The Media (79)

Yes. No.

Yes. No.

It depends on which paper (or programme), and who's doing the judging.

I prefer the American press and media as they commit to a standard of journalism which the British media seem to have forgotten about a long time ago, especially the BBC. That's a comment on the process of journalism being procedurally well-defined, rather than a comment about ownership of media channels or vested interests in the nature of the story (the issue of "who wants a story told and why?").

The medium by which the presentation is made (paper, electronic data, audio, Chinese whispers, CRT or various other types of screen) is just that and who ever owns a given medium expects to profit from that ownership.

So little of each medium which acts as a channel to distribute information carries actual information that they are becoming forms of pure entertainment rather than researched, accurate, independent fact. Once the 'customer' cares only to be entertained and not informed then "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" will become the standard of output across all media because people want their time filled in instead of their knowledge expanded.

Relative to the OP ... state media is pure propoganda, anything else which is profit motivated will serve up whatever makes them money. And if that has to be puerile rubbish then puerile rubbish it will be.

"Fork handles?" "No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles."

Larry Law, 'Images And Everyday Life'

"He took a single sip of her pain and found it exquisite"

America is an interesting case . They have the advantage over the British media in that they have the First Amendment protecting free speech and they are unencumbered by our libel laws .

It seems to me that there is vigorous debate in both countries media BUT only within very narrow margins . Views outside those margins are ignored . I don't know about America but the social background of news journalists in Britain seems disturbingly similar . Not many of them would have been to a comprehensive .

" Yeah . Well I love my cigar but I take it out once in a while " Groucho Marx

I'm fascinated - could you give an example of any American media that have 'high standards'? The only one that comes to mind is the NY Times. Beyond that, almost all other newpapers and news radio/tv is either very dumbed down or very partisan.

Tall, Dark and Handsome are all words...

You provide your own example of a sloppy British approach by implying I said something which I didn't. My comment referred to different standards, with the Americans being better than the British in my opinion but not necessarily high in an absolute sense.

My rage with the BBC is that they've forgotten the difference between editorial comment and actual reporting and so the looker/reader/listener can be assuming that the information they are receiving is from gathered, corroborated, attributable information when in actual fact it is the witterings of a commentator who has 2 minutes of time to fill and is parading his/her own opinion on the airwaves under the BBC brand name. They ought to have an "IMO" flashing somewhere on the screen so everyone is aware that this is commentary and not news. I'd go one further to boost the entertainment value of commentary and get some of the folk contracted to light-entertainment to guest appear on BBC 'News' 24 to do a commentary spot as well; reverse the flow of 'news' people into comedy, dancing etc; call it News-Lite-24. It'd be a lot closer to the current format anyway and a lot more honest about that.

"Fork handles?" "No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles."

Even if that were true, it hardly seems a valid cause for "rage"

That the BBC have not forgotten this important distinction is evident from the trouble Lise Doucet (oh rats, I've forgotten how to spell her name) got into over a mometary and quite human lapse a few years ago.

I've found Auntie's coverage of recent events to be remarkably even-handed in a way which hopefully sets the tone for the next decade or so of reporting. To be sure, it would have been almost impossible to air reports from both sides of the front line in the Balkans 20 years ago, but now that governments allow that - or at least are resigned to it - it gives broadcasters both opportunities and problems. The BBC's approach of gathering a lot of material and clearly distinguishing between that which can be verified and that which can't is probably the right thing to do.

It's just a case of caveat emptor, and allows one to gain a far better overview than otherwise. I can't quite figure out whether you're narked because you think other viewers aren't going to be cavey enough (probably a fair observation ), or are blaming the BBC because you yourself aren't (which seems unfair....).

At least they do bother to send their own correspondents. I've seen reports on Reuters which turn up, verbatim, in broadsheets two days later

So no actual examples then?

You provide your own example of making a baseless argument that you can't substantiate and which ends up being just screed against the BBC.

So - I will ask again. Please give me an example or American media that you rate as having standards that you think British media should be trying to achieve? Having lived there for several years, I think you will struggle, but I am intrigued to see what you come up with. And lets see if you can do it without attacking me?

Tall, Dark and Handsome are all words...

Read the top 25 in a mag, but haven't examined linked site yet, can't comment on that.

The silky-smooth soothing voice of reason and logic. (You WILL feel much better and speak more sense while very securely tied-up...)

Edited 27 Mar 11, 8:35 PM by SirLashleyS