Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

why the bbc is going down the pan


What word is that? It's deemed important enough for a story, but the article doesn't quote the word, so we're left uninformed as to the sort of word an artist might now use in a song and which might provoke a backlash causing the song to be rewritten.
 

What word is that? It's deemed important enough for a story, but the article doesn't quote the word, so we're left uninformed as to the sort of word an artist might now use in a song and which might provoke a backlash causing the song to be rewritten.
the line is
"Spazzin' on that ass, spaz on that ass"
 
Worth a read. Penned by Annette Dittert who I've only recently come accross:

BBC TV Presenter Emily Maitlis : Biased in favour of the Truth
Maitlis gave a keynote lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival and managed to make some rather good points.

The presenter said there had been a wider assault on journalism on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years - in which media organisations "are primed to back down, even apologise, to prove how journalistically fair we are being".

In her speech, Maitlis said many journalists now self-censor in order to appear balanced and avoid backlash, adding that "the way populist rhetoric is used to discredit journalists turns into a sophisticated form of 'soft censorship'".

She suggested any fear by the BBC and other media outlets to fully tackle the impact of Brexit "feels like a conspiracy against the British people".

Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.

"But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't."

She described this "myopic style of journalism" as "both side-ism" - something "we tie ourselves in knots over" and which arrives at "a superficial balance whilst obscuring a deeper truth".

With reference to former US President Donald Trump, she continued: "Just as we now understand that when we hear the phrase 'fake news' we should see it through Trump's own definition - a conscious attempt to discredit and demean - let's not turn ourselves inside-out wondering if it's true.

"The more we recognise these tropes as old, slightly sad and malign friends, the better equipped we are to call them out."

She added that modern journalists like herself had helped to "normalise the absurd", and that in the future "whilst we do not have to be campaigners, nor should we be complaisant, complicit, onlookers".

 
Cheers, I will watch that in full at some point in the coming days.

Hopefully it is a very worthy successor to Dennis Potters 1993 version of the MacTaggart lecture which I may as well post.

 
Recalling Newsnight's coverage, Maitlis said: "It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.

"But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn't."

She described this "myopic style of journalism" as "both side-ism" - something "we tie ourselves in knots over" and which arrives at "a superficial balance whilst obscuring a deeper truth".
I just find this incredibly frustrating though. People have been telling the BBC to stop both-siding issues in the name of balance for DECADES. How has she - now that it is too late - just discovered that this is a bad thing the BBC does? It's infuriating.
 
Well she hasnt just discovered it, shes just in a position to say something about it now that she has left.

People who go into the mainstream often think they can live with this phoney balance, that somehow they can shine through despite the nature of management, that their abilities will overcome and that they can still do some good. Only when the frustration becomes to much and the futility of the matter causes them to leave are they prepared to fully acknowledge that it was impossible all along. Some of these thought processes are very much sponsored by some of the high and mighty claims about the merits of journalism that they are taught as part of their journalistic training, and then its just a question as to whether an individual fully buys into that stuff, partly buys into it, or have no such illusions and are cynical and ruthless. eg see the classic clip of Chomsky talking to a wide-eyed Andrew Marr, or Stephen Colbert at the White House press correspondents dinner with Bush.

Those who play the game for a time are indeed part of the problem, but belatedly coming out with this stuff is still better than nothing.

The fake balance does go beyond the BBC since some of its baked into our OFCOM rules. But the BBC take it to the extreme and from the point of view of the establishment this isnt a mistake, its part of the rigged game that keeps people in their place and gives the likes of the BBC some crap cover for leaning in the direction the powers that be want. I think it was Tony Benn that used to go on about how one of the functions of the BBC was to crush the hopes of those who hoped for meaningful change in their lives, meaningful change to the balance of power etc.
 
Perhaps if the mainstream state broadcasters version of propaganda and news is to remain relevant, is to be able to harness any advantages it still has on paper over the newer, more overt and vulgar form of propaganda shitheads in the era of 'fake news' and deeply partisan reconstructions of reality, they will have to indulge in telling it like it is a bit more.

Its always notable when the occasional exception leaks through. It takes the right person and the right format of programme, and the right battles being won behind the scenes. And in this deeply degraded BBC era examples are not so easy to come by, but where they do exist they may stick out even more in contrast. I dont watch enough BBC output to be highly confident of identifying such phenomenon in the current era, but perhaps "Ros Atkins On..." might count?
 
What currently holds the record for most complaints to the Beeb? A brief search suggests it was the Phil the Greek coverage last year. This grieving wankfest is surely going to shatter that.
 
What currently holds the record for most complaints to the Beeb? A brief search suggests it was the Phil the Greek coverage last year. This grieving wankfest is surely going to shatter that.
Wonder if you can complain atm. Or is that page frozen out of respect?
 
'Footage online showed police attempting to hold back crowds as objects including bottles were thrown. A resident from Green Lane Road said what she witnessed on Saturday evening was "very intimating".'

 
Hmmm i just read that and from their reportage it is none too clear as to why it had all kicked off. A quick look on Twitter offers some explanations from the perspective of both sides. could possibly do with it's own thread:





 
Both MOTD last night and MOTD2 tonight are on ludicrously late, coming after special extended news bulletins. I presume the latter went in depth into the goings on in Ukraine and Pakistan, the cost of living crisis and that lad shot by police last week, which used up all the time.
 
The BBC should probably pay a bit more attention when it updates its dull template state of Covid in the UK article. Wakey wakey BBC, hospital figures are rising so you need to replace the word down with up.

I'd also like to complain that their coronavirus section of the website doesnt seem to emphasise every single article these days, especially if its bad news. eg the latest article about ONS infection survey showing a rise is not featured prominently at the top of the page, but an older one where the ONS data was still showing a fall is still featured. Scrolling down to their timeline of updates on the page does show that latest article, but its not exactly prominent.

More recent figures for England show 5,142 people in hospital with coronavirus as of 21 September, down from 4,540 the previous week.

 
Last edited:
Apparently you can get DNA from people if you're next to them when they snore:

"Around 1-4% of modern human DNA comes from our ancestors sleeping with Neanderthals and this inheritance affects our ability to respond to diseases including Covid. "

It's not Newsround or an entertainment article but a science one:

 
Back
Top Bottom