Okay, some of you Radio 4 fans aren't going to like me for this, but I had this story on Newsbiscuit yesterday:
Radio 4 dumping toxic smugness into nation’s rivers
In my defence, I wrote the story as someone who listens to Radio 4, but lately due to the unfortunate necessity of car journeys I have been listening to it too much. And in high doses the smugness is fucking unbearable. The story was edited by newsbiscuit but thankfully they kept the last two lines - which is the part of the story I liked the most. I could write an entire essay on those two lines but it wouldn't be as funny so I don't.
Hmm, yes. A while ago I did try sending some slightly abusive messages to the reporters on BBC news online asking why they felt the need to be "balanced" instead of telling the truth as they saw it... but it didn't really get me anywhere.
ReplyDeleteFor me the idea of 'balance' is one of the worst aspects of BBC reporting, undermining their reporting in quite a sinister way. It can be difficult to explain why, so I usually resort to offering an obviously extreme example. Imagine the government introduces a measure ordering all jews to wear yellows stars. The BBC would open their report with a description of the measure, would then go to a government minister explaining why the new law actually *protects* jews, and would then go to a civil liberties lobbyist (probably Shami Chakrabati) calling it 'outrageous'. The neutral introduction, plus the well-spoken government minister would come across with much more 'gravitas' than the spluttering, angry civil liberties defender. Then the story would be repeated every hour, with the government's well-prepared statements given much more time, and sounding very coherent, and a few seconds given over every now and then to the indignant and emotional objectors. Voila! Balance!
ReplyDelete