Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Prince Rupert already has The Sun and the The Times, so a TV channel with the same values might be overkill.

I half agree with Helen about the BBC, but I think it's based more on a fictitious and rather nostalgic view of the BBC from a few decades ago than the BBC we have today, which is a strange mutant hybrid of establishment noise machine, engine of confused private enterprise, and public service channel.

My point was really that the BBC is considered far more objective than it really is, especially in the US.

It's no Fox, but while Fox is nakedly and hysterically a pure propaganda outlet, the BBC is more dangerous still. It shifted noticeably rightwards after Kelly/Gilligan, and you can find it repeating many of the same talking points uncritically, while relying on its international reputation to give them credibility.

But I think what we still have some of is the idea of the BBC, even if the real organisation is only loosely related to that ideal.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 12:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this; except that I think the rightward shift happened a fair while back,  people only noticed it after Kelly/Gilligan.

When John Birt was first in charge I think he wanted to return to the era of Weekend World with Peter Jay and the "Mission to Explain". However, I felt that this was already running counter to the infiltration of CNN 24-hour news standards of infotainment: First with news and bugger context.

Editors are notoriously "industry-fashion conscious" and all want to be seen to be the first to do things. eg, within months of Kirsty Young standing up on channel 5 news, practically every news programme featured correspondents marching around studios pointing at graphs on walls. So the idea that BBC News were going to do something dated and laughably 70s like explaining things was a total non-starter.

This is what is meant by dumbing down, and why News resists the idea so strongly. Yes, they feature correspondents reporting from all over the world, they get the best stories (ie sexy blood-soaked action of real-life people dying), but they would never dare depart from the conventional wisdom. Never explain something and allow the viewer a different viewpoint.

That's why they have the "Big Beast" interviews on News programmes. You allow a politician in to say his thing, you have another politican to say they're talking rubbish and then you tell everybody what they said. At no point will the BBC challenge the paradigm of their thinking. Don't confuse the audience, they're too stupid to think.

That's why Channel 4 News is the best on the box. They almost never do big beast interviews, but get knowledgeable experts in to discuss, dissect and ridicule the politicians lies and mis-directions. The BBC no longer has the courage to do that.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jun 5th, 2007 at 08:13:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
when I still watched news on TV in hotels while travelling, was that BBC and CNN (International version) were undistinguishable. They talked about the same topics for the same amount of time with the same info.

Some Israel/Palestine (or, nowadays, Iraq), i.e. US ME entanglements, the big summit or weather crisis or shooting war du jour, and sports and fluff.

No actual news.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 6th, 2007 at 11:49:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series