Even trusted news media is going down the toilet

[DrZoidberg]

This was a top news piece on BBC News

It's on the "debate" whether or not Bert and Ernie from Sesame street are gay. Newsflash, you can project whatever you want onto fictional characters. That's the beauty of fiction. If you think they're gay, they're gay. If you don't, they're not.

I think everybody understands this. The newspiece is pure clickbait garbage of the worst kind. A pseudo debate. It's stuff like this that undermines trust in news sources.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45566451

Thoughts?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's another one from the top page.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45567103

The below is not news.

Prosecutors told the BBC "thousands and thousands" of videos of potential victims were on the defendants' phones.

Them being convicted would be news. This is not. Prosecutors talk shit all the time. Who gives a fuck?

The news story here is clearly that beautiful people can also be rapists. Sensationalist garbage.

 

[bigfield]

The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is a public broadcaster modelled on the BBC, and while it is still more trustworthy than its commercial competitors, its standards are slipping in the same way. The federal government, which is hostile to the broadcaster, has cut its budget repeatedly in the last few years. This has been compounded by some poor management decisions regarding content and platforms, which means we've sacrificed some excellent programs and services in order to publish infotainment garbage.

Public broadcasters, which aren't subject to pressure from advertisers and shareholders, are uniquely positioned to not only hold our political elites accountable but set a standard for mass media to aspire to. People should be extremely sceptical of any attacks on the independence or existence of the public broadcaster, especially from the government, because we'd be mushrooms without it.

 

[ruby sparks]

This was a top news piece on BBC News

It's on the "debate" whether or not Bert and Ernie from Sesame street are gay. Newsflash, you can project whatever you want onto fictional characters. That's the beauty of fiction. If you think they're gay, they're gay. If you don't, they're not.

I think everybody understands this. The newspiece is pure clickbait garbage of the worst kind. A pseudo debate. It's stuff like this that undermines trust in news sources.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45566451

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that it's not clickbait garbage of the worst kind or stuff which undermines trust in news sources.

The BBC article from yesterday is titled: Sesame Workshop says Bert and Ernie are 'best friends' and not gay

By comparison, also from yesterday:

Bert and Ernie are gay, Sesame Street writer says
https://www.fox47news.com/news/national/bert-and-ernie-are-gay-sesame-street-writer-says

Both articles may arguably be about relatively trivial matters, and the BBC is not immune to dumbing down to infotainment levels for a variety of reasons, and as ever even the BBC has bias, but it's generally not faux news.

Ditto for the drug rape allegations story. Yes, it may be speculation, but that's different from its level of neutrality and accuracy.

Compare and contrast:

1. US surgeon and girlfriend suspected of multiple drug rapes (BBC)

2. Reality TV Surgeon and Girlfriend Drugged, Raped Women: Prosecutors (Daily Beast)

The wording of the latter headline is subtly different. The caveat (that it's the view of the prosecutors) is tagged on after something in the form of a statement of 'fact'. There aren't even any inverted commas, so that it's citing the prosector's view is even made to be slightly ambiguous.

 

[ruby sparks]

Standards are (arguably) falling across nearly all major news media. In order to compete and still be viewed and heard, the BBC has to some extent no pragmatic option but to join in. It's all relative and in many ways viewer-driven. It's a zeitgeist. The BBC is still generally one of the best in comparative terms, imo.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This was a top news piece on BBC News

It's on the "debate" whether or not Bert and Ernie from Sesame street are gay. Newsflash, you can project whatever you want onto fictional characters. That's the beauty of fiction. If you think they're gay, they're gay. If you don't, they're not.

I think everybody understands this. The newspiece is pure clickbait garbage of the worst kind. A pseudo debate. It's stuff like this that undermines trust in news sources.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45566451

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that it's not clickbait garbage of the worst kind or stuff which undermines trust in news sources.

The BBC article from yesterday is titled: Sesame Workshop says Bert and Ernie are 'best friends' and not gay

By comparison, also from yesterday:

Bert and Ernie are gay, Sesame Street writer says
https://www.fox47news.com/news/national/bert-and-ernie-are-gay-sesame-street-writer-says

Both articles may arguably be about relatively trivial matters, and the BBC is not immune to dumbing down to infotainment levels for a variety of reasons, and as ever even the BBC has bias, but it's generally not faux news.

Ditto for the drug rape allegations story. Yes, it may be speculation, but that's different from its level of neutrality and accuracy.

Compare and contrast:

1. US surgeon and girlfriend suspected of multiple drug rapes (BBC)

2. Reality TV Surgeon and Girlfriend Drugged, Raped Women: Prosecutors (Daily Beast)

The wording of the latter headline is subtly different. The caveat (that it's the view of the prosecutors) is tagged on after something in the form of a statement of 'fact'. There aren't even any inverted commas, so that it's citing the prosector's view is even made to be slightly ambiguous.

My problem wasn't with the wording of the headline, it was the fact that they thought it was a good idea to waste my time by having it on their front page. Frankly, I find it insulting. It makes me want to check news from other places. But we're running out of other places.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Standards are (arguably) falling across nearly all major news media. In order to compete and still be viewed and heard, the BBC has to some extent no pragmatic option but to join in. It's all relative and in many ways viewer-driven. It's a zeitgeist. The BBC is still generally one of the best in comparative terms, imo.

I don't agree. The BBC is government funded. Their unique selling point is that fact that they don't have to give a fuck about what the public wants. Their focus should be on providing quality news... only. If people don't want to read it... so be it. That's their prerogative. By bending to public demand, they're killing the only reason they exist at all.

 

[ruby sparks]

Their unique selling point is that fact that they don't have to give a fuck about what the public wants.

No. And too simplistic. In realistic terms, if viewing figures fall low enough, the public funding will almost certainly be cut (and is routinely under threat). This is widely acknowledged. The BBC has to fight for viewers for its own particular reasons, in a rapidly changing, increasingly competitive and to a large extent viewer-driven media environment. Not compromising at all on a supposedly lofty position is almost certainly not a realistic solution.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Their unique selling point is that fact that they don't have to give a fuck about what the public wants.

No. And too simplistic. In realistic terms, if viewing figures fall low enough, the public funding will almost certainly be cut (and is routinely under threat). This is widely acknowledged. The BBC has to fight for viewers for its own particular reasons, in a rapidly changing, increasingly competitive and to a large extent viewer-driven media environment. Not compromising at all on a supposedly lofty position is almost certainly not a realistic solution.

I'm aware of that. But yielding to popular demand is sawing off the branch they're sitting on.

Sweden also has state financed news, (SVT) modelled on the BBC. Both are absolute garbage today. They went the way of populism 20 years ago. I have friends working there. They're constantly complaining about what crap they're forced to write.

At this point they might as well shut shop. They add nothing private news media doesn't already provide. And increasingly stronger voices are demanding just this.

I don't see how BBC has any options but to stick to their guns. Populism is suicide for them

 

[ruby sparks]

It's all about degrees. Completely giving in to populism is arguably as 'bad' or as unrealistic as not giving in at all.

Imo and that of many others, the BBC is still one of the best by and large. It seems to be managing the balancing act quite well under the circumstances, and this also goes for progamming other than news.

In some ways the BBC is a bit like the NHS, and I myself would be happy to pay a bit more in order to preserve or improve either or both of them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's all about degrees. Completely giving in to populism is arguably as 'bad' or as unrealistic as not giving in at all.

Imo and that of many others, the BBC is still one of the best by and large. It seems to be managing the balancing act quite well under the circumstances, and this also goes for progamming other than news.

In some ways the BBC is a bit like the NHS, and I myself would be happy to pay a bit more in order to preserve or improve either or both of them.

At the moment my main news sources are BBC News and the Economist. Those are the only things I follow on a daily basis. Apart from that is links people send me on social media. Of varying quality. I'm not sure where to go if not BBC News. As far as I'm concerned it's an ever shrinking island of News, and I'm not sure there's much step up from BBC News. Is there?

 

[ruby sparks]

It's all about degrees. Completely giving in to populism is arguably as 'bad' or as unrealistic as not giving in at all.

Imo and that of many others, the BBC is still one of the best by and large. It seems to be managing the balancing act quite well under the circumstances, and this also goes for progamming other than news.

In some ways the BBC is a bit like the NHS, and I myself would be happy to pay a bit more in order to preserve or improve either or both of them.

At the moment my main news sources are BBC News and the Economist. Those are the only things I follow on a daily basis. Apart from that is links people send me on social media. Of varying quality. I'm not sure where to go if not BBC News. As far as I'm concerned it's an ever shrinking island of News, and I'm not sure there's much step up from BBC News. Is there?

Well I'm sure there are other good news outlets. The BBC is probably just a good go-to one for a generally good standard, albeit with a pro-western (and probably pro British) bias. It was always said that the best way to get a balanced picture was to read the same stories from several outlets and this is possibly still true, as it can mitigate against only getting one type of bias. I don't have a great deal of time to follow the news, but I'll dip into The Guardian online, sometimes buy the Independent, but make sure to also dip into the Telegraph and the Times now and again (or Al Jazeera for a less 'western' perspective). I like The Guardian, but it's shamelessly anti-Brexit. I'm anti-Brexit too, but I don't want to suffer from the delusion of thinking it's the best or only view. I'm pretty keen on The Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/

Channel 4 news is also pretty good:

https://www.channel4.com/news/

When it comes to stuff of 'low quality' as in the arguably trivial, such as the sexual orientation of puppets, one can skip past those or read them briefly.

I do not even know which American outlets are considered to be reasonably good and/or impartial, or what way they lean, let alone the outlets from other, non-English sources, so I try to read those (when I encounter them) without necessarily buying into the content unquestioningly. That's always the last line of defence.

 

[rousseau]

Yea, ultimately media is constrained by the profit motive, and profit is driven by clicks which is counter to 'actually informing people of things'. The other part of it is that in an age of information over-load individual media companies are de-valued so they increasingly need to use these kind of tactics.

Even articles that would be otherwise straight-forward and interesting are pretty regularly given click-baity titles, which also has the effect of slanting people's view on the piece before they even read it.

 

[Politesse]

We have no equivalent to the BBC in my country, but I have been disappointed by the increasingly blatant bias of most news sources, and how quick they are to use Trump's name for publicity, fueling his propaganda machine for free. I have donated to our NPR and listened to it most mornings for many years, but withdrew my support this year, along with sending a polite but sharply worded letter about their morning programming.

 

[bilby]

SBS World News is probably the best news in Australia. They tend to have a global, rather than a local, focus, which is a pretty good unique selling point; Their audience is small, but their standards are high.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

sometimes buy the Independent, but make sure to also dip into the Telegraph and the Times now and again (or Al Jazeera for a less 'western' perspective). I like The Guardian, but it's shamelessly anti-Brexit. I'm anti-Brexit too, but I don't want to suffer from the delusion of thinking it's the best or only view. I'm pretty keen on The Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/

Al Jazeera: Used to be good. Now it's owned by a terrorist sponsor who slants the news.

Independent: Now controlled by Moscow.

 

[ruby sparks]

Independent: Now controlled by Moscow.

I should clarify that it's this (Scottish-owned) version I occasionally buy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_(newspaper)

 

[DrZoidberg]

We have no equivalent to the BBC in my country, but I have been disappointed by the increasingly blatant bias of most news sources, and how quick they are to use Trump's name for publicity, fueling his propaganda machine for free. I have donated to our NPR and listened to it most mornings for many years, but withdrew my support this year, along with sending a polite but sharply worded letter about their morning programming.

I'm also disappointed in the Trump coverage. In the news that I'm reading the message that keeps being repeated is that Trump voters are idiots. I don't believe they support him only because they are morons. But that's the only message available to read. I'd like some more nuanced reporting

- - - Updated - - -

Al Jazeera: Used to be good. Now it's owned by a terrorist sponsor who slants the news.

Any evidence of this? I've heard this said before, I think it's bullshit. I think Al Jazeera is as good as it's ever been.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have no equivalent to the BBC in my country, but I have been disappointed by the increasingly blatant bias of most news sources, and how quick they are to use Trump's name for publicity, fueling his propaganda machine for free. I have donated to our NPR and listened to it most mornings for many years, but withdrew my support this year, along with sending a polite but sharply worded letter about their morning programming.

I'm also disappointed in the Trump coverage. In the news that I'm reading the message that keeps being repeated is that Trump voters are idiots. I don't believe they support him only because they are morons. But that's the only message available to read. I'd like some more nuanced reporting

- - - Updated - - -

Al Jazeera: Used to be good. Now it's owned by a terrorist sponsor who slants the news.

Any evidence of this? I've heard this said before, I think it's bullshit. I think Al Jazeera is as good as it's ever been.

It's owned by Qatar. Terrorist sponsors.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Any evidence of this? I've heard this said before, I think it's bullshit. I think Al Jazeera is as good as it's ever been.

It's owned by Qatar. Terrorist sponsors.

While true, it's financed by an independent fund, set up specifically to ensure Al Jazeera's editorial independence and protection from influence. It was set up this way in order to kill any rumours that Al Jazeera might be used as a mouth piece for Islamists. Yet, the rumours persist.

Tell me, do you even care at what lengths they go to, to prove they're not morally corrupt?

Also... Qatar is a government in a politically volatile region undergoing great political upheaval. They'd be foolish not to position themselves in this. When it comes to Muslim groups the terrorist label is thrown about quite loosely. How could they not end up funding groups that are labelled terrorist groups?

I think you're holding them to impossible standards. Also, standards that don't matter since it won't influence Al Jazeera anyway