We pay the TV License and haven't had a TV for years. More than happy to support the BBC.
Are you being serious or trolling?
The other problem it has - and it shares this with many other news organisations - is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "balance". And this is another version of the Argument to Moderation. It's not balanced to give equal time to both sides in an argument with no analysis. You're not balanced if you give equal airtime to climate scientists and climate change deniers.
I'm reminded of this,
climate change is one classic example, the science is dumbed down, the messages over simplified,
But is that an issue with the broadcaster or the consumer? Whenever I hear the Radio 1 news my teeth itch with its over simplicity, but other more comprehensive BBC news feeds are available. As an avid R4 listener I get my fill of the Today program then onto standalone programs like Costing the Earth, The Moral Maze and even the Infinite Monkey Cage which add so much more depth. The audience for these is small but is that the fault of the Beeb? It would be a bit like blaming the broadsheets for having smaller readership than the Sun and the Mirror. If I was allowed to be in charge (what an awful thought) the entire voting population would be sat in front of quality current affairs and poked with cattle prods to keep them watching, then tested to see what they took in with more prodding for those that failed. But given a choice a chunk of the population either are not capable of getting their heads around more complex handling of issues or just are not interested enough. Dumbed down programming of the major issues might just be better than nothing.
even the Infinite Monkey Cage which add so much more depth.
if you think a panel comedy show for a faux intellectual audience is adding depth then it shows how big the problem is
As an avid R4 listener I get my fill of the Today program
at last someone who admits to liking the "magazine" format where they spend 5-10 minutes on Van Morrison having a fart or the dichotomy of a London based visual art show which can be accessed by 50 people
It would be a bit like blame the broadsheets for having smaller readership than the Sun and the Mirror. If I was allowed to be in charge (what an awful thought) the entire voting population would be sat in front of quality current affairs and poked with cattle prods to keep them watching, then tested to see what they took in with more prodding for those that failed
there is nothing stopping the issues being presented in an interesting accessible manner other than the obsession with personalities in place of content, they could even try and use humour!
if you think a panel comedy show for a faux intellectual audience is adding depth then it shows how big the problem is
Did you spot the word 'even'? I am aware what the show is ta. If I can find the clip I'll put it up; but there was probably the best explanation I have ever heard of the current climate issue (juxtaposed with the short term economic and political everyday pressures faced by governments that slows the right things being done) on it recently. Yes, there is a (debatable) comedy element, but the topics are worthy of discussion. You could even say its worthwhile issues being presented in an 'interesting accessible manner' 😉 . Get past your snobbery, you might actually like it.
spend 5-10 minutes on Van Morrison having a fart or the dichotomy of a London based visual art show which can be accessed by 50 people
Yes, that pretty much sums up the entire content 🙄 You got the right program (3 hours every morning 6-9am)?
But given a choice a chunk of the population either are not capable of getting their heads around more complex handling of issues or just are not interested enough. Dumbed down programming of the major issues might just be better than nothing.
Indeed. The sad fact is that those most in need of understanding are probably least likely to be able to (or even want to) understand. Plus, y'know, Dunning-Kruger.
Look at Brexit; when someone votes Leave because they believe that we will be able to afford to build new hospitals and yet want to "send them all back where they came from" and get rid of half of the doctors and hospital staff in one fell swoop, well, these people are difficult to reach. They don't buy newspapers to learn anything, they buy newspapers that tell them they're right and to look at tits.
Dumbing down is needed because you have to reach the lowest common denominator. Your average Daily Express reader isn't going to be staying up to watch Question Time or seeking to engage in a challenging discourse on mankind's influence on climate change, they're more likely to think there's too many ****s and are looking forward to summer being a bit sunnier.
It's human nature to seek simple answers to complex questions (cf. religion), but the fact is that complex questions have answers which are difficult to comprehend and people will have varying degrees of ability (and inclination) to look at presented information with a critical eye to reach an informed decision. Ideally we need varying news feeds pitched at different levels in order to cater to different audiences, but we need to be careful what we say to people who are solely reliant on being told the simple answers. Once we reach our individual limit of understanding then we have to rely on those who know more about a subject, which is why the likes of Farage trotting out speeches deliberately undermining expert opinions is so incredibly dangerous.
News outlets, be that the press or the BBC or whoever, really should be bound by a duty of care. They're wholly culpable for this ****ing mess IMHO.
El Reg in full sarcasm mode. I like them when they're like that.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/06/bbc_detector_van_wi_fi_iplayer/?mt=1470466644134
