Split Thread BBC news reporting

[Jack by the hedge]

I bet pandering to both sides pays more than pandering to neither.

I would imagine it's hard to pander to either side when you're speaking to both simultaneously.

 

[theprestige]

I would imagine it's hard to pander to either side when you're speaking to both simultaneously.

That's the genius of modern media. Each side is only reading the headlines they like.

 

[a_unique_person]

That's the genius of modern media. Each side is only reading the headlines they like.

It was Fox that created that modern way of "fair and balanced reporting on the news. The American AM radio was doing it for years before that.

 

[arthwollipot]

The Fox definition of "fair and balanced" means "we'll only tell you the side that we think the Lamestream Media is hiding from you".

 

[Ziggurat]

Those "great men" (and women) he talks about? They set the gold standard for broadcast journalism - people like Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Barbara Walters. In the UK there was Sir Trevor McDonald, Richard Baker, Kenneth Kendall, Sir Alastair Burnet, Angela Ripon, and Kate Adie. They brought us the news, raw, unfiltered, unsullied by tribal or identity politics or special interest groups - they reported the news, warts-and-all, and allowed the public to draw their own conclusions.

I can't speak for the UK (though I suspect it's similar) but on the US side, their biases were perhaps less obvious than today's anchors, but they were always there. Cronkite famously got the Tet Offensive completely wrong. And have you forgotten Rathergate, and his "fake but accurate" defense? And Barbara Walter's legacy will be The View, which is nothing but tribalism and enforced orthodoxy, delivered by shrill humorless harridans. Today's crop might be worse, but at least on the US side you're viewing them through nostalgia tinted glasses.

 

[angrysoba]

Who would rely on this person for an unverifiable anecdote?

 

[jimbob]

Who would rely on this person for an unverifiable anecdote?

View attachment 76288

No but I would trust him for a rant on bias.
/s

 

[angrysoba]

Same way as any YouTube content creator, or any other news source with their own YouTube channel - CNN, ABC, Fox News, MSNBC, etc - advertising revenue.

...
I will be shocked if the BBC don't use their YouTube channel to generate advertising revenue through clicks and engagement.

You mean the BBC is going to get a Patreon and do sponsored ad reads? That's how most YouTube content creators fund their activities.

Surely you see the BBC doing this kind of thing all the time right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

which is nothing but tribalism and enforced orthodoxy

I was recently informed that the term "tribalism" in the context of human behavior is an inexcusably racist slur.

Fun times.

 

[Mojo]

I was recently informed that the term "tribalism" in the context of human behavior is an inexcusably racist slur.

Fun times.

Who informed you of this?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Who informed you of this?

Someone on a different forum. Why do you think it matters?

 

[Mojo]

I was wondering whether it was worth bothering with.

 

[jimbob]

Someone on a different forum. Why do you think it matters?

Because idiots claim lots of stuff.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, I will absolutely agree that they're an idiot. They, however, think they're quite the intelligent progressive.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I was wondering whether it was worth bothering with.

If you were to bother with it... would you do so by agreeing or disagreeing with that person's view?

 

[jimbob]

If you were to bother with it... would you do so by agreeing or disagreeing with that person's view?

The fact you don't understand, reflects on your understanding of language and not @Mojo

 

[Emily's Cat]

The fact you don't understand, reflects on your understanding of language and not @Mojo

I mean, yes? That's why I'm asking. I'm not inferring whatever they're trying to imply.

 

[jimbob]

I mean, yes? That's why I'm asking. I'm not inferring whatever they're trying to imply.

It's VERY clear that that @Mojo would disagree.

That is a very conventional use of language. Indeed many of my colleagues who have English as a second or third language would understand it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's VERY clear that that @Mojo would disagree.

That is a very conventional use of language. Indeed many of my colleagues who have English as a second or third language would understand it.

"Who informed you of this" is a conventional use of language that implies disagreement?

I'm unconvinced, but whatever. It's not actually important. I was just curious what Mojo's view was, but since you're hopping on your white horse and grabbing your lance, I'll just leave you to it .

 

[jimbob]

"Who informed you of this" is a conventional use of language that implies disagreement?

I'm unconvinced, but whatever. It's not actually important. I was just curious what Mojo's view was, but since you're hopping on your white horse and grabbing your lance, I'll just leave you to it .

It's not getting on my while horse. There was an insinuation in your post that was stupidly ridiculous. Followed by a clear rejection that you didn't seem to understand. Which itself is doubling down on the previous stupidity.