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

The standard is getting worse.

We used to have the worldwide breathless round-the-clock vigils when great heads of state were in trouble and that was that. Now we have them for every child who tumbles down a well.

That's not to denigrate the personal tragedy of the child and its family. But if you go over the top for everything, what's left when you really need to go over the top? Someone in a coma "fighting for his life", that's what. In a less media-saturated age, he would have been clinging to life, or some such construction tending more to the neutral.

I shout at the news, too, but from the vantage point of my own -isms. How come any time Bush is about to announce some good news, the verb to describe it is never "announces," or "praises," but "trumpets" or "touts", verbs that carry the baggage of flackery? Why can't our allegedly objective media find some objective words to describe what they're describing?

I guess some of this is down to rolling 24 hour news services. The controllers are hungry for stories that will play like soaps- just so they can fill up the vast wastes of time they have available.

We got a lot of coverage of those guys who were trapped in the mine. And I was thinking, this is just an intrusion on private grief, it's voyeuristic, it has no possible relevance to the lives of viewers in Britain.

Another thing I hate. Those interviews with victims and witnesses of crimes and catastrophes where they're asked how they feel.....

We Yanks, "the average man on the streets" type have a craving for drama. Without the drama we would get bored in 10 seconds and change the channel.

This is still me. I'm getting old and confused.

I don't think we Brits are any different.

You know anyone claiming to be objective these days? We don't like him anymore, some of us never did, but the polls say we don't now... and it's just more of "giving us what sells soap."

Sorry. I don't follow this. Seriously -- I have no idea what you're trying to say here. "We don't like him anymore" -- who's the we you had in mind, and who's the him?

I note that in other comments on this thread you speak a lot about "we Americans." I don't think that anyone can characterize my fellow citizens in so monolithic a fashion. We, meaning you and I, are likely to find that we have many things and common but also many points of difference.

When I was growing up my father, a journalism major, was adamant that opinion belonged on the editorial pages and not in news stories. That has pretty much gone by the boards these days. When an article begins something like, "In a desperate bid to buttress his flagging poll numbers, so-and-so claimed..." it's not reportage, it's opinion, and should be clearly labeled as such and put on the editorial or op-ed page.

This is no longer happening. I'm assuming that the end result will be a jaded public that says "it's all spin" and tries to sift out the bits of fact among the flood of opinion, but I acknowledge that I may be overestimating the capacity for critical thought of many consumers of U.S. media.

You're right about the way that Bush is being treated by the media. I noticed the "trumpets" thing the other day and was astonished for the reasons you note. It definitely expresses an opinion. The only way I could account for it is that all the other, objective news was about how iffy the economy is right now. At the same time, Bush and Cheney are trying to tell people how great it is. It makes them seem even more out of touch than usual.

"How iffy the economy is"...?

The Wall Street Journal has been on and on about how all the good news about the economy tends to be buried.

Always? Or just now?

Recent months. Sorry I can't be more specific but I didn't know there was going to be a quiz (*grin*).

That's fine. I find that an interesting POV, but forgive me if I don't believe it without seeing the article.

I'm also influenced by IBM's recent announcement that it's ending it's pension plan. While it doesn't affect me--I get no retirement benefits from IBM because I'm not really an employee--I think it expresses a view of the future that is not a rosy one. And it's certainly going to affect the lives of the people who had been depending on those pensions. This is just one example of the kind of thing that's happening all over that makes me feel less than optimistic about the economy.

But then, at this point, I'm not sure what it would take me to feel optimistic about it!

It actually has been a recurring theme rather than one particular article. Next one I run across I'll send to you. I'm sure you're not surprised to learn that we subscribe.

No, I'm not surprised. I have subscribed myself from time to time. Hm. I get a free subscription from Audible.com to either the NYT or WSJ... I have listening to the NYT every morning. Maybe I'll try the WSJ.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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

no subject

no subject

That's easy...

Re: That's easy...

Re: That's easy...

"allegedly objective media"

Re: "allegedly objective media"

Re: "allegedly objective media"

Re: "allegedly objective media"

Re: "allegedly objective media"

Re: "allegedly objective media"

Re: "allegedly objective media"

Re: "allegedly objective media"

Re: "allegedly objective media"