Newest Review: ... information. This may be because of the above reason, or because it is generally accepted that people are more impatient and will read less... more
Time is up for the traditional rag folks!
News/Media Online - General
Member Name: thedevilinme
News/Media Online - General
Advantages: Online news is mostly free
Disadvantages: Newspapers preech the propognada of their owners
If you guys are lucky enough you will still have an electrical store on the high street where you can buy you stereo and TV and stuff and talk to a sales assistant about what you want. But for most towns they have all been pushed into the out of town shopping parks and many closing down. For newspapers they have had the same drop off in demand as business and newsfeed heads online but haven't made the changes they need to save the trade by cutting titles by buying each other out. There are still ten big national tabloids and broadsheets on sale in newsagents but all of them are losing big money and pretty much printing the same stuff, which is now out of date compared to the internet. Here lies the problem. National newspapers are not as subject to economies of scale as normal businesses are and often selling political propaganda with the truth. This means the people who buy them not to make profit but just to keep them going. Interestingly The Mail is not only our most popular tabloid on the high street but off line too, even though they can get all the same copy online for free, and some. Its right wing agenda is what most British people think and that is reflected in its comment section.
The internet is the new truth, although it's hard to find that truth amongst all the chaos, libel and accusation. If the printed press is on the way out then the www is the oracle to speak for the masses and the more articulate and controversial you are the more people will want to believe you, simple as. Online newspapers comment sections are awash with anger and speculation and the whole thing is getting out of control, culminating in that ludicrous stunt by the lightweight Phillip Schofield on This Morning when he named uncorroborated names involved in pedophilia. Richard & Judy would never have pulled that stunt.
As far as the BBC goes I just scratch my head on why they get so much stick. The people slaughter them for allowing testimony of a now discredited witness (Steve Meesham) for falsely claiming and naming an allegedly pedophile ring at a children's home and yet berate the same BBC for not revealing Jimmy Savile accusers from similar style testimony, which could still be from discredited witnesses. When this all pans out I think you will be shocked on just how many fake claims are being made in the current investigations. The internet has opened Pandoras Box for this stuff. It's amazing how many people with problems or suffering some sort of mental illness or depression will pile in to get attention. Ok, a simple Google search revealed Meesham to have MADE previous FALSE sexual abuse accusations against a senior police officer from North Wales and it turns out committed alleged charity fraud after setting up a charity for survivors of sexual abuse in North Wales and keeping most of the money, and also up for benefit fraud, not telling the dole about his £45,000 compensation payout for the alleged child abuse at the children's home. How do we know the BBC top brass simply ran the piece as a feeble balance exercise to appease the mob? Yes, Jimmy liked young girls and he was clearly an odious creature but would we attack famous sexy male pop stars of the day if they did the same sort of thing with the more willing young girls in the dressing rooms or hotel suites? Probably not. He looked the part of the dirty old man. It would not surprise me if some of these girls hung around the dressing rooms to try and meet famous people, whatever the consequences.
No, the rants BBC rants are about the mandatory license fee, simple as. Sky is far more expensive and if you want subjective news then that's the place to go guys. Journalists join and stay with the BBC because of its honest mandate, not the money. If the ranters only knew how cynical the commercial stations are with news and programming just to make you buy the stuff in the commercial break they would think again. The BBCs job is to provide the news and programming the commercial stations won't touch because they can't earn from it so the BBC may feel a waste of money sometimes. One can only tolerate so much of Bill Oddie! But they also have to justify their massive budget and so that contradicts their mandate sometimes and so you get the Newsnight scenario where they chase a sensational story to keep viewers, often trying to compete with the internet. Put simple we prefer internet scandal to BBC news but we can't yet admit that to ourselves. We all love the gossip at work as we do reading it in the tabloids at tea break. What we don't want is us to ever be the gossip. Online newspapers are awash with stuff and mostly women love it. I have seen female lawyers reading Hello magazine.
On the face of it the suggestion was the story was shelved because the BBC wanted to protect the reputation of Savile, where in reality the guy had died recently and they simply wanted to clear their library shelves of prepared tribute programs expensive to make, Christmas a good time to do that. Publicly blind to Jimmy's desire for young girls at that point we would expect those programs to be made. But, of course, the Newsnight witness's interviews were in the can and those women had to sit through the tribute shows, the controversy. Pretty much everyone in the business knew it was going on but without proof and 'solid testimony' the BBC simply can't run stories. People who slag the BBC are really slaging that integrity. Trust me, BBC news are swimming up a stream of white water busting a gut to tell you the truth against an increasing tidal wave of lawyers and political correctness. There are far more chancers out there like Steve Meesham making allegations in pursuit of tabloid and litigious payouts than people just wanting to report the truth, this guy costing good people their jobs.
Post Hutton Report the BBC lost their confidence and fear if they do try to take on the establishment and report the often terrible truth they will be further downsized by the incumbent government. Any weakness like that means the lawyers move in and the rich and famous are further protected and non accountable and so the BBC lose their edge. It will be people like Hugh Grant, rather than good editors, that will decide the shape of the media to come after the Leveson Enquiry report. Andrew Gilligan reported the truth about New Labor 'sexing up' the case for war, proved by the fact there were no WMD, yet he and the BBC, not Blair and his government, had to fall on their sword over the disgrace Iraq was for Britain. I think BBC news have mentioned the words 'oil' and 'Iraq' together once in a news report in ten years since the war. Once you don't report what you know as truth and scared of censure its game over and this Newsnight thing could be the end of the license fee as we know it, maybe the point of the attack. Their station rivals would love to the see the BBC budget slashed, their website alone costing 20 million a year. The BBC, alas, do seem to have lot more time and money for the more frivolous stuff now. When did we get to the point where the countries most prestigious broadcaster should be putting idiot content out like the One Show??? The BBC has been dumbed down by that fear not to question their viewers any more and so end up treating them like idiots.
The Newsnight debacle, of course, will be a stick for the politicians to beat the BBC with and coupled with the Leveson Enquiry and I fear the media will have their wings clipped next year so they can no longer fly. There's nothing the politicians want more than to gag the media from reporting their lies and greed, the nature of being a politician. Was it not the media who exposed their vulgar expenses fiddles?
Hugh Grants crusade against the on and off line media though his 'Kick it Out' campaign may well be to protect the little guy from the full force of the press but it's also about celebrities only wanting to be adored and seen in a positive light. The Leveson Enquiry was hijacked by them and the whole thing turned out to be yet another establishment whitewash, no criticism for the police that were taking money or Cameron for cozying up to the media. But new online media is making that all irrelevant as you can pretty much say as you want there and many are, political blogs based off shore the most effective at that, the Radio Luxembourg of the day on political gossip.
I have done some bits for BBC local radio on cricket and sport and the guys and girls who work the regional stations maybe a bit 'local' but they want to work for the BBC because they want to be taking seriously as journalists. That is the point. You go there to be objective, not subjective.
I write for my local paper and website on cricket and you have to learn to judge people, officials and players in front of you to work out if they are telling the truth. Often they are not and do what they need to protect their jobs and the sporting brand they are working for. Proper journalists have to make that call everyday and if they get it wrong their paper can be sued for libel. The big disadvantage is the person you are interviewing is allowed to lie and in some extreme cases lie to get the chance to sue you and hope you back down or they get paid compensation. But the lesson you learn most is the public don't want journalist to have an opinion if it's not *their* opinion and so you can only please all of the people some of the time.
Summary: Enjoy newsprint while it lasts