I should apologise to those of you who live outside the UK because what follows probably won't mean much to you. This post is parochial as it is all about our revered, national public service broadcaster, the British Broadcasting Corporation, known as the BBC.
I’ve mentioned before the dreariness, dullness and irrelevance of our local BBC news programme, “Look East”. The east of England is such a large area that news about burst pipes in a village that could be 130 miles away, must be of no interest at all to most people in the region.
Nevertheless, on Wednesday evening we were actually eager to see Look East as Caroline hoped there would be an item about the schools in Luton for which she has responsibility. She had been expecting it for a day or two and so we had recorded those bulletins.
That was just as well as minutes before the programme began, the phone rang and we missed its start. The conversation ended quite quickly but so we didn’t miss the headlines and the main item, we went to “Recordings” to watch the programme from the beginning.
There was no mention of Luton and at the end of the news came the weather forecast. The first words were, “Wednesday will be wet and windy.” What!!!!
It would appear that we had been watching Tuesday’s bulletin for the second time and until that moment, hadn’t realised.
Is "Lockdown Loopy” a recognised medical condition?
*****
There are a number of characteristics of the BBC that have really irritated or annoyed me in the last year or so. Its determination to be the ‘wokest’ organisation in the country is driving me bonkers. Now, I've discovered other aspects of the BBC that are troubling.
Maybe I really am going “Lockdown Loopy” but my irritation at hearing someone saying, “any time soon” on the BBC television news programmes, is mounting.
In the same way that I only ever hear the phrase “the here and now” in weather forecasts and never in general conversation, I only ever hear “any time soon” during the news bulletins.
Here are examples of “any time soon” from the past month:
“Remember this? When people could crowd into pubs and restaurants? You won’t see that again any time soon.”
“It doesn't look as though that line is going to flatten any time soon.”
“A major hotel chain has warned that up to 1800 jobs could go because there’s little prospect of the industry returning to normal any time soon.”
“For many businesses and organisations, there’ll be no going back any time soon.”
“Is this blustery weather going to end any time soon?”
“This heavy-handed law enforcement is unlikely to end any time soon.”
“OK, let’s find out if it’s going to stop raining any time soon.”
“This amusement park has not been able to open for months and there’s no likelihood of it opening any time soon.”
“Is the weather going to settle down any time soon?”
“BBC research reveals that fifty major companies aren’t planning to have all their staff back in the office any time soon.”
I have never heard “any time soon” said by anyone in everyday conversation but during BBC news bulletins, I usually hear it at least once.
“Any time soon” is said by newsreaders and reporters when normal people would say, “in the near future” or “imminently”; "for some time"; “in the next few days/weeks”; “before long” or even just, “soon”. I wish they would stop it.
By the way, there is something interesting about the quotes above. Even though most are about the impact of the Covid pandemic, our thoughts are always turning to the weather.
*****
Ofcom has reported that the BBC is struggling to engage the younger audience. That is even though it is doing all it can to attract the politically correct and ‘woke’ Under 30s.
In a new BBC historical drama series, I have been told that Idris Elba is taking the part of Henry VIII and that Christopher Biggins will play the rôle of Cardinal Wolsey. Will that be woke enough for them?
At the same time that it’s failing to attract young people, the BBC is losing its primary audience. Last year, it lost 2% of the age range that is said to make up the BBC’s core audience: people like me.
I know exactly why those viewing figures are declining and why the BBC is losing £300 million a year in unpaid licence fees. Is it just me or are their television programmes generally awful at the moment? Cooking, travel, property and antiques are the topics that seem to make up the bulk of its output.
I should be interested in them. After all, I enjoy cooking; I’ve travelled; I live in a house and I am very nearly an antique but I find that those programmes are all terribly dull and boring. Consequently, I do not watch many television programmes and virtually nothing that the BBC offers.
A programme I record but then watch but only for the first 2 minutes, is an afternoon programme on ITV - The Chase. It is essential viewing in order to play the game that Caroline and I have created.
The first thing to happen on that show is the four contestants, whose names are visible in front of them, introduce themselves in turn. All four will state their name (which we already know), age, occupation and where they are from. So, the first contestant might say: “I’m George. I’m fifty-four, a newsagent from Bradford.”
What Caroline and I do is watch with pen and paper in hand and with the sound muted. The object of the game is to try to lip read those three unknown facts about each player and a point is awarded for every one you get right.
3 points at stake per player; there are 4 players and so 12 points are available every day; the programme is shown 5 times a week, meaning there are 60 points available in a week.
Caroline is much better than me at this. Last week, she beat me 46 - 22. She often identifies the occupation whereas I never have. She correctly identified a woman as a “Legal Secretary”. I thought she was a “Local Sex Worker”.
There can be problems, however: Should I have allowed Caroline a point for saying a woman was from “Warrington” when it was in fact, “Workington”? No, you are wrong. Those two towns are 130 miles apart and in different counties. Rules are rules and she scored nothing.
Ramble:
This is a really great game that anyone can play. If I could think of some way to refine, package and market it, we’d be rich. I’ve got a name for it: “WALDOE’S TWIN”. That’s an anagram of WILTON and DAWES.
I can imagine someone saying, “Fancy a game of Waldoe’s twin?”
The only BBC programme I watch with any regularity is the 10 o’clock news and recently, I have discovered something that I find troubling.
I started to make a record of a rather disturbing aspect of the BBC news coverage. What follows is just 11 days of data.
On August 8th, there was a troubling news item about bullying within British women’s gymnastics. A former gymnast was interviewed. Throughout most of the interview, she appeared on screen like this:
Then, for no reason, the picture changed to show her hands:
Why? Was it so we could see that she had slightly ridiculous false nails? Then, five seconds after returning to the original shot, this appeared:
OK, so she has false eyelashes too. Remember that this was on the BBC’s main news bulletin of the day. It wasn’t a feature on The One Show or a Sports Magazine programme.
On the next day, Laura Gardiner from the Resolution Foundation was interviewed about the effect of Covid pandemic on the labour market. The BBC news team thought that as well as seeing her like this:
The viewers could see that she has a protruding skin blemish and somewhat over-plucked eyebrows too:
Why? How does a change of shot to produce an unflattering image, add anything to the information being imparted?
Why do the BBC do it to women and never to men? Here are some more examples:
August 14th. Kate Bingham, Chair, UK Vaccine Taskforce.
August 18th. Lizzie Harper, the widow of PC Harper.
August 19th. A woman who, for psychological reasons, can’t wear a face mask.
This is a sixth form student, upset about the exams debacle. It was decided that it would be enlightening and would add to the story if we saw that she has a chicken pox scar.
Does the BBC do this because they hope that the speck of mascara that has stuck on to the woman’s cheek may be thought to be a blackhead? Why do they zoom in on blemishes or unusual features of a woman but never those of a man? They are particularly prominent on large, High Definition television screens.
Perhaps the editors think that what a man has to say is intrinsically more interesting than a woman’s point of view or opinion, however expert that woman may be or how renowned in her field she is. Do viewers need quirky images to retain their interest when a woman speaks?
I usually already know the answer to questions I sometimes ask on this blog but this time, I am stumped.
Just as I have no idea why the BBC altered the structure of the questions on Mastermind to make the programme dull and tedious (click to see), I have no idea at all why the BBC insists on showing close ups of most of the women they interview on news bulletins.
Enlighten me please!
Was this the practice when the BBC interviewed Caroline in 2014? She spoke interestingly and informatively without a close up. That was just as well as you can have no idea what could have appeared!
