The BBC’s news prioritisation
The world has gone a bit mad. Or at least the BBC has.
Yesterday, BBC News’ lead article was the suspension of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, with the 160 victims of the Pakistani earthquake playing second fiddle.
Today, Ross’s three month suspension from Radio 2 leads, with the "concern[s] for tens of thousands of people" in DR Congo being deemed less significant.
While the two presenters’ behaviour was indeed wrong and inexcusable, the stage that this story has been given is way too elevated, and the barracking that the two presenters have received is at odds with the offence they committed.
The BBC has an obligation to include stories in which it is intrinsically involved; but sometimes I feel they elevate such stories higher than their significance warrants. And no doubt, the BBC is reacting strongly to this story largely as a result of Channel 4′s unwillingness to do the same following the racism incidents in 2007′s Celebrity Big Brother.
Comments
2 Responses to “The BBC’s news prioritisation”
Leave a Reply
Dan,
I think there’s another reason (perhaps additional to the ones you’ve stated) – this story is something that people can get their heads round easily – it’s “bite-sized” and relatively easy to (a) have an opinion about and (b) feel like something is being done / can be done about it to resolve it, in a way that doesn’t feel possible regarding the credit crunch and DR Congo.
It’s actually a sort of relief for many people to focus on something “trivial” like this rather than the other big stuff.
Jon
That’s only if your view is that the BBC were reporting news.
If you take an alternative view that Gordon’s ginning from ear to ear at the possibility that something is more important than the country seeing what 11 years has done to the economy, and the BBC are terrified of not helping him, then the news makes perfect sense.