PDA

View Full Version : Self-Absorbed Media :Luvvies


swashplate
28th Mar 2002, 02:22
Just watching the garbage that passes for BBC news tonight..... .. .They lead with 'ITV Digital in administration'!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> . .. .Never mind bombs in Israel, earthquakes in Afghanistan... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> . .. .In the considered opinion of the cocaine-snorters, their rivals' troubles outwiegh these terrible events..... .. .Sense of proportion needed, methinks... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> . .. ....why do we watch this crap.....?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />

Kalium Chloride
28th Mar 2002, 04:15
Swashplate,. .. .In general (not always, I hastily concede) the priority of news stories is not determined by the significance of the event to those involved, but by the potential influence/impact on the news audience.. .. .The quake in Afghanistan is tragic, likewise the bombing in Israel. But it's a cold, hard fact that neither of these is likely to have as direct an effect on the lives of British news viewers as the ITV Digital crisis -- because the latter raises direct concerns over British businesses (in television and football), the jobs associated with them, and those who pay for the services.. .. .You can bet that if someone had bombed a hotel in the UK instead of Israel, it would have been rightly carried as the lead story.. .. .But be honest -- are the Afghan quake or the hotel bomb likely to affect you, the audience? If not, then I think you have to think carefully about your reasons for wanting to see the reports from the quake zone/bomb site, etc. Chances are that, even if you have a good reason (family in Israel, for example) then you're in a minority compared with those who might be affected by a story on home ground.. .. .This prioritisation is not meant as indifference to those caught up in the tragedies. But don't forget the news channels have to justify their existence by pulling in an audience -- and people are inclined to want to know about things that affect their lives directly ahead of things that don't. Don't blame the media. They're responding to what people want.

Rollingthunder
28th Mar 2002, 04:31
I'm always a bit amused when in the UK. I get around 200 channels here even without a satellite link-up and 4 in England. I've always thought that if you're going to watch television it's best to have a large choice of programs to select from.. .. .BBC news always seems to have a limit of about 6 news items when there is so much going on in the country, not to mention the rest of the world. The other news programs are no better.

somewhatconcerned
28th Mar 2002, 06:57
Believe it or not there are 5 terrestrial channels here in the UK, although most of the population would forgive you for thinking otherwise.

Rollingthunder
28th Mar 2002, 07:05
Yes I do know. but the fifth is not adequately available in all areas...areas as far apart as eight miles.

Send Clowns
28th Mar 2002, 13:07
Rollingthunder. .. .Of course your assumption that to get the best television has proved not only incorrect, but to be the reverse of the truth. The reason should have been obvious, but no-one seems to have thought of it.. .. .The advertising revenue available is based on the number of people watching the advert. Dilute available audience over many more channels, and the advertising revenue per hour of TV goes down on each. Hence we get the crap but cheap to make "reality" shows and gardening, cooking and DIY. The budget and therefore quality of all the rest of progamming falls.. .. .The BBC should be immune, being publically-funded. However they had the absurd idea that they needed to have digital services in place so that in a few years time when analogue goes they are ready. Why? Why not wait then transfer the 2 analogue channels to digital? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> So they put up for example News 24, needed because we only have 3 other 24-hour news services <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> and the 2 digital childrens channels, needed because we only have about 10 childrens channels. This dilutes their money, causes them to merge TV and Radio News, causing both to be downgraded (TV reporters are incapable of writing for radio, the BBC has now proved). They closed technical departments, and have far more technical hitches than they ever had before when electronic connections were more complicated and diffiult. They now churn out forgettable crap instead of the great work they used to be able to fund. Yet our licence fee had to go up more than inflation to pay for the change. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> . .. .By the way - my landldy subscribes to digital. I watch the Simpsons on Sky One, the documentary channels, Sky News, CNN and films (Film 4 is well worth paying for). The rest is dross.. .. .My apologies, now my rant is over, we can return to the subject of the thread.. .. .Swashy, I quite agree.. .. .KC ITV digital does not affect many people, that is the problem. The effect is in any case small to most of those unless you are obsessed with the media. The bomb in Israel could well affect us. The problems in the middle east are very relevant to the terrorist threat to us. The Earthquake in Afghanistan, at this time, is also vitally important news. The BBC has a crap, biased news as obsessed with fame and the media as the tabloid press and trivia magazines.. . . . <small>[ 28 March 2002, 09:14: Message edited by: Send Clowns ]</small>

swashplate
28th Mar 2002, 17:00
Yeah, I should have put it that way SC...... .. .What really got my goat was the snotty, sneering, "ohhh...he...he....he...our rivals are in trouble" attitude on display, when vastly more important events are occuring in the World... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> . .. .But to be fair to BBC, "Newsnight" did at least cover the Isreali stuff.