Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The dubious journalism of the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg

Won’t she be taking over from Marr? Seems like an obvious succession, it’ll be like having Jo Whiley interview politicians.
 
GarveyLives said:
Laura Kuenssberg’s Time as BBC Political Editor has been a Catastrophic, Systemic Failure
Click to expand...
Whenever I read an article like that I do find myself groaning, though I'm not sure how good a job I can do of fully explaining why. I'll try though.

First, this quote from that article:

This was problematic, primarily because – for the first time in my lifetime – the Prime Minister and those around him lied unashamedly.
Click to expand...

lol, what bullshit. The complaint here actually seems to be that the lies werent good enough lies, and that they were too blatant, were parroted in too crude a manner. We are apparently only supposed to demand a higher standard of lie, a more sophisticated act of fake balance and reporting. The lies are supposed to come with a side-serving of shame. But that wont stop me choking on the main course.

Thats one part of what leaves Kuenssberg open to such criticism. Another is generational - she is my generation and there seem to be plenty of this generation who just go through the motions, who lack gravitas and an appreciation of how these games were played in the past without coming across as lightweight, blatant chancers with no depth. But where this is so clearly seen in modern political journalism, and in the management of media corporations, I could simply suggest that it reflects what is also seen from politicians these days, in the post-'big beast' era.

But were things really any different in the big beast era? Wasnt that characterisation just another form of bullshit, designed to excuse the inexcusable? I'm not convince that the changes are much more than a stylistic difference, a difference caused by the absence of a form of deference that has rather fallen away in recent decades. Should I really express nostalgia for a time when the liars seemed more credible because some old beliefs gave them a more substantial foundation upon which to build their castles of bullshit? Those times were hardly lacking in gossip, insider connections, personal political ambitions dressed up as serious politics and dedication to ideology.

We can then sprinkle some sexism on top. And then we can consider that Kuenssberg also stands out because she has had this job during a period when the times they are a changing. A time when this vacuous style of pseudo-politics demonstrates its limitations when asked to operate during the return of political polarisation. A time that featured the end of the monopoly that so-called centrists had over the spectrum of political stances that were considered legitimate, mainstream, and a potential part of the future not just the past.

Let me use the anti-Corbyn stuff as an example. Was this actually a new thing, something previously foreign to the DNA of the BBC? No, I dont think this was a new phenomenon at all, or something we wouldnt have previously expected from the BBC. It wasnt brand new, it was just something that had been largely absent for some decades because it wasnt deemed necessary. As soon as the political situation changed and these old ideological and policy factors actually became relevant again, the old propaganda was back. As soon as there were potential policy threats to the income and status of the middle managerial classes, and the interests they are designed to protect, smears for fears started playing their greatest shits as if the 'end of political history' wilderness years never happened.

I say all of the above as someone who is no fan of Kuenssbergs work, and who will be glad when she is no longer in the role. But what am I expecting is the best we could hope for from her successor? Articles like that one encourage us only to demand a better standard of lies, a more plausible impression of fairness and decency, propaganda with more depth. And sadly I dont expect more than a new veneer, although I could at least hope that there might be a lot more emphasis on the actual policies and stuff that matters to peoples lives. But I'd be surprised if the sort of person who gets that job can really reach far beyond the Westminster bubble, that is likely to remain the world in which they operate, they are after all creatures of that sphere and always have been.
 
Last edited:
He's long been all over R4 and Newsnight. Not sure of his background, although he is surprisingly not Amol Rajan.
 
I dont watch enough tv or listen to enough radio to have an opinion on him yet. The one article I read about him when he was appointed suggested he is a news nerd of the sort thats resembled a 50 year old throughout his adult life, and whose personal political stance is hard to ascertain from his output. Although I wouldnt take that latter claim at face value without getting a prolonged chance to observe his output in his new role.
 
Always seemed more likeable than either Kuensberg or Nick Robinson (not difficult, admittedly), but that may be he's from the North (albeit the wrong bit - Yorkshire).
 
I find his delivery quite witty on radio 4 and he likes a knowing ironic comment, not really seen him on tv but suspect he’ll have to tone it down a bit for bbc1

elbows said:
The one article I read about him when he was appointed suggested he is a news nerd of the sort thats resembled a 50 year old throughout his adult life
Click to expand...
Yes exactly this!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
Gramsci
Gramsci
E
Rewatching the 1997 General Election (bbc iplayer) and memories of it
2 3 4 5
Replies
132
Views
4K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
Kid_Eternity
BBC Panorama 2nd Oct 2023: The Abercrombie Guys: The Dark Side of Cool
2 3 4
Replies
117
Views
7K
Idris2002
Idris2002
danny la rouge
Trouble at the BBC
Replies
11
Views
784
Cerv
C
Larry O'Hara
Bowyer Bell Secret Army BBC 27.3.24
Replies
21
Views
614
JimW
JimW
Back
Top Bottom