A post about news broadcasts – what are they, and are they really ‘news’?
Readers of this blog will recall my difficulties with the BBC here and here, questioning standards of broadcasting, and examining the future of the BBC as a public service broadcaster. This post is different – for here I seek to address a commercial aspect of ‘news broadcasting’, asking the question: what are we being given…is it really news or something else?
This morning I awoke early. Of the three regular ‘news broadcasters’ – BBC Radio 4, Times Radio, and when necessary Talk Radio, I chose Aasmah Mir and Stig Abell of Times Radio, not least because I admire Abell as a broadcaster and enjoy the interaction of the co-presenters.
In those drifting moments between dozing and wakefulness it appeared as if the programme producers were obsessed by one topic. Whilst not to the exclusion of others such as GP retirements, Ukraine, a small spot on climate change and sport, the latter part of the programme was dominated by the topic of the Conservative party vote on the Prime Minister.
Admittedly, this was and remains an important issue. The outcome of the vote will have national implications and inevitable international repercussions – but so called ‘news’ coverage extended far beyond information sharing and news reporting. It mainly comprised opinion on speculation, with contributors (mostly politicians) informing us what ‘the British public was thinking’, and re-defining opinion as fact.
It was the BBC that replaced news bulletins, with news and comment in its present popularist, rolling form. In the early days, commentary involved reasoned analysis, often from highly informed sources, mostly as objective (as any opinion can be), embracing, exploring and comparing options, balancing opposing views and considering them fairly and without harassment.
Currently the ‘news programmes’ have sought another audience – one that is tolerant of micro-speculation, seeks drama, tuning into speculative faux-forecasts from bit-players, apparently relishing the interventionist and hectoring interviewing techniques from biased interrogators.
My questions: am I alone in lamenting the passing of proper news bulletins – broadcasts that reported facts and events, rather than a bilious diet of half-informed opinion from third party players and journalists? Why should news programming be continuously streamed? Do I really need to know what is anticipated from a statement, as opposed to being informed of its actual content?…’In the next hour the Prime Minister is likely to announce…..
What has been the purpose of an inordinate focus on ‘party-gate’, or the hypothesised aftermath of a failed vote? I ask myself whether I should continue to consume a diet of ‘news’, or simply turn to favoured podcasts for that tiny drop of discerning intelligence?
Whilst an advert may appear at the foot, this blog is neither monetarised, nor endorsing any product
Ageing Effortlessly 