Via Obnoxio, this drivel from Nick Cohen:
Who would you rather trust – the BBC or a blogger?
Well, seeing as you ask, it isn’t the BBC. Every time I see something reported by a “professional” journalist that happens to be in my area of expertise, it is always inaccurate. Given this, I trust them about as much as I trust politicians – i.e. not one jot. They are scurrilous rumour mongers and propaganda spouters slithering in the gutters and sewers of the underworld masquerading as enlightenment that employs them.
Why, then, mourn the passing of the hack?
I don’t. Bye.
The best reason for wanting my colleagues to survive is that serious reporters and broadcasters offer a guarantee that what they say is true.
See my comment above. The one thing I can rely on is that a “professional” journalist will, at best, be misinformed and at worst will peddle lies. They deserve our utmost contempt.
If they stray, their editors impose journalistic standards and insist on objectivity.
Yeah, right and doesn’t that work well?
They may not have the best or fullest story or the most vivid account, but readers should be able to assume their work is reliable, while a blogger’s commitment to objectivity can never be assumed.
I cannot rely on their reliability – as I mentioned above, every account that refers to my own area of expertise is, without fail, flawed or outright wrong. If I read a blogger who is an expert in their own area of expertise, I have rather more faith that they know what they are talking about. As for objectivity, don’t make me laugh. Journalists don’t do objectivity.
They may not have the best or fullest story or the most vivid account, but readers should be able to assume their work is reliable, while a blogger’s commitment to objectivity can never be assumed.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah! No, really, I can’t go on! The BBC is nothing more than a government mouthpiece, spouting the usual ill-informed puerile shite imaginable. According to Aunty, global warming (sorry, “climate change” is happening because of a consensus. They parrot this tripe unconditionally, so have no credibility whatsoever. Like I said; bwahahahahahaha!
….its reporters have earned the right to be believed.
No, please, I can’t take anymore.
Nick Cohen; lackwit.
With the advent of serious news dissemination (well, until it gets censored a la China and Saudi Arabia) it means blogs, other independent news sites and forums can be read at the touch of a button and opinions can be formed in minutes. It means that there are many different opinions instead of just one.
Increasingly the BBC are being called on their bullshit. And they don’t like it.
Had this same argument with my mates. You’d be surprised how many people still believe in the BBC and MSM generally.
I think what it takes to really drive it home is when they talk about your own area of expertise. I recall watching the news in the wake of the Paddington crash and shouting at the television, because anyone who had any understanding of railway signalling would realise that the reporters were spouting bollocks.
Then you think; well, if they aren’t getting that right, what about the rest? The logical conclusion extrapolates itself. From that point on, I trust no journalist.
LR
Couldn’t agree with you more. The few times I’ve been on the inside of a big story (when I worked in the City), the financial press not only got the basic facts of the stories wrong (names, dates, amounts, currencies etc), it was obvious they had no idea how the basic banking system worked. For instance the bank clearing system of 30 years ago was not complicated but did necessitate a lot of paper shuffling and end-of-the-day borrowing and lending between the various clearers to balance their books. When I spoke to representatives of the “financial” press, those who had never actually worked as a bank employee (the vast majority) had, literally, no idea how “clearing” worked nor that the major banks were called “clearing banks” for a reason.
Moving on to “complicated” matters like, for instance, how letters of credit worked and the basis of the “Eurodollar” market, you would have thought we were discussing Einsteinian physics. That was 30 years ago. Ignorance still stalks the pages of the financial press, hence Brown’s easy ride since 1997. But, to be fair to Brown, he didn’t know what he was doing either.
When I mention that I longer trust the BBC people look at me as if I have lost my marbles. Yet they then go on to admit that I am much more knowledgeable about politics. Probably still thinking that I’m a loony.
So what gives?