From The Archive is a special Friday feature. It features posts from my earlier (now-deleted) blog: Stuff & Nonsense and a few items from previous versions of A Tangled Rope that I feel deserve reprinting here, mainly as a way of archiving them. The dates are only approximate, I’m afraid, and there is a possibility that some links may no longer work (although, I will try to remember to test the links before republishing the piece).
The media should - quite simply - refuse to be use as propaganda outlets.
This is not an isolated incident, though. It is yet another example in an increasing trend both from within the media, and by those who try to manipulate the media for their own ends.
I used to be a compulsive viewer / listener to Current Affairs programmes on the holy BBC. Nowadays, I don't bother that much. Another one of the main reasons is the outworn notion of having opposite sides for each and every position, this has arrived at the point of ridiculousness, stopped for a quick cup of tea, and then dashed off over the horizon of absurdity without bothering to send back a postcard.
Having two - or three, or even seventeen thousand, nine hundred and thirty-two - different opinions treading and re-treading their well-worn stamping grounds does not make a debate. The media folk claim they do this in order to generate drama and conflict. We don't want artificial drama or conflict in news and current affairs - we want rational, sensible, constructive, useful, meaningful stuff - all the things, it would seem, that would have the average programme-maker reaching for a gun.
If we want drama we could… quite possibly… watch some drama (that is if there still is any to be found in-between the 'reality' shows and makeover programmes.)
Then there is the sudden appearance of these so-called community-leaders, whose proclamations are all accepted at face value. No-one ever seems to ask how they got the job, who appointed them, what authority they have to make pronouncements on the behalf of others, how much of the alleged 'community' they speak for, or even what 'community' is it they claim to represent. No such - seemingly basic - questions ever seem to be asked. They are paraded in front of the viewer or listener - described as a community leader and then allowed to make a statement that is not questioned in any way at all as to its validity - merely taken as being a representative view of this 'community' they claim to lead.
The same - or similar sorts of questions are never asked about the self-appointed - and, therefore unrepresentative - Moral Guardians who can - apparently - decide on what the rest of us must see, think, believe, say or do. Rarely do they contribute anything, apart from yet another - usually woefully un-informed - opinion to the discussion. They set themselves up as some kind of superhero saving us all from our own degradation with their marvellous ethical superpowers.
But, as with all super-heroes the Moral Guardians have fatal weaknesses, a seeming inability to use the off switch on a TV or radio, or to pass by a cinema or theatre without thinking that what goes on inside must conform to their ultra-slimline notions of what is seemly and decorous, or to believe there are other people on this planet who do not share their narrow blinkered world view, or even share the rather odd notion that censorious blindness is somehow a virtue.
There is little point in having two sides to everything, even when one of those 'sides' is patently ridiculous. For example, the patent absurdity of claiming that there is a 'debate' between evolutionary theory and the 'Intelligent Design' nonsense-peddlers. There is no such thing. It is more than obvious to anyone without a vested interest in perpetuating ignorance that evolution is about as well established as anything could be. It is as certain as gravity, as the sun, as reality.
It is important to remember that open-mindedness and credulity are not synonyms. They should also understand that while it may be important to respect people's beliefs, it doesn't mean that those beliefs ought to lie beyond investigation. Furthermore, anything that lies outside what is established and verifiable should be - ought to be - treated with great, exacting and rigorous scepticism. Every responsible person in the media should have Hume's dictum that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' tattooed on some always clearly visible part of their anatomy.
There are also the - again, self-appointed - pressure groups, NGOs and single-issue campaigners, and again the media is guilty of accepting their pronouncements uncritically. Taking the word of groups like Greenpeace, et al without checking, questioning or even examining their claims plays along with their need to exaggerate and exacerbate everything into a crisis. For, unless they can create a looming crisis that only they can save us from, then they no longer have a point, or a purpose. In short, it is in their interest to turn every slightly untidy molehill into a whole mountain range of vile polluted putrescence that is on the brink of bringing about the end of the world within a fortnight. Whole swathes of recent current events would have all looked very different if the claims of some of these pressure groups had been critically examined rather than accepted at face value in order to create some 'opposition' or 'debate'.
Interviewing PR reps or PR companies instead of getting it straight from those concerned and involved in the issue under debate is a complete waste of time. PR mouth-monkeys are trained to blather on without saying anything. If the choice is between one of these creatures and saying nothing then the best option is nothing. So, any offer of comment from the PR of a company, or whatever, should be refused and it should be made clear to the viewer or listener that the company - or whatever - is attempting to hide behind a hired mouthpiece. The viewers and listeners can then easily draw their own conclusions.
The use of gossip, speculation and tittle-tattle from the
Pre-emptive news reporting. What is the point? The number of times where are told something is - possibly - going to happen, and then… it doesn't. The reporting of speeches - and their contents - before they are given - what is the point of the speech then? Not that anyone in their right mind would want to sit through a politician's speech anyway. So, I suppose saving us all the bother could be seen as fulfilling the BBC's public service remit.
The BBC was once the best broadcasting company in the world, and something every Britain could regard with something approaching pride, when all else British was - at best - an embarrassment. Now, there is little left of what once gave it its worldwide high reputation.
The other aspects of the BBC's output are for other posts at other times, but this one is primarily concerned with its current affairs and news output. The main reason for the decline - including the use of the shoddy and lazy practises outlined above has to be the constant desire to tamper with the news and current affairs programmes to make them - as the buzzwords have it 'accessible', 'relevant' and all the other empty mouth-music.
They try to change it - 'dumb it down' - to attract viewers and listeners who would not otherwise bother. However, most of those are not interested because they are… well, not interested. There was a time when such a strategy may have worked, back in the old - and, it now seems, far better - days of limited channels. Unfortunately, though, multi-channel means there is always something even less demanding for the totally-mashed couch potato to gawp at. The BBC ought to face up to it, that sort of people are lost for good and disregard them.
Meanwhile, this attempt to cater for the lowest of the lowest common denominators means that those of us who are more demanding lose interest and wander away. So the audience falls even more, so they dumb it down even more, the audience falls even more and so on and on and on, until we end up with a future where the Tweenies will read the news and vapid talentless twerps like Graham Norton present Newsnight, while Question Time features a debate on Law and Order between representatives from Westlife, Emmerdale and When Celebrity Knitting Patterns Attack chaired by the singer of that year's British Eurovision entry.
The BBC should get some courage. It must dare to run the risk of boring, or - shock horror, the greatest crime in dumb-down PC land - 'alienating' some viewers and listeners in order to satisfy those of us who demand some depth and seriousness. There may even be others like me - weirdoes who enjoy thinking. Some people would actually like to be challenged instead of patronised and infantilised.
The BBC must also have the courage to stand up and say that some things, for example creationism, astrology, alternative medicine and therapy, are - unless then can convincingly prove otherwise - nonsense. The BBC should not constantly try to be 'inclusive' and so 'open-minded' that anything could crawl in. In short, it should have standards once again, standards of truth, of accountability, of rigour, of courage in the face of those who try to subvert the truth and reality for their own ends and agendas.
No comments:
Post a Comment