..
Veteran BBC presenter quits over ‘diversity drive’
The presenter of Radio 4 show ‘Quote… Unquote’ said he resigned after
feeling forced to book diverse but unsuitable guests
Nigel Rees, a BBC presenter for 46 years, has revealed that he resigned because he was unhappy with the corporation’s constant demand for “diversity.” He claims he was often made to invite certain guests as a box-ticking exercise.
Speaking to the Sunday Times, Nigel Rees, the former presenter of Radio 4 show ‘Quote… Unquote’, who resigned last month, said that he felt his show was being interfered with by people above him who wanted to push their diversity agenda.
“We had prescriptions to have diverse groups and disabled guests. I didn’t agree with it at all but I went along with it because I had to. It came from upstairs, and it seemed to be a general priority,” he stated.
Rees claimed that the BBC’s objectives often led to difficult situations in which the guest knew that they had been invited in the name of diversity.
“I am not willing to go on having my choices interfered with in order to tick boxes in the name of diversity and representation,” Rees told the Sunday Times, adding: “It is difficult having it enforced for the sake of it. It is also patronizing, not least to the people who don’t want to be on because they feel they are ticking a box.”
Rees said that he felt his autonomy decline in recent years, having once had the ability to invite whom he wished onto the show. The BBC increasingly interfered in guest choices on the grounds that they could be offensive to the audience.
In a further example of this encroachment on his autonomy, Rees said he was asked not to mention certain lines from Noel Coward’s 1932 comic song ‘Mad Dogs and Englishmen’. The BBC feared it would promote “colonial attitudes.”
The 77-year-old pitched ‘Quote… Unquote’ to the BBC 46 years ago and has since presented 57 series, hosting more than 500 guests. Dame Judi Dench, Sir David Attenborough, Anthony Horowitz, and Glenda Jackson have all taken part.
CNN wonders whether media is ‘out of touch’
The network’s hosts lament that people are ignoring mainstream messaging
on Covid-19 and ‘living their lives’
© Getty Images / Kevin Mazur
CNN has turned introspective, apparently discovering that most Americans have tuned out its coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic, reflecting a disconnect between legacy media outlets and the general public.
Host Brian Stelter broached the subject on Monday, asking whether the media is “out of touch with the public about Covid.” CNN’s senior media reporter Oliver Darcy replied that based on what he’s seen in his travels, much of the press is “very out of touch” with the populace.
But not just about Covid!
“If you travel the country, people are not really living in the same bubble that it seems that most of the media is messaging toward,” Darcy said. “And so, I think this is an issue because if people are tuning out what’s going on in cable news, if we’re not messaging toward the general population, they’re just ignoring everything and living their lives, and we’re not really getting the information that they need to them.”
This would require a spectacular change in philosophy. For the past several years you have been feeding your viewers information that you think they need - woke, far-left, LGBTQ, climate hysteria, etc.
Stelter appeared to shift blame for the estrangement to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has altered some of its Covid-19 mitigation guidelines, such as shortening the recommended quarantine period for people who test positive for the virus.
The blame has to do with your policy of 'fear sells'! When everything is an emergency, it gets too much for people to watch. You should try doing a couple of shows that counter the hysteria over Covid, climate change, etc.
“There’s a huge credibility crisis for the CDC,” the host said. “And Oliver, to your point, if it just causes people, if they hear all these mixed messages and all this confusion and it’s too complicated, they just move on and ignore it.”
But Darcy brought the conversation back to the media’s own messaging. “When we’re messaging toward a very small group of people, maybe who are taking the pandemic far more seriously than the average person, I think we’re not doing our jobs as effectively as we should be doing.”
He gave the example of dire warnings about large gatherings in the lead-up to Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s holidays, noting that people aren’t closely monitoring and following such advice. “We need to be maybe coming up with realistic solutions and advice to the general public when talking about Covid,” Darcy said.
Stelter agreed, saying, “Meet viewers where they are, meet readers where they are, and people are in a wide array of places now when it comes to risk assessment.”
CNN and other mainstream outlets reaped a ratings bonanza in the early days of the pandemic. A hidden-camera report by Project Veritas showed CNN technical director Charlie Chester claiming that the network hyped fears about the virus to keep viewers glued to their televisions.
============================================================================================
Politicians, judges, and TV reporters seen as least ethical – poll
Teachers, nurses, and military officers are among the most trusted
A new poll has found Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the ethics and honesty of people who mainly work in the media and politics.
Gallup’s Wednesday survey noted that five of the 22 professions examined find themselves at “new lows in public esteem,” showing significant dips in favorability from past annual polls.
Television reporters, for instance, have seen their “ethics rating” – meaning how many view them as “highly” ethical and honest – drop from 23% to 14%, according to Gallup data. Judges have also seen a hit in the public’s perception of their ethics, dropping five points to 38%.
“Americans are most skeptical of the ethics of elected officials, particularly at the federal level, as well as the media,” the report notes.
Reporters, House and Senate members, and members of the media score the lowest in the polling. Among these groups, newspaper reporters received the highest marks, with 39% viewing them as honest and ethical.
That may be low, but it is much higher than the view of members of Congress (9%), and lobbyists (5%). Also scoring below 10 points, along with members of Congress and the media, are car salespeople, with only 8% viewing the profession as trustworthy.
Nurses lead Gallup’s Honesty and Ethics Poll, as they have for 20 years, with over 80% saying they view the profession as honest and ethical in the survey. Doctors, military officers, pharmacists, and teachers followed, with more than six in 10 Americans viewing people in each profession favorably.
Politics played some role in how respondents perceived a handful of the professions, including the media. Only 6% of Republicans said TV reporters had high ethics, while that support jumps to 24% among Democrats. The biggest perception difference based on political affiliation comes down to police officers, with 71% of Republicans or right-leaning respondents viewing the profession as highly honest and ethical, and only 36% of Democrats or left-leaning respondents agreeing.
============================================================================================
Even flat-earthers should get airtime, BBC says
The BBC takes heat for saying that airing flat-earthers
reflects the broadcaster’s commitment to impartiality
David Jordan, the BBC’s director of editorial policy, has said that the broadcaster will give a platform to contradictory viewpoints in a bid to let impartiality triumph over identity, even to those who say the Earth is flat.
Speaking to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee on Monday, Jordan argued that the BBC is “very committed to ensuring that viewpoints are heard from all different sorts of perspectives.”
Well, this is a dramatic change in policy!!!
“We don’t subscribe to the ‘cancel culture’ that some groups would put forward,” he said, even suggesting that the BBC might occasionally deem it “appropriate to interview a flat-earther.”
Of course, this is just an example of the many differences of opinions that are out there. Far more important are differences about transgenderism, PCMadness, the culture of rape, and cancel culture itself.
While he was clear that “flat-earthers are not going to get as much space as people who believe the Earth is round,” Jordan stated that the BBC would “need to address it more” if “a lot of people believed in flat Earth.”
Challenging those who oppose the broadcaster’s mission of impartiality over personal identity, the BBC official was clear that staff should not be able to block coverage because they disagree with it.
“Whether or not some members of our staff like it is not the point. They leave their prejudices at the door,” Jordan said, criticizing the New York Times for its editorial approach in this area, as it’s the job of reporters to “be prepared to hear viewpoints they might personally disagree with.”
The comments in front of the House of Lords committee sparked a backlash among fellow journalists and political commentators.
LBC host James O’Brien responded to Jordan by citing an article he wrote in 2018 titled ‘Media impartiality is a problem when ignorance is given the same weight as expertise.’
The Guardian’s Toby Moses blasted the proposed approach, stating that it is “nonsense” to claim impartiality means broadcasting views that are incorrect or potentially dangerous.
Plymouth-based reporter Carl Eve said the BBC official’s position exposes the organization’s problem, as it is giving airtime to people who are “completely bonkers” ahead of covering the news.
Jordan’s position is in line with the BBC’s director-general Tim Davie, who has made it his goal to put impartiality front and center, ordering internal reviews into the organization’s approach to coverage to address existing failures.
These three seem to reflect a very liberal viewpoint where they know the truth and anyone who disagrees with them is 'bonkers'.
Former BBC veteran radio presenter Nigel Rees recently revealed to RT that among the reasons why he stopped working for the BBC were woke directives from above, accusing the broadcaster of becoming increasingly prescriptive.
This would be a major breakthrough in media reporting - a return to when the media interviewed both sides of an argument. It would mean a lessening of Deep State's control of the media, and so, it is hard to believe that it will really happen. But let's hope and pray that it does.
No comments:
Post a Comment