Jump to content

Pet hates from the media.


Biggles87

Recommended Posts

Just heard of a massive failure of the UK ATC system.

Included in the BBC news was the sentence “ we are hearing reports of aircraft being held on runways all over the country “ Aaagh!” When will they realise that not every piece of paved surface on an airport is a runway!

On the other hand if all the runways in the country are blocked by stationary aircraft perhaps that’s why nothing is moving.

Rant over 

 

John

  • Like 2
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister in law is a BBC news editor. They don't seem to have many staff left after the constant rounds of 'voluntary' redundancies, with more on the way. News has been hit harder than most (not easy to sell abroad), so I am completely unsurprised. They also have to make it 'accessible' especially on TV. A look at the recently revamped BBC News App will give you a flavour of what tghis means. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I'd like to stay informed, most media outlets make it almost impossible.

 

So many of them cater to confirmation biases of one leaning or another, that they are simply unwatchable or unreadable.

 

They all do so much talking and yet say nothing.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2023 at 12:05 PM, 593jones said:

Why are people watching television when they could be modelling?  A much better use of time!

 

I do both at the same time! It might explain why my attention to detail isn't up there with the rest of you 😄

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2023 at 12:10 PM, upnorth said:

As much as I'd like to stay informed, most media outlets make it almost impossible.

 

So many of them cater to confirmation biases of one leaning or another, that they are simply unwatchable or unreadable.

 

They all do so much talking and yet say nothing.

 

This is really bothering me more and more and it is most obvious with news papers. So many news outlets seem to have their agenda set before they even start covering any event. So many are politically aligned and make it obvious in their writing.

 

Sensationalist headlines are getting more and more common along with the rise (and success) of clickbait.

 

It's not just news, either. I stopped reading New Scientist many years ago because every headline was proclaiming some groundbreaking discovery of the decade and then the story would admit that actually nothing interesting at all has happened in this field but if one day it does, the incredible headline will come in handy.

 

Headline: "The secrets of the universe are revealed..."

Article: "...if one day in the distant future, scientists succeed in working them out."

 

Frankly I'm running out of fresh  newspapers, tv channels, magazines and websites to boycott...

 

Edited by kiseca
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still prefer the BBC news to any other outlet's bulletins, although sometimes, I get a little tired of seeing the same piece of newsreel being shown over and over again. If I see that Spanish bloke kiss one the the female Spanish players once more, my foot is going to connect with the screen.

 

John.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kiseca said:

It's not just news, either. I stopped reading New Scientist many years ago because every headline was proclaiming some groundbreaking discovery of the decade and then the story would admit that actually nothing interesting at all has happened in this field but if one day it does, the incredible headline will come in handy.

 

 

I got the same way with National Geographic.

 

The photography is still top notch as ever, but the reportage quality went down to the point it was unreadable. Poor proofreading and a level of writing so low it was almost condescending made me give up on it.

 

A few years back, they ruffled a lot of feathers when they made a standard monthly edition and that month's special edition all about gender diversity. I'd pretty much given up on them before they did that, but it really says something when they'd make probably the least diverse edition in their history just to focus on diversity.

 

I think they likely wouldn't have bothered so many people if they had just one article on the subject in their standard monthly edition and used the special edition to expand on it, but they just used both editions that month to glut on one subject.

 

To me, one of the best things about National Geographic was that it usually had articles that covered a variety of interests in each standard issue. You could usually find at least one article of interest. The writing was also usually at a happy medium. Low enough the average person could grasp it, but not so low that it was insulting to higher educated people.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radio and tv news presenters who don’t allow the person they are interviewing to give an answer to a question and who insist on continuously interrupting. Yes Kay Burley, I’m referring to you! 😡😡😡

 

Graham

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, GrahamS said:

Radio and tv news presenters who don’t allow the person they are interviewing to give an answer to a question and who insist on continuously interrupting. Yes Kay Burley, I’m referring to you! 😡😡😡

 

Graham

I agree with what you're saying, up to a point. Yes, some interviewers can be really annoying with their constant interrupting, but sometimes I can see why they do it. Politicians are the worst for avoiding the question, and the interviewer, if they are worth their salt, interrupt to try and force them back to the question asked.That's what they're paid to do.

But what really grinds my gears, and this is creeping into to just about every aspect of broadcasting, is music! Why the BH do we need music playing while someone is talking, drowning out what they are saying?

 

John.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/08/2023 at 20:52, Vince1159 said:

Yet they still fight tooth and nail against giving up the licence,as far as i'm concerned the sooner the dinosaur that's the bbc dies the better...

As far as I'm concerned, I think the license fee is worthwhile for ad free radio. Admittedly BBC2 has been in a steady decline since Wogan left and appears to be turning into radio 1 (or am I just getting old?), but still has good specialist slots for jazz, blues, country and folk. Radio 4 has had a disappointing drop in drama production, but still my go to source for news. The big plus for radio news is that the content is not determined by whether video of the story is available. Radio 6 is my go to music source - sure I can get everything on Spotify or similar, but how do you look for something you've never heard of? Yes, streaming services offer 'curated' play lists but these are based on your past listening. Radio has the benefit of playing you stuff you may never have found selected by (in the best cases) people who know what they're talking about. I'm not really a classics guy, but Radio 3 does venture down less trodden paths where as Classic FM tends more towards 'greatest hits'.

 

I do think BBC TV does need a shakeup though - the benefit of a licence fee should be that programming is less bound by commercial pressure, yet BBC is becoming more and more like ITV in content and dropping the stuff that made it different and (IMHO better). These days I find Channel 4 is more likely to broadcast something a little different.

On 02/09/2023 at 09:06, kiseca said:

So many news outlets seem to have their agenda set before they even start covering any event. So many are politically aligned and make it obvious in their writing.

 Its the ones that don't make it obvious you need to watch out for! They ALL have an agenda, but sometimes its hidden 🙂

 

Cheers

 

Colin

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is anything that is even vaguely football related news, when other more important world events are pushed aside or even ignored?

Try Boom radio on your Alexa type speaker. Great music and great DJ's who actually know what they are talking about.

@ckw I like classic FM too, but as you say it's all about greatest hits nowadays. Music that was in their top 100 mostly gets ignored.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the printed word started to decline back in the nineties. First off Rupert Murdoch and the others (working for Maggie) killed the print unions, thus destroying what little integrity the newspapers had.

Then along comes Mr. Gates with his wonderful Windows. Wooohoooo said the MD's. For £30 for a programme and a temp from the office we can produce our own magazines, brochures, letters etc.

Great. Smashing. Super. What you see before you is the result. Editors that solely work to a number of words count. Proof readers that rely on the computers dictionary and or grammar settings. Stuff that reads like it was written by a three year old. No style, nothing flows, hyphens in the wrong place, etc. etc. etc. Production run by a twelve year old with a degree.

It took me 7 years of very hard graft to pass my Trade Exams and ultimately a Degree, all to learn the art of Composing Type, Page Layout, Typography, the Rules of Grammar and about a gazillion other things that go towards making a printed page look something decent. We got binned when the PC became cheaper than a months wage.

I've given up with newspapers, most magazines aren't worth the paper they are printed on. As for radio, I kinda find the ones that play drivel in the background and go do something else.

Apologies, that's my twopenneth.

 

Regards

Pete

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, GrahamS said:

Radio and tv news presenters who don’t allow the person they are interviewing to give an answer to a question and who insist on continuously interrupting. Yes Kay Burley, I’m referring to you! 😡😡😡

 

Graham

Clive Anderson was the king of that all the way back in the 90s.  So conceited and keen to show us how quick-witted and funny he was that his guests barely got a look in.  I still can't stand him to this day.

 

I've given up with the media, it's all gibberish with a slant on it, little more than moron-fodder.  I forget when I last watched live TV at home, and don't miss it one iota.  I forget just how intrusive and LOOOOONG adverts are, and how little actual content there is in between the recaps and the precaps each side of the break, with a layer of self-advertising sandwiched between.  It must be getting up to 6 minutes long.  By then I've forgotten what I'm watching :shrug:

 

That said, we need to be very careful this thread doesn't delve too close to the evil politics, as that's a sure way to get it locked down, and people suspended. Don't let's go there, eh? :yes:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mike said:

Clive Anderson was the king of that all the way back in the 90s.  So conceited and keen to show us how quick-witted and funny he was that his guests barely got a look in.  I still can't stand him to this day.

Oh yes, I’d forgotten about him. I liked him when he was interviewing the Bee Gees, tried to be clever and Barry upped and left the stage. I find Jonathon Ross the same. So busy trying to be funny and not giving the guests time to speak.

 

in total contrast to the likes of the great Parky (except when he interviewed Helen Mirren, definitely not his best), Terry Wogan and Graham Norton. They knew/know when to shut up and get the best out of their guests.

 

Graham

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we've panned the DM before  for its inaccuracies, but I thought this one, the tragic Gender Reveal fiasco in Mexico, was a bit game of two halves. First the sensational heading "in front of cheering guests" statement, more like some way behind the guests & many/most may have been unaware of it initially. The next paragraph describes the aircraft as a small jet, :confused: but then identifies it very accurately as a PA-25-235. 👍 Wish they'd make their minds up. RIP Luis Angel N.

Steve.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ratch said:

There are more adverts on the BBC than there are on commercial stations.

Another one of my pet peeves, programme length invariably includes a couple of minutes of BBC self advertising at either end.

 

John

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical of a 24 hour news channel

"Coming up after the break, we report on how building models is in resurgence and look at how Airfix is once again thriving". If you're lucky, there'll be a two minute report about three hours later. If you're unlucky, a has-been celebrity will die during the next hour and the rest of the day the channel will cover nothing else but the highlights of their career and a series of tributes.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Pete Robin said:

most magazines aren't worth the paper they are printed on

Actually they are - but only to the advertisers! To my mind the magazines are in general simply product catalogues with a bit of content thrown in (most of which can be found online anyway). And that content is more often than not a veiled (or not so veiled) endorsement of the advertiser's products. But I understand it - production costs have escalated so much in the last few years, coupled with drastic reductions in circulation, that to produce a quality magazine of pre-internet standards would require a ridiculous cover price ( further reducing circulation) and of course that's less attractive to advertisers. It's a viscous circle, and I don't see print magazines having a future.

 

And now of course we're starting to see AI generated articles which doesn't make anything better

 

Cheers

 

Colin

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...