Opinions and BBC

The whole news media is a constantly trying to justify its actions and failing badly. I've written many times to News Watch and the Today Programme and Point of View.  All the programme makers do is pay lipservice to the concept that they are listening to complaints by the public.  Even writing to make an official complaint to the BBC results in the  a response that denies any responsibility for their actions.  The News Media is too powerful and only answerable to themselves.  This must change!  The News media has changed its focus from informing to entertainming.  These things are incompatable. The opinion of BBC employees seems to command most of the news now adays.  I'm not interested in these "correspondents"   who put themselves up as so called experts.  They are no more experts than any other person.  Their information sources are just as biased as them.  Put people up who are not BBC employess.  BBC employees shouldn't have an opinion which is shared with the public.  The rest of us don't have that luxury. 

Alleged as a word that should not be used in news reporting

Another news item that showed the sloppiness of journalism that now exists in the UK.  The story of Caroline Flack who commited suicide was being reported on.  The BBC Presenter referred to a "Whats App" comment allegedly made by Caroline.  The word I focus on is the term allegedly.  Why is the BBC reporting things that have not been proved to be accurate?  The accuracy of news items should set the BBC and other news media above the sources of Social Media.  Instead of trying to match Social Media in the way it peddles inaccurate news they should set themselves up as the only true suppliers of facts which have been checked and double schecked.  People would then trust them and ignore social media. Social Media is no way to get unbiased views bout news items.  People only read what matches their beliefs

BBC 6 O' Clock news and how it reports

I'm listening to the BBC 6pm news on the 19th Feb 2020.  The headlines are all about controls over immigration.  Throughout the day all that has been talked about is the problems this will cause because of the restrictions on people coming in from Europe who do the jobs that are needed in the lower paid sectors - Social Services, Hospitality and Labourers.  At no point during the day was the whole story explained.  Even the BBC 6 pm News didn't do any reporting on the facts that explain the process until the end of the package.  The first section was all about what was going on and then it was pointed out that people from other countries who live here will not be affected.  They can continue to work.  In other words no loss of workers who are already here.  Giving time for industries to find other ways of filling new posts.  Its about time firms in the hospitality industry started to pay wages that make this industry a Career and not one for students to fill the posts for pocket money.  They then condescendedly pointed out that since we are now able to control our own boarders we can adjust the rules to suit our needs. No mention that the choices we have over who we let in now covers the whole world and not just the EU. The Government pointed out that non of these regulations are laid down in tablets of stone.  That's why we left the EU.  We had no control over the rules and regulations that the EU created. A un-elected body trying to reflect 27 countries needs.  Under the new scheme the government can adjust immigration to meet our needs.  The news media has lost its way - just look at the reporting on the recent General Election.  Let's look for the controvesial and ignore the bits where people are thinking alike.  Even the political parties were arguing for things the other parties had already said they were going to do.  The BBC and the rest of the news media is too powerful and instead of "reflecting" the political agenda they are "setting" it by what and how they report stories.
Watrch this space for more observations on our news media

BBC licence fee

The BBC is panicking as threats are made to remove the licence fee and tunr the BeeB into a supcription service .  Personally there are some merits in this.  I certainly don't want it to be turned into a commercial enterprise with adverts or we end up with TV at the lowest common denominator - game shows and reality tv.  Cheap to produce and appealing to the tabloid reader. There is a need to reduce the number of channels the BBC runs.  Lets keep BBC 1 and BBC2  and I Player.  Keep Radio 4 although the "Today" Programme can do with a rethink.  Keep Radio 3 as well although I don't listen to it. The rest the commercial sector can do the rest well enough.  The World Service is also a great station. I listen through the night and they have some great programmes - news coverage is much better.  At a later date I'll talk in more detail about news coverage - no time now.
So BBC start getting your act together and spend the money making great programmes on fewer channels - that should help the budget

Long Time no hear

Well, it's been a long time since I put my thoughts down on electronic paper but as you get older and wiser you realise that time is running out to try and identify those things that irritate and make this world a less nice place to be part of.  Maybe I can find some nice things to refer to.  My latest obervation is one I have had opinions on for many years - the news media. Leveson has been and gone - no changes of any consequence after all that work.  IPSO is useless and the press contunes to set itself up as the guardians of everything that is good and decent.  The tragic death of Caroline Flack has again shown the tabloid press at its worst. I am not aware of this persons work but I do know that she is a human being with all the feelings that human beings have.  The media cannot stand the idea that someone is succesful.  It really is a British disease, this idea that all succesful people deserve to be knocked down and trampled into the dirt. Ms Flack did not deserve this treatment even if she is famous and the media yet again retreats under the stone that they live under. Help to get this matter revisited by signing the petition
https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-state-for-digital-culture-media-and-sport-www-change-org-p-celebrities-exploiting-people-in-the-public-eye

Why have an American President

As President Obama comes to the end of his term of office I ask myself why do people vote and elect someone to an office which they can't do anything with?

Over his term Obama has tried to introduce Medical Care changes and gun laws which he was given a mandate to by the electorate.  Yet when he tries to instigate these changes he is constantly blocked  by Congress.  The House of Representatives and the Senate both vote against him since the opposition is often in greater numbers than his own party.  What is the point?

It would appear the Presidential position is purely an ambassadorial one which is used to give the American message around the world.

Why not just vote for your representatives in Congress and let them fight it out.  The Presidential position is outdated and ineffective.

American Shootings continue

Having just returned from the USA I have had a number of conversations with people about the state of gun laws and access to guns in the USA and the responses are quite surpising.  50% for guns and 50% against.  The against lobby have all of the usual answers about needing more control and that would seem an obvious soultion but the for campaign have some intresting arguments which I would like to air here based on my conversations.

The 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution is a favourite with the right to carry arms.  A number of the people we met do just that.  The fact that the Constitution was written in the 1700's seems to suggest that its about time it was rewritten with the 21st Century in mind.  In those days you took your life in your hands every day with bandits all over the place.  Some of the present day population would state that nothing has changed but I beg to differ.  Pointing out that the British "Constitution" (if you can call it that) has evolved over time as judges make judgments based on present day situations and not those that took place over 300 years ago.  The American Constitution is a rod that is breaking the back of one of the most powerful nations in the world. Get rid of it and start to re-evaluate your priorities.
The other argument that comes up is the fact that Mental Health is what is responsible for these killings and that Mental Health patients are not being treated well and so more killings occur.  I agree that Western Nations need to do more for Mental Health patients but how is it that other western nations don't have this shooting problem even though they have Mental Health patients?  The reason is that they can't get hold of the weapons in the first place.  Access to weapons in the USA is completly open with few serious checks.  They argue that Chicago has the strongest gun laws in the USA yet there are more killings here than many other cities.  The people who argue this seem to forget that guns dont stop at the city boundaries and in fact most of the guns used in killings in Chicago have been brought in from other parts of the USA.  It like imagining that disease stops at our borders.  Viruses don't recognise borders either.
And another reason for having guns available appears to be as a deterent to robbery.  Having a gun in your home will act as a deterent? In that case I suppose robbery must be at its lowest in the USA compared to any other Western country.  Of course this is not the case.  So I'm afraid that is no deterent and people continue to get robbed and probably shot at the same time as burglars are more likley to be armed since the owner of the house may be armed as well.  Criminals see themselves as invincible so have no fear about carrying weapons.
When householders shoot people,even in the back, as they run away the "instruction" is to drag the person back onto your land so you cant be prosecuted.  What a ridiculous situation.  Everything a person does to protect themelves needs to be proportional.  If you life is in danger then the reponse should be different than if a person is running down the road with your TV.
And so the arguments go on.  And so do the killings.