Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The problem, if there is one, is that both the major channels, BBC,ITV, are obsessed with the Murdoch agenda (aka Sky news). So they don't give a toss about the paying customer, its a game between them all. The triumph of style over substance. Try giving up all news, TV, radio, papers for two weeks, it's very liberating but a bit dull after two weeks.

EDOldie Wrote:

Try giving up all news, TV, radio, papers for two weeks, it's very liberating but a bit dull after two weeks.


I've given up watching the news for a wee while now.

Do Dear Old Reginald Bosanquet,Andrew Gardner,Alaistair Burnett and Sandy Gall still read the news between them on ITV?

I DO like that young Selina Scott though,she has great potential.

Willow, you are so right.


Amazed no-one has brough up the random word emphasis.


"Here, standing at the school gates of what parents has called 'The Worst School In the World' the message of systematic failure for these children is clear. (drops voice) What the future may hold for them (ungrammatical pause) is less so. Weaselly Rimsqueak, BBC News, Himborough" *


*example made up, in case you aren't familiar with Rimsqueak's work.

Willow, I agree with many of your points regarding The Day Today style graphics and over gesticulating reporters (they are actually trained to do that - truthfully).


But I reckon BBC News is actually a lot better than it used to be. Take a look at this clip from Charlie Brooker's excellent Screen Wipe. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gLdHWng-3v8&feature=related



Check out from about 2'20" in. Lot's of clips from back in the 'golden age' of television news. Truly terrible.


There are lot's of things wrong with BBC news, and rolling 24 hour news is almost universally terrible. The fact is, by their nature, news programmes are effectively thrown together on the day. That's why you have visual cliches of punters looking at photo-albums, leafing through bills, walking through graveyards/the park, playing with their kids in the back garden. Camera crews are sent round to interview people, film them and get the pictures back often in much less than an hour. They are cliches, but time is a cruel mistress.


It could be much worse. Have you ever seen Fox news or CNN?

"But I reckon BBC News is actually a lot better than it used to be."


Nah. Don't agree with this arguement. I was recently watching an old video (remember them?) of Naked Gun 2/12 that I'd recorded yonks ago and I caught a glimpse of the 9 o' clock news that was shown before the film. It was depressing viewing. It was a video from only 14 years ago but it was like television news of a by-gone era. The basic quality of the journalism against the crap we see today is plane to see.

er, Newsnight


I think we only have ourselves to blame to be honest - they're trying to get an audience in - if we all stopped going online for our news and sat down to watch it as we did in days of yore when there were only three channels, then they wouldn't have to go pandering to the lowest common denominator


the BBC still has two flagship news programmes in the shape of Today and Newsnight, try watching / listening to them instead

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...