News thingy from my desktop. It is a waste of time, and space.
But, of course, this is just another example of the Bread and Circuses approach, isn't it?
Which was particularly weird when the first article on their own news website was about the plane crash.
I can't wait to not listen to it tomorrow morning when they'll have forgotten the hundreds who died in a plane crash and instead will be talking for hours about the trials of being a British Royal.
I'm pretty sure it isn't. The order of displayed news on the website changes depending on where you are when you look at it (different countries get a different collection of news) but that's an editorial decision.
And on 'reporting on reporting' a year or two back I actually submitted a formal complaint about the amount of time that World at One had spent talking about a row that had erupted about the salaries among their own staff. The story had some minor public importance, but the weight they were giving it - about ⅓ of the programme - was treating the national news as though it were their own in-house staff magazine. The bland brush-off I got the first time was so perfunctory that I then complained about that as well. I didn't get anywhere, of course, and hadn't expected to. But at least somebody had had to spend a few minutes answering my complaints. If enough people do it, perhaps something will sink into their complacency.
Australia is not on fire. Property losses, yes, loss of flora and flora yes. A significant but small number of people have died. But in 2009, 173 people died in Victoria and more than 400 were injured AND there were property losses AND there was substantial loss of flora and fauna. So, you know... the media are looking to sell newspapers and are over-egging things again.
Here's a link to the Victorian and NSW fire maps, if you want to follow along. Think of us later this month and during February and March. That's when things get hairy in the more settled parts of Victoria.
However bad the fires in Australia may be, they're not seen by the media in the UK as more important/newsworthy than the antics of the Royal Family.
I find it more measured than Radio 4
The rest of the rant was magnificent, by the way.
This person: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50688975
I thought that this wasn't such a bad idea: I now listen to the BBC flash update, which is a minute long, and have been experimenting with listening to radio channels from around the world. I feel much better.
Thus I maintain my sanity. Just.
I saw several pieces on the multiple rapist convicted recently.
Even the most serious papers lead with Harry. Like it or not the royals are popular and do constitute big news. I don’t think they should be but they are.
Well, yes, I agree - but it's the constant day-by-day, blow-by-blow, coverage of 'Royal' (and other trivial) affairs that gets on my wick.
THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO THINK ABOUT - such as Trump starting WW3, for example - which, if it occurs, will doubtless wipe out the 'Royals' as well as the rest of us.
You'll get over it.
Probably, but that's not a reason to ignore the inadequacies of the national broadcaster that has a near monopoly of news.
People can't have an opinion on the quality of output of BBC news because other people had an opinion on Lord Reith.
You realise that's utterly ridiculous, do you?
Mind you, the so-called "feed" on my tablet is nothing BUT leaven--I really don't care who bravely wore a bikini at age 53 up to and including Trump. And that's pretty much all they're offering.
@Doublethink you guessed right.
Having lived at one stage in my life in a republic, I'm emphatically not a republican. But Prince Harry these days is well down the line of succession. It's news, but it's not that big news. It's not even all that interesting unless one accepts that the purpose of the BBC and the other news media is to be the official soporific to the GBP (Great British Public).
“Iran mistakenly shot down Ukraine jet - US media”
Cos in a war with a massively partisan press and serial liar as a president - an-American-news-outlet-said-Iran-did-a-bad-thing is apparently an acceptable substitute for investigative journalism.
If they are just trying to keep up with the speed of twitter, it’s a race they will always lose - their usp should be accuracy not speed.
It is on fire, we have all seen the fire, it is particularly bad this year - it may get worse later but it doesn’t mean there is not fire now. I remember the fires of 2009 even though I don’t live there - I remember not least because at that point the BBC treated it as important. They covered it in depth, which is how I became aware of the term ‘crown fire’ for the first time.
Thank you, Blahblah.
And it is awful that two such individuals have infected the UK so recently. But naive of me to not think there may be many similar still out there.
Parts of Australia are on fire.
I know Australia is implausibly vast, but it is still significant when an area the size of Scotland burns.
I have no idea of the relationship between my stated reason and my emotional response. But I imagine that I will be living in this state of tension till April. So don't fucking tell me my country is on fire. Its not, but my part of it might be soon.
And looking at maps, that seems to me to be "a lot".
But the problem I now have is that I tend to get my news from Twitter, which is also not entirely reliable. I try to follow up on any political stories, but I always have the problem if where can I get news that is honest?
And that problem is one that others also have, and many others don't have the time or skill to check up.
Thanks @Doublethink: 'Mr Pompeo referred to media reports that Soleimani had been on a peace mission to Baghdad at the time he was killed, saying: "We know that wasn't true."', so the PM of Iraq is lying?
Both were extensively reported when they first happened. Have there been any developments in the stories, or do you think the lead BBC headlines should be "Crashed Plane Is Still Crashed (but you already knew that)" and "Australian Fires Still Burning (but you already knew that)"?
And that's quite aside from the question of how important or relevant a plane crash in Iran and some bush fires in Australia actually are to the British public. A British broadcaster prioritising British news seems reasonable to me.
Some bickering among some very wealthy people that in no way affects their constitutional role isn't particularly important or relevant either.
Assuming that both Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Abdul-Mahdi are habitual liars might be a good starting point.
You said "you can't have it both ways" as if that's self evident.
Clearly it isn't. It is possible to imagine a sensible news organisation that is not simply a tabloid. You implied that the two opposites, of Tabloid vs Reithism are the only two possibilities and that the same people were complaining about both.
Clearly that's nonsense.
I guess the third-option between Tabloidism and Reithism would be...
A top-down system, but one that prioritizes following objective standards of good journalism, rather than the ideological whims of a bunch of old fuckheads at the very top.
Or maybe...
A grassroots oriented system, but one that prioritizes those viewers and listeners who hanker after good journalism, rather than the ones who want to see more photos of Pippa Middleton's backside.
The trick is, of course, getting either of those beyond the realm of truism. Because Lord Reith probably did think he was practicing good journalism when he banned anti-Nazi speakers from the airwaves(I mean, Churchill was obviously a lying hack, wasn't he?). And the people who want to see Pippa's butt probably do think that it is an important story(especially if you can find some cultural-studies prof somewhere to analyse it in terms of post-feminist iconography in the digital age.)