BBC News Values

DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
edited January 2020 in Hell
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:
  • 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 !
«13

Comments

  • Just so.

    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?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the website is responsive to what people choose to read. I don’t think that’s a good thing if it’s true, but it does mean that effectively it’s the Great British Public™ who have chosen it.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    And we have to be glad that the headline wasn't about what she was wearing.
  • I turned off Today (the flagship morning radio news programme) because they said absolutely nothing about a plane going down and kept repeating the same phrases about what Trump might tweet this morning.

    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.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the website is responsive to what people choose to read. I don’t think that’s a good thing if it’s true, but it does mean that effectively it’s the Great British Public™ who have chosen it.

    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.

  • The BBC have gone from reporting the news to reporting on the news. That's literally it, and given that the news agenda is dominated by the right-wing press, that's what they report on. They used to have actual journalists who would go out and ask questions and investigate stories. Now they have people who ask other journalists what their opinion is, and those opinions are invariably right wing.
  • Any BBC world service listeners out there? I keep meaning to give it a go. I also use RTE Radio 1 (on the old Atlantic 252 LW frequency, or internet radio if you go for that new-fangled kind of thing) for an alternative view, especially as regards UK politics.
  • World Service drives me nuts. It's like Radio4 but without any of the good stuff.
  • I’d recommend radio 4 extra.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    The BBC have gone from reporting the news to reporting on the news. That's literally it, and given that the news agenda is dominated by the right-wing press, that's what they report on. They used to have actual journalists who would go out and ask questions and investigate stories. Now they have people who ask other journalists what their opinion is, and those opinions are invariably right wing.
    Half the time, they don't even report news, but what somebody has told them they are going to say in a few hours' or days' time. They've been fed press releases and regurgitate them because it's so much easier, cheaper and less trouble than actually finding news and reporting it.

    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.

  • @Doublethink

    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.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    The OP may have been slightly hyperbolic, but the point was made, nevertheless, IMHO.

    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.
  • For sure. The Sussexs may not have told the Queen, but can you imagine the furore if they'd lied to her...?
  • Well, the PM lied to her, and he got away with it...
  • I like the World Service. It tells you about all sorts of news you wouldn't normally hear because it's happening "abroad"
    I find it more measured than Radio 4
  • I am a bit confused about the McGann reference. Didn't that conviction happen a month ago? Are you saying, Doublethink, that news was restricted in the UK till yesterday?

    The rest of the rant was magnificent, by the way.
  • I am a bit confused about the McGann reference. Didn't that conviction happen a month ago? Are you saying, Doublethink, that news was restricted in the UK till yesterday?

    This person: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50688975

  • My friend told me the other day that they've given up listening to news for the sake their mental health.

    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.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I read The Guardian, The Irish Times and occasionally Slate. Oh, and Tom & Lorenzo Fabulous and Opinionated for the really important stuff.

    Thus I maintain my sanity. Just.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The BBC does have some good journalism. Business news is well done for instance. Do you prioritise home news or foreign news.
    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.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    The BBC does have some good journalism. Business news is well done for instance. Do you prioritise home news or foreign news.
    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.

  • "Media organisation reports news in a different order of priority than I would have chosen".

    You'll get over it.
  • "Media organisation reports news in a different order of priority than I would have chosen".

    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.
  • In the distant past, the BBC reported the news Lord Reith thought people ought to hear. In these enlightened days, the BBC is asking people to choose what they want to hear. You can't have it both ways.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    In the distant past, the BBC reported the news Lord Reith thought people ought to hear. In these enlightened days, the BBC is asking people to choose what they want to hear. You can't have it both ways.

    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?
  • Is it possible that they're spending so much time on a relative not-story because it serves as leaven in the midst of the Apocalypse?

    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.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ...
    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 !
    Yep. 24 hours later, I've been out all day. I came in. What was still the lead item on the 6pm BBC television news - complete with correspondents ready and waiting to be interviewed and a vox pop round Nottingham? The Ukrainian aeroplane and Australian fires came well down the pecking order. Then the local news. Guess what the lead item was there, with another, more local, vox pop. Then, before I eventually turned it off, what was The One Show going to feature?

    @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).

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Right now; 19:46 9th Jan they have:

    “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.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Doublethink

    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.

    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.
  • There has been no coverage in the BBC of the fact that the Iraqi leader had invited Soleimani to peace talks, prompted by... the US.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    It’s very fleetingly mentioned here, but only to say Pompeo dismissed that.
  • This is from 2010, but quite evocative, I think (source).
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    I am a bit confused about the McGann reference. Didn't that conviction happen a month ago? Are you saying, Doublethink, that news was restricted in the UK till yesterday?

    This person: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50688975

    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.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Doublethink

    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.

    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.

    Parts of Australia are on fire.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Doublethink

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • Yeah, I hate to say it, Simon Toad, but that’s sounding quite Scummo-like on your part. Loss of human life is terrible, but the absence of that loss so far doesn’t mean we’re not on fire.
  • sure, it's significant, sort of. I mean Scotland is quite little. But to say Australia is on fire is hyperbole, and for some reason the hyperbole is shitting me. Looking about for a reason for that, I stumble upon the fact that 10 years ago, 173 of my fellow Victorians were burnt to death and 400-odd were burnt or otherwise injured, but survived. And it didn't happen in the middle of the wilderness, one of the fires started close to our place, and it tore through a place called Kinglake, maybe 40 mins from here, killing and maiming as it went. So I'm a bit fucking jittery about it, mmmkay?

    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.

  • I've been to Australia. Much of it is incapable of being on fire. So I guess the question is "how much of Australia that could be on fire, is actually on fire?"

    And looking at maps, that seems to me to be "a lot".
  • If my sofa catches light in my living room is my house of fire?
  • oh for fuck's sake
  • I don't trust the BBC for my news. But I do use it to find out about stories, and pick up (non-political) stories.

    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.
  • It’s very fleetingly mentioned here, but only to say Pompeo dismissed that.

    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?
  • Enoch wrote: »
    The Ukrainian aeroplane and Australian fires came well down the pecking order.

    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.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    The Ukrainian aeroplane and Australian fires came well down the pecking order.

    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.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    '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?

    Assuming that both Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Abdul-Mahdi are habitual liars might be a good starting point.
  • Blahblah, I did not say that you could not have views on the quality of what is broadcast. Giving people what you believe they want, as opposed to what you think they ought to want, will affect the nature of what is given.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Blahblah, I did not say that you could not have views on the quality of what is broadcast. Giving people what you believe they want, as opposed to what you think they ought to want, will affect the nature of what is given.

    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.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Blahblah wrote: »
    Eirenist wrote: »
    Blahblah, I did not say that you could not have views on the quality of what is broadcast. Giving people what you believe they want, as opposed to what you think they ought to want, will affect the nature of what is given.

    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.)
  • Blahblah, I obviously didn't make my meaning clear. 'You' is sometimesused to mean 'one', - in this case the BBC. It wasn't aimed at you personally, though admittedly we are in Hell.
  • Make of this what you wish: but a headline on the BBC Wales section of the News website is: "Rogue slugs sabotage traffic lights".
This discussion has been closed.