Elegant Chaos

Lauren Dempster asked a question (about a year and a half ago!) which got me going when I read it today:

http://www.laurendempster.com/2007/11/27/the-golden-compass

This was going to be a comment, but turned into a full-on rant!

The BBC news output is of an increasingly poor standard, if you ask me. Much of it is inane, self-obsessed, drivel or pointless "analysis" which actually amounts to stating the bleeding obvious.

For example, a news announcer gives a nice précis of a story. So far so good.

They then "go live" to a correspondent who is standing outside the venue describing how events are "unfolding". Said correspondent then repeats the précis, often word for word, adding no additional information. As with most events, the unfolding generally takes the form of nothing much happening for long periods of time. Often, nothing more is going to happen anyway, because the "event" has already taken place.

To fill in the gaps, the correspondent is asked to speculate on why/what/how "it" happened. They happily do this with minimal recourse to factual information (as they have none at this point). Quite often this speculation will end with a reiteration of the précis.

No better informed than we were when we started, we now return to the studio, and cut to an "expert" who has joined the announcer. They are then asked to comment, generally resulting in further reiteration and inane speculation. They have minimal actual knowledge because nobody actually knows what's going on.

Aaaargh!

This is all bad enough, but it becomes much, much worse when the story is about the media itself, and exponentially worse again if it is about the BBC. Ross & Grant anyone?

Then there's the use of phrases like "stepping up" and "the pressure is mounting" or "is under increasing pressure". These are typically used to indicate that something is still happening, or even just that the media are still talking about something that happened a while ago. So they will say "Gordon Brown is under increasing pressure today as revelations about the donuts-for-honours scandal continue to emerge" - when what they actually mean is "Remember that thing yesterday about the bloke with the donuts, well, we're still talking about it because nothing else has happened".

Most of this isn't unique to the BBC of course, but I'm certain that the BBC is getting worse.

And as for the "arts" slots on the Today programme - give me strength!

Right, calm down, deep breaths...

There's a petition to stop those idiots at the BBC from making their on-demand video service Windows only.

Go and sign it now!

The beeb seem to be working themselves into a mouth-foaming frenzy about the fact that they accidentally showed the press some footage of the Queen which implied that she might have been a bit pissed off during a photo shoot. Like we are supposed to care...

What century are we in again?

The worst part of it isn't even the sycophantic fawning over the Queen - distasteful though that is, I'm used to it by now.

No, the worst part is the illustration of just how self-obsessed the BBC have become, and how low their standards of journalism.

The story achieved almost blanket coverage last night, and featured heavily on both Newsnight and the Today program. It's a growing trend that the BBC cover their own internal dealings as serious news, giving undue prominence to stories about their own programs which often amount to little more than promos.

They should still be a serious institution, and I have a great deal of time for an organisation who's avowed aim is impartial reporting. Sadly though, the BBC are rapidly undermining that status by behaving like everyone else around them, and taking themselves far too seriously.

In this case, like so many others, actions would speak far louder than words.