poliphilo | And I'm Not Talking Fox, I'm Talking The Good Old BBC

And I'm Not Talking Fox, I'm Talking The Good Old BBC

Sharon is "fighting for his life"- that's the reigning cliche. But how do they know? Sharon is in a coma; he's not doing anything- and if he is, it isn't visible to bystanders and certainly not to Our Special Reporter Camped Outside The Hospital (poor sod) or his Anchor. Maybe Sharon is longing to just get on with it and pay the ferryman and is furious with the doctors who are holding him back.

I don't know if the standard is getting worse or it's just that I've tumbled to their tricks, but I'm always catching myself shouting at the newscasters these days.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't want them to say "he's as good as dead" because there's the teensiest-weensiest chance that it might not be true.

What I want is less of Our Special Reporter hanging around at the hospital gates mouthing bromides. I want short, dignified medical updates and if there's no new information lets talk about something else.

We saw this same ghoulish deathwatch with Pope John Paul II. I think its lazy and stupid and unpleasant.

Is yours commercial TV? It is unpleasant... agreed... but those guys have to give the public what the public wants. Your problem... and mine... comes from being a bit of a misfit and not part of the average general public. If people like us want to get what we want from the media, we're gonna have to start buying a whole lot more name brand soap and Coca Cola...

Well no, the BBC is a publicly-funded broadcaster. And Channel 4- which I turn to for intelligent news coverage- is commercial.

I blame institutional inertia. People still watch the news programmes, because they have to get their news from somewhere- so why change a winning formula (even if it is lazy and cliche-ridden and dull)?

But I don't see why TV news can't be both popular and sharp.

"But I don't see why TV news can't be both popular and sharp."

And I don't see why car insurance agents can't be popular and sharp...
My presumption/assumption for both is that it must not be profitable... or they would be. Is it any different there?

I'm thinking that if someone came up with a fresh new way of presenting the news the public would switch over to it.

News programmes are so staid and dull. They all pretty much use the same formulae. Why do presenters have to sit behind desks for Heaven's sake? Why whenever there's a political story do the reporters have to be filmed in front of the White House or The Houses of Parliament? Why can't it all be more fun?

How did you get so old without getting cynical? I stopped asking questions like this 10 years ago. The answer is always the same. If it were profitable they would do it. Taking risks and doing creative things is financially risky. You and I and a handful of others out there might wish things were different by people like us are never part of their demographic. We just don't buy enough stupid stuff to make us a profitable group to cater to.

It's all about money and greed. It has been for a long, long time. Isn't it there?

I've led a very sheltered existence.

No, not really- but for some reason it's taken me a very long time to lose my faith in the basic decency of humankind.

Oh, I haven't really lost faith in the decency of humankind... I submit to you that what has changed is that "decent humankind" is no longer the majority... and majority rules. No?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

And I'm Not Talking Fox, I'm Talking The Good Old BBC

Re: Having recently come through this very situation...

Re: Having recently come through this very situation...

Re: Having recently come through this very situation...

Re: Having recently come through this very situation...

Re: Having recently come through this very situation...

Re: Having recently come through this very situation...

Re: Having recently come through this very situation...

Re: Having recently come through this very situation...