Take the BBC News websites Have Your Say section. An organisation who bases it's reputation on fairness and impartiality in reporting the news decides to allow the great unwashed to comment on the news. Now 99% of the comments are predictable enough. For instance most respondents generally agree that sneding serial sex offenders to jail is a good idea. You get some really fucking wierd ones, such as a comments from "Jess" who, in the case of the recent murders in Ipswich has written in to say "Why does everyone keep assuming that it's a man that killing all these women? There is no evidence to show that it is a man". Now, despite the fact that "Jess" is clearly striking a righteous blow for women's rights in that they should be treated with equal suspicion when trying to uncover a mass murderer, the principle of Occam's Razor really ought to come into effect. It's almost guarenteed that this killer is a man as women, even the psychotic ones, don't go around strangling five women in a short space of time. But thanks for your pointless analysis, "Jess", and I'm sure the police will speak to you about your obvious talents in criminol psychology.
"Joe" however says "its not hard to find out the truth and keep people safe set up cctv or hidden camara all around so its not a wild goose chase" [sic throughout]. Now Joe here has obviously never read 1984. He also seems to misunderstand that prostitutes and their clients will very rarely wish to be taped, due to the dubious legality of the situation.
Other stories get a similar treatment. The story about the dropping of an investigation into alleged corruption in a BAe arms deal to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s ellicts pages and pages of responses from people who I'm almost totally convinced have very little experience in international business law, international security or arms dealership. The report into the death of Princess Diana allows "Jake" from Southampton the opportunity to sagely tell us all that "Diana is dead. Get over it". Thanks "Jake".
Now this commenting and citizen reporting is supposed to be about democratising the news. But it only really makes clear that the general British populace have nothing of any worth to say. All they can squeeze out are a bunch of half-formed responses to what they assume the issue is. A responder to a question to climate change has said "if it's warmer, I will pollute less", a statement of such bone headed ignorance and stupidity it made me bang my head of the desk. Why is this nobody's opinion being reported as news? Does it actually bear any relevence on the subject? Who cares if Kelly from Cardiff thinks Saddam Hussein should be hung?
Somebody, in charge of a major news outlet really ought to put a stop to this. To inform the World that we don't have to listen to a insurance salesman's opinion on further EU expansion. It's been slowly creeping in for years, with viewer reponses read out on BBC Breakfast and the ITV Lunchtime News, thereby lending the same journalistic credibility to Sharon from Essesx's thoughts on legalised prostitution as to a report on the genocide in Darfur. The only people who can get away with this shit are Newsround, and to be honest alot of the responses from children aged 5-15 are more interesting and better thought out than those of the adults.
Why can't news just be about facts, reported to you by someone who actually has some kind of knowledge about the subject, rather than a bunch of bullet points which Tracey or Gary or Kevin can hang their predjudices on to?
Back