Impartiality is vital, but there are other reasonable expectations of BBC News coverage, particularly linear bulletins, and web pages that put stories in some order of priority.
I would offer 'perspective', 'proportionality' and 'significance'. I acknowledge that the travails of Philip Schofield, his former boyfriend and the ITV programme "This Morning" are interesting to many, and clearly reportable - but, in terms of ranking in importance and significance, I'm astonished at the airtime that has been devoted to coverage, and the number of times it has been selected as the lead story. It feels as odd as the BBC tv evening news in 1964 leading on the engagement of Peter Sellers to Britt Ekland, after they'd met in the Dorchester ten days previously.
I remember a wise editor at Newsbeat reacting with disdain when I proffered a think tank/pressure group report saying trainee hairdressers were not properly paid. "Surprise me", he said. I suspect his attitude might have been similar if, from the world of entertainment, we'd wanted a 'concealed-gay-affair-goes-wrong' story to run in the top three stories for close to a fortnight.
Is there any restraining voice inside BBC News ? What grounds do those propelling the story to the top of the news agenda offer ?
No comments:
Post a Comment