Entertainment For Lively Minds
Too much news, or too much bad news?
With the recent scandal over MPs' expenses, coupled with the inevitable 24hr news overload (someone's claimed for a bathplug - eek!), does anyone think that there's almost too much 'news'?
I know the expenses situation has been discussed here already, and I'm in agreement that it's good thing that it's gone into the public domain, but, to parahprase Chesterton, when there's no news to discuss, anything seems to become news. Susan Boyle pops off for a lie-down and it's on the News at Ten; David Beckham has his hair cut and the six o' clock news sends a reporter to a hairdressers.
However, on the specific point of political news, it does seem to be presented in a wearyingly downbeat way. Not a day skips by without a politician being metaphorically spanked over some indiscretion. Whilst these indiscretions certainly exist, do we not play into the hands of the likes of the BNP when we so savagely hunt down and denigrate politicians who uphold the democratic process? Have we gone from Beyond the Fringe - where politicians were satirised because they were aloof and perhaps thought themselves infallable - to a situation where nobody respects them? Are politicians really 'morally bankrupt', compared to say, Robert Mugabe? Is there a balance of good/bad political reporting? When did the term 'news' start to mean specifically 'bad news'? Do we celebrate democracy enough?
- More from peterthecook.
- Login or register to post comments
-
There's clearly not enough news
which is why what there is, is stretched nearly to breaking point.
Though it's an awful tragedy, this vanishing plane is interesting, as there are no citizen journalists involved, there's no mobile phone footage and no eye-witnesses to pad things out.
We've got instead endless aviation experts and worried family members, which they can only do so much with but will exploit to the full anyway. But they must be going mad there's not very much to go on. Susan Boyle and MPs expenses can only fill so many hours in the day.
Stop the presses! There were five Brits aboard!
Five Britons die in transport accidents every 14 hours - on the country's roads. So where are their front-page stories? Is falling to your death somehow more newsworthy than driving into it head on? Does dying in the same incident as 223 strangers alleviate or exacerbate the grieving process of those you've left behind, or - and I suspect this is the correct answer - does it have no effect on it whatsoever?
News is what news-gatherers decide is news. And, sadly, planes falling out of the sky are considered to be sexier than a pile-up in fog on the M62.
J.G Ballard
Would probably have said that nothing is sexier than a pile-up in fog on the M62.
Plane crash survivors
There was that recent plane crash - can't recall where - when lots of people survived even though the engines cut out or something. When interviewed afterwards the survivors commented that people were actually quiet, some screaming some crying but that was it. I think those poor souls in Air France would have died quite suddenly and painlessly compared to a car accident.
Five people dying
in the *same* pile up would be news though.
I remember working at Essex Radio as a lad, and they had a chart on the wall listing how many fatalities had to die for it to be newsworthy, starting with anything involving the death of one Briton down to 10,000 Guatemalans.
It was (obviously) facetious, but I recall the presenter I was working for remarking it wasn't far off either.
I hate it when
People put it better and more briefly than I do. Damn you, Fraser!
News values
"Sadly, planes falling out of the sky are considered to be sexier than a pile-up in fog on the M62."
Hello, Archie. I think you hinted at the answer to why the air crash has greater prominence in the news running orders in your opening paragraph.
Five people die on Britain's roads, usually in separate incidents, every day. And I'm sure it's no less awful for the bereaved than for the relatives of those in air crashes. But if it's happening every day, the news value is inevitably diminished. Airline crashes these days are, thankfully, increasingly rare.
As a comparison, take Northern Ireland. Typically, 20 to 30 years ago, a violent death (depending on the victim, obviously) would have been mentioned pretty perfunctorily because it was so common. Now with the peace process, a sectarian or political killing in NI gets far greater prominence.
It's harsh, but news providers have to judge how much interest a story has to those not directly involved. And a story's rarity is an essential part of that calculation.
Whoever calculated...
this should be redeployed to the weather page.
Don't the families of all dead kids deserve quotes from their school's headmaster and receptionist in a quality national newspaper? Or only if they were topped in a "House of Horror" in Gloucester or disappeared in the Bermuda triangle.
It's more than harsh, John. It's downright insulting to the 3,000 who die - so quietly but no less tragically - on the roads every year.
Am I
missing something in this link Archie?
Oops...
Try now.
I can only guess...
I can only guess that the families of individual car crashes wouldn't expect that degree of coverage. Many years ago a relative of mine was killed crossing the road; not the driver's fault, made a couple of paragraphs in the local paper. I'm surprised it made even that. But of course it tore through my family.
I'm not without some sympathy with you, but I think my basic point stands. It's unrealistic to give a commonplace event, like a single fatality road crash, the same prominence as an event with large numbers of deaths.
You wouldn't want THIS would you??
There was at least one occasion, at least fifty years ago, when they announced that there was nothing newsworthy and played some music instead.
Good Friday 1930
http://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/spl/hi/history/noflash/html/1930s.stm
Oh Happy Day!
I long since gave up watching news programmes - living in Northern Ireland watching squabbling local politicians during the last 10 years was the trigger. Five minutes of headlines at 7am on the Today programme is quite sufficient thank you.
tee hee
I thought that can't be true so went to a wiki to prove inherent BBC bias that thousands of chinese had died in a earthquake or some such and the only thing listed is "bbc claim no news !" doh
No news is good news
A strike by BBC technicians meant that Radio 4 couldn't broadcast live - this was around 18 months ago (I think). John Humphrys rants were replaced by comedy shows, and I arrived at work far happier for the experience. Sadly it was back to normal after that.
Since then I've discovered Radio 7's morning comedy hour via an in car DAB radio which (along with some carefully chosen podcasts) has pretty much enabled me to banish rolling news from my life.
Rolling News
Never before, in the history of human broadcasting, has so little been said by so many, for so long.
93K
said by people on salaries of around £93,000 (Carrie Gracy, BBC news presenter)
I quit watching rolling news channels when I realised I'd spent over 5 minutes watching that newsreader man with the hair interviewing a small boy about a snowman the child had built.
BBC World
Here's Charlie Brooker's perceptive description of the BBC World audience: