While recently waking up to BBC Radio 4 instead of my usual choice of Chris Moyle’s and Radio 1 I was struck by one thing.
The similarity of bulletins that are used on BBC breakfast and radio 4 bulletins. I had been particularly lazy this day as I listened to radio 4 from my bedside table and watched the breakfast news while gently propping myself up in bed at the ungodly hour of 7am.
I understand that as media organisations adapt their is an increasing pressure for journalists within them to be able to multi-task.
As part of the efficiency drive I can see why this would be the case. What I do not understand is why the public should be the ones to suffer.
It is I think fair to argue that radio 4 do have a different target audience than BBC Breakfast. Yet the bulletins were so similar I could not but help myself to actually get out of bed and check the BBC website. To my astonishment both sets of news readers may as well of been reading from the website, as I began to pre-empt words before they spoke them.
While the efficiency drive brings together BBC Radio 4, News 24 and BBC World to an extent does anyone else get the feeling that this is fast becoming a lowest common denominator service? The only outcome of which is a deterioration in variety and styles which means the public - i.e. license fee payer suffers.
On the Breakfast news I was able to watch what could easily be passed off as entertainment news, it was in fact Hilary Clinton celebrating her latest win. Presented from a couch in laid back style I couldn’t believe my eyes. Neither could I believe what followed....a short interview with Clinton from the night before that was broadcast on the comedy channel in the states, where the former first lady gave an interview before what was arguably the most important night in her political career.
The host of that show on the comedy channel made a comment that stuck in my mind. " As a host I am delighted you have chosen to speak to me tonight, as a member of the public I am frightened. "
Why this has stuck in my mind and not the other storys than ran that day is quite worrying. For instance I have no idea how many delegate votes were up for grabs, votes that Clinton did win. I do remember that she appeared on this show and what the host said.
The same clip appeared on many BBC bulletins throughout the day.
I was quite surprised to see the BBC dumb down the news this much. The piece which was introduced from the couch had a slight comedic element to it. However maybe it achieved its aim - to be a memorable piece of television journalism. On the other hand it can easily be viewed as trivialising television news.
If this efficiency drive from the BBC means the merging of certain resources and material which eventually leads to a deterioration of a news service, then I am against it. It is similar to Murdoch and the merging of the Sun and Times newsrooms.
That to me speaks of arrogance towards an audience, which I as an audience member most certainly do not appreciate.
Then again I have reverted back to my old ways of waking up to Moyles and digesting my early news in quick blasts scattered with the comedic value of the breakfast show that has grown to become a stable part of my weekday mornings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I commend your early rising, Comrade.
To think, at the very same moment you were having your breakfast-time epiphany, I was but 20 metres below… having a coronary over my cornflakes as I watched Sky News in the morning.
‘Blair resigns’
‘The worst flooding to hit Britain in 50 years’
‘Britney Bald’
‘SKY News: RTS Television Channel of the Year 2007’
Can you spot the odd one out? National politics, natural disasters and, well, human disasters of the popcorn variety. The current Sky News ident (and, some would argue, in-house advertising) makes a bold statement about the editorial direction of the station – and also hints at the kind of characteristics the RTS seeks in its premier news channel.
The inclusion of Britney’s little hair-mare as one of perhaps 8 or 9 headlines featured in the ident is unusual for a number of reasons. Firstly, it’s entertainment news – and trivial entertainment news at that. Secondly, the last time I checked, Britney lived on the other side of the Atlantic. If the ident seeks to reaffirm the award-winning nature of Sky News as a reputable news outlet – why the odd inclusion of Bald Britney?
Rob Kirk, Sky News maverick, went some way to answering this question on Monday when I enquired how closely the online and television agendas mirror and influence one another.
Rob maintained that the number of hits at news.sky.com did not influence the television news agenda for the hour – yet. He did, however, explain that in the television newsroom there is a plasma on the wall which displays an updated feed of which online stories are receiving the most hits (a screen which would undoubtedly influence me as a news editor… even if I didn’t quite know it). Also, there are regular segments on Sky News bulletins which announce the top online stories. Madeleine McCann, Madeleine McCann, Madeleine McCann…
Not unlike the BBC, it appears there is more and more convergence between online and broadcast content. But, as Rob also pointed out, Sky’s online audience is (at this point in time) quite different from the Sky News broadcast viewer. He continued on to make the allusion that online content at sky.com is less intellectually challenging – as a product of online consumption habits and also the general nouse of its users.
If this trend continues – where online influence increases and mouse click set the broadcast agenda - not only will we see more dumbing down of the news (language, form, news values), it will also mean diminished viewer choice. Yes, it IS frustrating to see little or no difference between media forms!
So I’d best be off to enhance my journalistic skills by watching the Ireland v. Wales 6 Nations match. I guess the glory of journalism is that the most diverse range of viewing can be considered research for potential stories or future assignments. Who knows when I might end up reporting the rugby union? At least I know that, for all its on-field action, sports journalism remains much more static in terms of coverage and intellectual content…one of the last remaining portions of news which doesn’t appear to have been dumbed down.
And, Comrade, I expect you too will be glued to BBC1. Or BBC Sport. Or Setanta Sports online. Or Fox Sports…
Of course.
BBC 2 was my channel of choice to watch the game but the pub did have to make a quick flick to BBC1 for some bizzare reason.
My only explanation is that the beeb were swamped by complaints from the heathens who do not enjoy the six nations regarding the coverage of three games in a row a fortnight ago.
Apparently the Eastenders omnibus was moved from its usual slot.
In an effort to placate those who wish to watch soaps with a sprinking of Dick Van Dyke and Diagnosis Murder some clever rescheduling of the rugby seems to of been the answer.
Although watching the very disgruntled and bewildered landlord at the bar try and plough his way through all the people who had descended upon his fine establishment to watch the game was of some comedic value.
As unfortunately was the Irish rugby side....
Post a Comment