The Covid crisis should have been a major opportunity for journalists and the media to gain trust by informing the public objectively. Instead, they screwed it up. The Covid crisis has triggered a massive interest in information and news on the pandemic because we were all confronted with an unprecedented situation and nobody really knew what the virus was, how dangerous it could be and how to handle the situation. The BBC news website in the UK saw its traffic double with the onset of lockdown.
I take issue with one point though: "its efforts to remain relevant, the BBC has increasingly pandered to a younger audience and emotionalised and sensationalised its news coverage. In effect, the BBC has tried to compete with Channel 4 and other private broadcasters".
First, C4 was set up by an Act of Parliament and is a publicly owned not-for-profit corporation (minor factual quibble). Second, and more importantly, C4 and others have a much higher standard of journalism than the BBC, and have done for some time. The Beeb has very much led the charge in declining journalistic standards. The question is why.
Finally (I was going to stop at 'second,' but the morning coffee's kicked in): facts, particularly facts about society, such as this pandemic, always exist in a social context. "Apolitical and objective" (certainly in terms of some mythical objectivity) is therefore neither possible nor, I would argue, desirable. Such 'objectivity' tends to play to the existing state of affairs, and therefore to dominating interests. Good journalism should always hold power to account - whoever that power may be - and will therefore always be political. What it should do is contain and reflect a plurality of views, which are themselves open to challenge and whose biases and interests are clear and, in any reasonable sense, have an objective grounding (so, therefore, no more presentations of climate scientists and climate change deniers as some kind of 'equal debate' - which is a prevalent form of really lazy journalism).
Sorry, but what Is your evidence that " a silent majority of the public is hungry for objective news and information"? Sounds like wishful thinking.
Excellent if depressing piece.
I take issue with one point though: "its efforts to remain relevant, the BBC has increasingly pandered to a younger audience and emotionalised and sensationalised its news coverage. In effect, the BBC has tried to compete with Channel 4 and other private broadcasters".
First, C4 was set up by an Act of Parliament and is a publicly owned not-for-profit corporation (minor factual quibble). Second, and more importantly, C4 and others have a much higher standard of journalism than the BBC, and have done for some time. The Beeb has very much led the charge in declining journalistic standards. The question is why.
Finally (I was going to stop at 'second,' but the morning coffee's kicked in): facts, particularly facts about society, such as this pandemic, always exist in a social context. "Apolitical and objective" (certainly in terms of some mythical objectivity) is therefore neither possible nor, I would argue, desirable. Such 'objectivity' tends to play to the existing state of affairs, and therefore to dominating interests. Good journalism should always hold power to account - whoever that power may be - and will therefore always be political. What it should do is contain and reflect a plurality of views, which are themselves open to challenge and whose biases and interests are clear and, in any reasonable sense, have an objective grounding (so, therefore, no more presentations of climate scientists and climate change deniers as some kind of 'equal debate' - which is a prevalent form of really lazy journalism).
Thank you to tell us so much useful information. I’m glad to read it.