The Queen / The Monarchy

[Pale Rider]

Is this the ‘no need for experts’ business rearing its head again?

Once again you make some giant leaps.

Obviously, the clever cancer doc has a valid view on his topic, so no one has ever suggested that view should not be reported.

Loony Derek not so much, to the point where most of us would say he is barely part of the discussion.

Why only 'two sides' to an argument?

making up their own mind after being given as many sides to the story as practical.

 

[newfhouse]

Loony Derek not so much, to the point where most of us would say he is barely part of the discussion.

But what if all his social media mates wrote to the broadcaster to complain about the doctor being given prominence and demanded equal billing? According to your earlier post they should have influence in setting the middle ground.

 

[theclaud]

So equal prominence to an oncology consultant and Derek off YouTube who thinks crystals will sort it in a debate about cancer treatments?

To be fair, this is a silly argument to make when you are literally talking to Derek off YouTube.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Why only 'two sides' to an argument?

Right and wrong. Common sense innit.

 

[Pale Rider]

To be fair, this is a silly argument to make when you are literally talking to Derek off YouTube.

The depth of your ignorance of how the media works continues to surprise me.

That's fine in the sense no one can know everything about everything.

But at the same time thinking you know makes you both ignorant and stupid.

But what if all his social media mates wrote to the broadcaster to complain about the doctor being given prominence and demanded equal billing? According to your earlier post they should have influence in setting the middle ground.

This may be a slightly silly example, but I have already specified the impartial broadcaster is looking to give roughly equal prominence to genuine sides of an argument.

Derek is gong to get very little attention, no matter how many supporters he can muster.

A better example is routine political reporting.

The government makes an announcement and some space is given in the story to the opposition's view, usually Labour, but could include smaller parties, experts/other organisations with an interest, and even the government's own back benchers, depending on what's being said.

 

[newfhouse]

I have already specified the impartial broadcaster is looking to give roughly equal prominence to genuine sides of an argument.

No, you said that the test of impartiality should be having an equal number of complaints from two opposing sides. You didn't mention 'genuine' at all. You went further and said the broadcaster shouldn't 'play god' and that both sides were 'always valid'.

It's fine if you have been persuaded that was all a bit daft.

 

[BoldonLad]

In terms of impartiality, I would have thought that the BBC would be expected to give voice to "reputable" individuals, whatever that may mean. So, if discussing (say) Cancer treatment, I would expect them to present individuals with a recognised qualification, not, Joe (or Josephine) Bloggs, who they have just invited in from the local Lidl.

The problems I see are:

- public trust in our "leaders" has been diminished, so, for example, Prof Whitty may not be held in high regard, not necessarily through any fault of his own.

- the old "setting an example" seems to have died the death, so, being told by a Minister to desist from smoking, or, eat healthy, or, being over weight, whilst they visibly do not do so, similarly, diminishes public trust

- in terms of "scientific" view points, the great minds of the day have, on occasion been proved wrong in the past, as knowledge develops (eg, Phostrogen, Miasma, Sun orbiting the earth, as opposed to the other way around).

- in terms of Economics, there are almost as many viewpoints as there are Economists

- in terms of Politics, how do you define "reputable"?

- impartiality was easier when News Readers simply read the news, in a neutral tone, rather than comment on it, adding in their own prejudices via voice inflections.

Personally, I do tend to regard the BBC as "balanced", mainly because, at various times I consider them to be "partial" either to the right, or, to the left, often, in the same bulletin.

 

[C R]

Only marginally related, but made me smile

 

[Pale Rider]

No, you said that the test of impartiality should be having an equal number of complaints from two opposing sides. You didn't mention 'genuine' at all. You went further and said the broadcaster shouldn't 'play god' and that both sides were 'always valid'.

It's fine if you have been persuaded that was all a bit daft.

Stop twisting my words just to make a point.

I suppose it's my fault for thinking you might have enough gumption to work out the opposing sides must, of themselves, be reasonable.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I suppose it's my fault for thinking you might have enough gumption to work out the opposing sides must, of themselves, be reasonable.

I'm not sure the 'reasonable' thing is as well defined as we'd like to think.

It's only recently that the BBC moved away from requiring a 'denier' to balance anything about global warming/climate change. Lord Lawson popped up again and again in that role.

 

[Pale Rider]

I'm not sure the 'reasonable' thing is as well defined as we'd like to think.

That's true, which is why you need skilled editors with experience.

But everyone is an editor now, so I'm sure a made up name on the internet whose never worked in journalism will know more than someone with decades in the job.

 

[multitool]

But everyone is an editor now, so I'm sure a made up name on the internet whose never worked in journalism will know more than someone with decades in the job.

It's possible that they may. After all, you worked at a fairly low level. Hardly the cutting edge of Fleet Street. Arf.

 

[Pale Rider]

It's possible that they may. After all, you worked at a fairly low level. Hardly the cutting edge of Fleet Street. Arf.

Look weirdo stalker, where I worked in journalism, and your lack of understanding of same, has nothing to do with it.

We are talking about the editorial direction of the BBC.

Nowt to do with me, I never worked (directly) for them.

If you think they've been getting it wrong, best you get on to the director general and point out the error of his ways.

 

[multitool]

Look weirdo stalker, where I worked in journalism, and your lack of understanding of same, has nothing to do with it.

But you just said it did...

I'm sure a made up name on the internet whose never worked in journalism will know more than someone with decades in the job.

How do you expect to be taken seriously if you contradict yourself with your next post.

 

[Pale Rider]

But you just said it did...




How do you expect to be taken seriously if you contradict yourself with your next post.

The people in control of BBC policy are BBC editors - those are the ones with decades in the job.

It's also true I have decades in journalism and have forgotten more about the job than you will ever know.