The BBC have, for some reason, a 30 minute news bulletin followed by regional news for 20 minutes (ish) then back to central for weather. Or something like that. I find it hard to follow.
I've never been a huge fan of regional news, it's always struck me as shallow, narrow-minded and a waste of time. I'd much rather have more indepth reporting, or critiquing of international affairs.
This evening I felt things hit a nadir, admittedly it's the dead news period, but still, this isn't too different from normal.
An east midlands motorway is being extended and some people trying to restore a canal are up in arms because the motorway will require changes to bridges, which if not done, will mean the canal cannot be restored. All I got from this article was a bunch of old buggers (it's always old buggers) wanting to restore a canal, and grumbling about bridges. No-where in the story was there an explanation as to a) why anyone wants the canal the restored or b) why the motorway needed extending (becoming a dual-carriage way).
This was an excellent example of crap reporting with no context, and no hook to engage view interest. Why TF bother?
I went back to my book, Charlie Brooker's "The Hell of it All", which seemed somehow apt.
B
30 December 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I actually think we have too much international news and not enough local focus, but that doesn't change the fact that it's all pretty crap - when exactly did news become a rundown of statistics? I want actual analysis and opinion, no matter where the news is based.
I thought NZ had the local/international balance better, but then I also felt they biased more towards local... Or at least NZ.
Post a Comment