All entries for Monday 02 October 2006
October 02, 2006
Why did the BBC have a non-story as their main headline on tonight’s Six O’Clock News?
This isn’t a matter of subjective opinion. Even the BBC’s Political Editor said after his news piece that it wasn’t really a big issue.
So why, dear BBC, was it the main headline on the UK’s most-watched news bulletin? I am in no way a Conservative supporter, yet this story was clearly nonsense.
The story was that the Tories were unsure about David Cameron’s tax policies (not that he really has any), preferring tax cuts to stability. This was based upon a fringe debate which was carried 60/40 in favour of a motion calling for tax cuts. The main proponent of the motion was Norman Tebbit, a well-renowned nutter who in the same debate called for the Tories to pull out of the EU. The people in the room were more than likely not typical of Conservative members, let alone voters. They were in all probability Tebbit-fans who wanted to see their idol.
Another Tory MP claims that 100 Conservative MPs are doubtful of Cameron’s tax policies, a statistic that he seems to have no way of proving.
Yet this fringe debate became the main story on the BBC News.
My usual reaction to this is that someone was spinning the story and trying to bump it up the agenda. But realistically the only person who would want to do this is Norman Tebbit himself. So who decided to make this angle not just the most important one from the Tory party conference, but also the main story of the day?
The media seem to want this conference to be a critique of Cameron’s “style over substance” problem, and yet they’ve realised it’s not entirely true and doesn’t make for sexy television. Far better to report splits in the party, even if they’re so small they’re almost invisible.
When Nick Robinson comes on TV and says:
David Cameron’s not too upset about this sort of news item
you know someone’s screwed up.
There’s really four types of Journalists out there:
- Celebrity luvvie-journalists
- Unsuccessful, bitter hacks
- Those who gave up and went into PR
- Those who gave up and went into management
I’m unsure which is preferable.
(1) and (4) pay well, while (2) doesn’t. (3) pays a fair salary but you have the non-financial burden of having to do the Devil’s work. (1) brings fame and fortune, but also the ridicule of (2), which itself comes with zero recognition for your work and is frankly equivalent to working in McDonalds as far as doing some ‘worthy’ goes. (3) and (4) make you unspeakably unpleasant individuals, while (1) makes you a backstabber and an insufferable bitch. (4) requires you to make many enemies, not least of which are the people who work, begrudgingly, for you. (2) will spend far too much time drinking and in all likelihood end up dead. (1) also entails eventual death, but with an increased chance of getting an obituary in a national newspaper. (2) is desperate to write an obituary for a national newspaper, never mind have their own. Meanwhile, (1) and (2) are beginning to realise that new media makes them redundant, as bloggers and the riff-raff can do their job for them, while (3) and (4) are finding themselves outsourced not to the internet, but to India, where call centres are branching out. And (1), (2), (3) and (4) will in all likelihood live and work in London, where they can’t afford a house, can’t find a good school, live in close proximity to a large number of their fellow scum and breathe in shit all day making their inevitable death considerably closer.
Remind me again why I’m training to be a journalist?