spook Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 The BBC trades on a reputation that it should have lost decades ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 We get the I, the Grauniad and Private Eye Whenever I read any newspaper item about something I know a lot about, they invariably have it wrong. Therefore I conclude that the articles about things I do not know about are inaccurate too. The whole process of news is formulaic. News is exactly the same shape and length everyday. It always fills the same amount of space, no matter what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I don't .. understand how you could accept .. anyone saying they .. believe the BBC is pro-Israel. I do not believe that the BBC is pro-Israel. I do not believe that the BBC is anti-Israel. What do you mean by "accept" ? Well, you wrote that in your opinion the BBC presents a balanced view. I deduced from that you are listening to the views of adherents of both sides to reach this conclusion. It follows that you think both sides genuinely suspect that the BBC favours their antagonists. My contention is that the coverage is so slanted against Israel that it is difficult to believe that anyone thinks the opposite. I think the reason the BBC takes the line it does is not a love of the Palestinians, but fear of arousing the ire of Muslims in the UK. We know they can be somewhat touchy and could be waiting with an axe for someone outside the studios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 TJ and Wooley are you trying to suggest that the Internet is not used to radicalise people? No. It certainly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Well, you wrote that in your opinion the BBC presents a balanced view. No I didn't. I wrote "That makes me think that the coverage is probably attempting as best as possible to be objective". Balance and objectivity are subtly different. I think the reason the BBC takes the line it does is not a love of the Palestinians, but fear of arousing the ire of Muslims in the UK. We know they can be somewhat touchy and could be waiting with an axe for someone outside the studios. This is doolally IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 The BBC trades on a reputation that it should have lost decades ago. Well, in your opinion anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Whenever I read any newspaper item about something I know a lot about, they invariably have it wrong. Therefore I conclude that the articles about things I do not know about are inaccurate too. SHOCK! HORROR! PROBE! Newspapers are produced by people who sometimes make mistakes. Well I never. What a strange assumption to make. One part is inaccurate therefore the rest MUST be. Oh well, each to their own I suppose. The whole process of news is formulaic. News is exactly the same shape and length everyday. It always fills the same amount of space, no matter what happens. Only if you watch the appalling so-called "rolling news" on the box. The way they regurgitate nonsense really is dumbing down in the worst possible sense. Those who criticise the Beeb should be forced to watch Fox rolling news for at least 24 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Newspapers are produced by people who sometimes make mistakes. Well I never. What a strange assumption to make. One part is inaccurate therefore the rest MUST be. Oh well, each to their own I suppose. I am saying that every article I read about something I know is inaccurate. Not sometimes. But typically I do not believe that this is about making mistakes. It is much more about the way in which news is written and edited. And it is to do with writers mimicking the style of previous writers. It's about fitting what is written into the shape and style of the space which it is intended to fill - and every day that same space will have a similar shaped article. It's the processes which are flawed IMO. Any news item or opinion piece must have a headline which effectively incorporates the conclusion. This is increasingly a problem at the advertising funded Guardian where so many of the articles are now written as clickbait - designed to annoy and create traffic in the comments. It would not surprise me if sooner or later writers will be paid according to the number of clicks and responses they generate. Real life does not fit into a layout or a news hour. In real life there are often no natural conclusions. The news process would be very much better if it were less layered with opinion (which does not mean that opinion should not be reported). If you look back at the Sunday Times front page articles about the Vietnam War (not the opinion pieces or photo stories) you can see that the reporting was much more like a list of what had taken place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Well, you wrote that in your opinion the BBC presents a balanced view. No I didn't. I wrote "That makes me think that the coverage is probably attempting as best as possible to be objective". Balance and objectivity are subtly different. >I think the reason the BBC takes the line it does is not a love of the Palestinians, but fear of arousing the ire of Muslims in the UK. We know they can be somewhat touchy and could be waiting with an axe for someone outside the studios. This is doolally IMO. Balance and objectivity. Hmmmm. What difference there is is extremely subtle in this sense. As for "waiting with an axe", I originally used the term alegorically, but then I was reminded of Drummer Lee Rigby, so who knows what they are capable of? We are not dealing with reasonable people here. Just forget the axe then for the general meaning. The spectre of arousing the ire of the Muslims in general is enough to send the establishment into a spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Balance and objectivity. Hmmmm. What difference there is is extremely subtle in this sense. Aiming towards objectivity is about not trying to infuse reporting with opinion. It's much more about trying to stick to facts. Balance can often be much more about, for example, affording opposing views equivalent coverage. It's not that these things are necessarily mutually exclusive (but they could be). Balance and objectivity are different editorial considerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 The reason news is so devoid of any real substance and details are inaccurate is that journalism, as we used to know it, is more or less dead. It's all lazy press releases and sound bites. Journalists also use the web to get their stories or any detail for them as it's quick and easy. There's no need to send men or women halfway round the world for a story when you can send then to communal media briefings in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 But typically I do not believe that this is about making mistakes. It is much more about the way in which news is written and edited. And it is to do with writers mimicking the style of previous writers. It's about fitting what is written into the shape and style of the space which it is intended to fill - and every day that same space will have a similar shaped article. It's the processes which are flawed IMO. Any news item or opinion piece must have a headline which effectively incorporates the conclusion. This is increasingly a problem at the advertising funded Guardian where so many of the articles are now written as clickbait - designed to annoy and create traffic in the comments. It would not surprise me if sooner or later writers will be paid according to the number of clicks and responses they generate. I thought The Grauniad was funded by a trust. So I'm assuming most of the above diatribe is directed at the online site? One of the few free access ones still worth a read imho. Real life does not fit into a layout or a news hour. In real life there are often no natural conclusions. The news process would be very much better if it were less layered with opinion (which does not mean that opinion should not be reported). If you look back at the Sunday Times front page articles about the Vietnam War (not the opinion pieces or photo stories) you can see that the reporting was much more like a list of what had taken place Now you're just stating the bleeding obvious. However I prefer to get differing opinions on the news as I'm not so arrogant as to think I know it all. After all, the QUALITY of the editorial and the various opinions is often what differentiates the good newspapers from the vast majority. However I think that has started to slide a bit over the last 20 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 After all, the QUALITY of the editorial and the various opinions is often what differentiates the good newspapers from the vast majority. However I think that has started to slide a bit over the last 20 years or so. Agree, but think it's a lot more than a bit. Also, the comprehension of their subject by those writing, as well as their command of the language and grammar have all declined considerably. It used to be a pleasure to read a quality newspaper for the sheer quality of the content, even if you didn't agree with it. Not any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Auberon Waugh was worth reading simply because of his use of the language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I'll connect in a bit with TJ's conspiracist mindset - I think the FT, the Economist and the WSJ provide a pretty good what's-the-cost view point of world affairs. The WSJ especially gives a view on the opinions of the powerful on the world. Foreign Affairs is also excellent, but it costs and takes 2 months to read, and as it publishes every month you end up getting increasingly behind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.