Austerity report Sir Michael Marmot - BBC Today programme

As usual the BBC Today Programme reports inaccurately the words of an interviewee.   On a recent broadcast Sir Michael Marmot explained the report he had published relating to the fact that life expectancy has decreased for the first time.  In the past every 10 years life expectancy increased by 1 year.  This report shows that by 2020 this has been reversed.  The interviewer asked was this due to austerity? – The clear response by Sir Michael was there was “a strong suggestion that austerity may have had an impact on life expectancy”.  Note the words “strong suggestion” not “Yes it does.”  Immediately following the interview a news bulletin came on with Sir Michael’s interview being the top story.  The news reader stated “Sir Michael Marmot has identified austerity as being the reason for a reduction in life expectancy".  This is not the case as I have shown above.  Later news bulletins corrected this error.  Unfortunately the majority of us do not have time to listen to multiple news bulletins over the day so the “Today” programme has a moral and legal duty to make sure its reporting is accurate.  Some people would have only heard this report and no others.  Who holds these people to account?  Any written complaints come back with only a cursory response to justify their actions.  As George Orwell wrote, “the people will believe what the media tells them to believe. Without effective regulation, a handful of people are free to promote their own ideals and agendas using the public as pawns, safe in the knowledge the public have no way to fight back.”

BBC Correspondents

It has become a constant irritation listening to the BBC coverage of any political activity.  Norman Smith and Laura Kuenssberg are the key protagonists in this issue.  Their input during the election this year was one of the reasons I gave up on the “Today Programme” and most of the BBC news coverage.  Their tone of delivery and Norman Smiths Cheshire Cat grin when reporting on serious issues is not appropriate. More importantly why are these BBC employees’ opinions so much more important and trustworthy than any other person?

 The BBC is not supposed to have an opinion yet these people are given more air time than other who may have an opinion.  An opinion is a personal view so why are these people put on air?  The argument goes that they have “the ear” of those in power.  No! they have listened to a bit of title tattle in the Commons restaurant and picked out the bits that are the most “entertaining.” There again is another fault of the BBC News coverage – they now see themselves as entertainers like the tabloid press and not purveyors of FACTS.  The BBC should stand apart from the rest of the news media yet it is being swallowed up by day to day pressures over viewing and listening figures.  NOTE – during the general election the “Today programme” listening figures dropped by 100,000.  I wonder if they analysed the reason why people switched.  The BBC political correspondents are always given the last word after an interview, WHY!  Leave the public to draw conclusions themselves.  We know when a person is lying or avoiding the question no need to spoon feed the viewer/listener.  They constantly speculate which only creates unnecessary concern or leads to inaccuracies – phrases like “there is a chance….”  “This could possibly happen….”  If you don’t know then keep quiet.  Let others involved in the actual news item make the point. A journalist’s role is to control interviews between two or more people not to stand themselves on a pedestal as some sort of Guru. You’re a journalist – no more and no less so get rid of the title Correspondent – it’s only there so you are paid a ridiculous salary

Subtitles - Why not dub?

Watching TV programmes from foreign countries is becoming a nightmare with the use of subtitles.  A recent programme from BBC Wales, not really a foreign country, " Hidden"  has people talking to each other in English and then for some inexplicable reason the same two characters speaking in Welsh with English subtitles.  What is the point? Apart from ticking a box saying we support the Welsh language it just creates issues with having to read them and taking your eye of the characters.

The fascination with Scandinavian crime dramas results in subtitles all the time which means that the story line, visually, is lost.  I might as well be reading a book.  What’s happened to dubbing apart form the cost.  Let’s give work to British actors allowing them to bring clarity to the story.  Other countries do it to English dramas.  Why am I paying to watch foreign films with subtitles on a British TV system?

While I’m talking about subtitles what about the issue of having to turn them on to understand what actors are saying.  I know we have a problem with actors who have trained without having worked in the theatre where clarity of speech is vital.  You think these professionals would know that microphones can’t amplify nothing or that strong accents make it difficult to hear what they are saying.   Poor sound engineers who don’t seem to understand what they are there for don’t seem to be telling directors that the actor is not being heard.  It’s one thing listening with a pair of headphones on but most people don’t watch TV in this way. 

Let’s return to English speaking programmes – we live in an English speaking country.   

Home Office is ‘institutionally racist’, said report into Windrush scandal - Lie!

On the 21st Feb 2020 "The Times" had a headline on its online copy stating  "Home Office is ‘institutionally racist’, said report into Windrush scandal" it went on to say

"A report that concluded the Home Office was “institutionally racist” over its “hostile environment” policy towards migrants has been toned down, The Times has been told.The phrase “institutionally racist” was included in an early draft of the report but no longer appears in more recent versions, according to sources familiar with the review" 

How can this headline match the story it was attached to?  This headline was a LIE!
This is the technique of the Tabloid press not a supposedly respected newspaper.  Further proof of the statement "Don't let the facts get in the way of the story." This is a deliberate act of stating false information which is trying to make a story out of a non story.  The report in its final form did not have this statement and therefore cannot be put forward as being factually correct.  We all write drafts and edit before publication but the facts and true story, hopefully, will be in the final published copy.
Yet again nobody holding the Press to account. IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) is a joke.

Boris Johnson and Daily Mirror

The Daily Mirror seems to have a misguided vendetta against Boris Johnson - I wonder why?
They are babbling on about the fact that he has not visited the flood areas to meet with people.  What do they expect him to do? Wave a magic wand perhaps? These people need actions not platitudes which is what the papers want to see.  If he goes he will be accused of making it a photo opportunity. The best place for  Prime Minister is making sure all the experts are there to talk to the people and then to support the Minister who is at the front line to make sure these people have what they need.  Grow up Daily Mirror and get off your high horse.  Put your own house in order before you start trying to play the voice of the "people" which you are most certainly not.