Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Gangstress · 41-45, F
AntisocialTroll · 56-60, F
alan20 · M
View 1 more replies »
alan20 · M
@Fluffybull She showed courage and progressive thinking towards Ireland and her reaching out definitely did good. It doesn't make me a monarchist or oblivious to the fact that a large chunk of the population lose all sense of proportion when it comes to royalty, something the media pander to.
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@alan20 I don't think the BBC has too much say in the matter, unfortunately. It's a role that is expected of it by the government and they will be roasted by the Daily Mail if they do not provide this sort of coverage. I was rather alarmed by a headline on 8 September: "History has stopped". No one has mentioned if it has started again 🥺
ArishMell · 70-79, M
[i]Emmasfriend, Samualtyler[/i]
For some reason the Reply symbol on your two posts, one of them responding directly to me, is off.
However, genuine News consists of straight facts and reasoned analysis, and any opinions expressed should be clearly those of interviewees or cited quotes, and stated as such.
The BBC - which includes the World Service - and ITV do generally follow these principles.
There is an important, recognised problem of balance though, caused by interviewees or invitees themselves; [i]not[/i] by the journalists.
- If one side presents its case but the other lacks the courage and courtesy to take the offered opportunity, It is very hard for listeners to understand and judge the matter objectively.
This often happens on programmes like [i]You And Yours[/i] where the failed or wrongful party "is not available for comment", merely issues a bland "statement" as meaningless as an old-fashioned corporate "mission statement" - or simply refuses the invitation out of hand. It does not occur to them that their refusal is so self-defeating!
- Alternatively, the factual and reasoning partner is poor at explaining them; but is up against someone talking utter rubbish but very persuasively. In political debates everyone knows the interviewees are there to present their Parties' own opinions, even when interviewees waste the opportunity by merely spouting dodgy numbers, cliches and attack on their opponents. Instead, relative arguing ability is more likely to affect a-political debates of truth against for example, pseudo-science, cults, historical distortion.
The greatest threat to balance and freedom generally in democratic nations is not from real public-service broadcasters like the BBC, ITV and Channel Four (though discount the last if it is sold to God-Knows-Whom abroad - even perhaps Fox, Disney, Dubai or China...). It is not from mainstream newspapers because their political outlooks are well-known and usually fairly clear. It is instead, the Internet, via "social{?}-media" sites and blogs.
For some reason the Reply symbol on your two posts, one of them responding directly to me, is off.
However, genuine News consists of straight facts and reasoned analysis, and any opinions expressed should be clearly those of interviewees or cited quotes, and stated as such.
The BBC - which includes the World Service - and ITV do generally follow these principles.
There is an important, recognised problem of balance though, caused by interviewees or invitees themselves; [i]not[/i] by the journalists.
- If one side presents its case but the other lacks the courage and courtesy to take the offered opportunity, It is very hard for listeners to understand and judge the matter objectively.
This often happens on programmes like [i]You And Yours[/i] where the failed or wrongful party "is not available for comment", merely issues a bland "statement" as meaningless as an old-fashioned corporate "mission statement" - or simply refuses the invitation out of hand. It does not occur to them that their refusal is so self-defeating!
- Alternatively, the factual and reasoning partner is poor at explaining them; but is up against someone talking utter rubbish but very persuasively. In political debates everyone knows the interviewees are there to present their Parties' own opinions, even when interviewees waste the opportunity by merely spouting dodgy numbers, cliches and attack on their opponents. Instead, relative arguing ability is more likely to affect a-political debates of truth against for example, pseudo-science, cults, historical distortion.
The greatest threat to balance and freedom generally in democratic nations is not from real public-service broadcasters like the BBC, ITV and Channel Four (though discount the last if it is sold to God-Knows-Whom abroad - even perhaps Fox, Disney, Dubai or China...). It is not from mainstream newspapers because their political outlooks are well-known and usually fairly clear. It is instead, the Internet, via "social{?}-media" sites and blogs.
alan20 · M
I do think there's a problem with the use of the English language. Thus we were told locally that one group of women who were kicking a ball around a field had "thrashed" another group similarly employed. That must have been worth the watching! A local shopkeeper had "admitted" that a new one-way traffic system was adversely affecting his business; had he previously denied it? And so on. I wouldn't go back to the days when radio news readers had to wear evening suits but script writers need to be more careful about the language than "The Sun".
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@alan20 I agree.
Other examples are the sloppy misuse of technical terms, in metaphors meant to sound clever:
[i]Epicentre[/i], from seismology, does [u]not [/u]mean [i]centre[/i].
You might choose your [i]course [/i](of action, policy, life, etc.), but you [u]cannot[/u] choose your [i]trajectory[/i].
[i]Technology[/i], invented I think in the 1930s, is a word that never really had a proper definition but is now so utterly debased, that is as lazy and meaningless as its ugly abbreviation, [i]tech[/i].
[i]Fracking[/i] is no more than slang, invented by American drilling-rig labourers; though the proper term, [i]hydraulic fracturing [/i] could be shortened to just [i]fracturing[/i], when the context is clear.
'
Something may be[i] inspiring[/i], but is not [i]inspirational[/i]!
The word is [i]mix[/i] or [i]blend[/i], not [i]meld.[/i]
The BBC's music presenters need also learn the difference between [i]acoustic[/i] (adjective) and [i]acoustics[/i] (noun), and that a large hall may be [i]reverberant[/i] but cannot possibly be [i]resonant [/i] to the human ear.
Please teach Melvin Bragg that even though many of his guest historians, like many modern novelists, have never learnt the Past Tense; he should have done. Weather forecasters similarly: but they need know the Future Tense!
@@@
There was a genuine reason for the formal dress in the past. The announcers themselves often had to interview important people - and politicians - in a studio or office so needed present themselves in a fully professional, smart style.
Their rather over-cultivated Received Pronunciation was allied to this. It stemmed from expecting high-quality British English clearly understood even to overseas listeners, or studio guests, for whom English was their second language.
Now many interviews are by telephone; increasingly unreliably so, probably due to increasing use of portable rather than wired, telephones.
Other examples are the sloppy misuse of technical terms, in metaphors meant to sound clever:
[i]Epicentre[/i], from seismology, does [u]not [/u]mean [i]centre[/i].
You might choose your [i]course [/i](of action, policy, life, etc.), but you [u]cannot[/u] choose your [i]trajectory[/i].
[i]Technology[/i], invented I think in the 1930s, is a word that never really had a proper definition but is now so utterly debased, that is as lazy and meaningless as its ugly abbreviation, [i]tech[/i].
[i]Fracking[/i] is no more than slang, invented by American drilling-rig labourers; though the proper term, [i]hydraulic fracturing [/i] could be shortened to just [i]fracturing[/i], when the context is clear.
'
Something may be[i] inspiring[/i], but is not [i]inspirational[/i]!
The word is [i]mix[/i] or [i]blend[/i], not [i]meld.[/i]
The BBC's music presenters need also learn the difference between [i]acoustic[/i] (adjective) and [i]acoustics[/i] (noun), and that a large hall may be [i]reverberant[/i] but cannot possibly be [i]resonant [/i] to the human ear.
Please teach Melvin Bragg that even though many of his guest historians, like many modern novelists, have never learnt the Past Tense; he should have done. Weather forecasters similarly: but they need know the Future Tense!
@@@
There was a genuine reason for the formal dress in the past. The announcers themselves often had to interview important people - and politicians - in a studio or office so needed present themselves in a fully professional, smart style.
Their rather over-cultivated Received Pronunciation was allied to this. It stemmed from expecting high-quality British English clearly understood even to overseas listeners, or studio guests, for whom English was their second language.
Now many interviews are by telephone; increasingly unreliably so, probably due to increasing use of portable rather than wired, telephones.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@emmasfriend is there any news which isn't biased in some way?
Northerner · 70-79, M
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
Pfuzylogic · M
SethGreene531 · M
onewithshoes · 22-25, F
Rolexeo · 26-30, M
News reporters be like "No, it's 1! We're the most trusted name in news!"
vetguy1991 · 51-55, M
Clock might be off
