The Pixel Experience

Due to the ‘unique way that the BBC is funded’ us Brits have long enjoyed a broadcasting institution that has easily rivaled any other in the world. We have benefited from a well funded R&D lab bringing all sorts of technical innovations, fantastic original programming and some truly amazing presenters such as David Attenbourgh and Michael Parkinson. Whilst the grumpy old man in me struggles to come to terms with the gradual demise of these departments, there is one thing really bugs me.

My lack of trust for old Auntie. I’m not talking about the horrific phone-in scandals on Blue Peter, but the News department. How hard is it to present the days local and international events in a truthful and un-biased way?

This has been happening for some time now, and I’ve largely been able to dismiss it on the grounds that the Beeb is going down the pan, and there’s nothing I can do about it anyway. However, over the last couple of days there have been two news stories that really demonstrate the amateurish and misleading way that our license fees are being spent. Neither of which would have cost any extra money to put right! I’m talking about pure bad journalism that should never have been broadcast.

Firstly, when quoting figures in a story, it’s not good enough to simply quote an integer without explaining which units these are in. I’m referring to an article broadcast yesterday (although it could have been the day before) when a news reader was trying to demonstrate the slowdown in house sales. So when referring to London he/she said that there was an increase of 4 and in some other areas a decrease of 38. Now I’m a bright chap, I can get me head around the basics of quantum computing and the solution to Fermat’s last theorem but an increase of 4 means nothing to me without telling me what units they are referring to - are these percentages, individual property sales, or something else. And to think that all the editor had to do was include the units for these figures!

Secondly, yesterday there was a manipulation of footage used in a story about quintuplets born to a Russian woman. Although the footage distributed by an Oxford hospital contained no audio, the babies had respirators over their mouths, and other news services like ITV and Sky broadcast the clips without modification, the BBC felt that the footage would somehow be enhanced by falsely adding the sounds of babies crying. Now I know that links between todays society and the Big Brother of Orwells 1984 are being identified more and more, and that some of these links are quite unfair, but as I remember Winston Smith’s job at the ministry of truth was to manipulate news and history, thereby falsifying it.

Is this really a route that the BBC wants to continue down?