Having utterly disgraced themselves over the course of the US Presidential Election campaigns, one would have hoped the world’s media would now be engaging in some humble self-examination to understand where they went so catastrophically wrong and how they might improve their reporting in future and thus save their entire industry from oblivion.
But then again these are media types, and they are pathologically incapable of any such action. Consider this from the BBC:
Despite their cordiality, Mr Trump has vowed to dismantle much of President Obama’s legacy. That includes Obamacare, the act extending medical insurance to more Americans than ever before.
Evil Trump, eh? Undoing The Messiah’s generosity of providing more medical insurance than ever before! But why not mention that Obamacare is fast shaping up to be an unworkable disaster and people have been hit with skyrocketting premiums – something which almost certainly would have helped persuade them to vote for Trump? Ah, because that would detract from the narrative, the same shameless narrative that has been playing since Trump announced his intention to run.
This excerpt was taken from a report on the anti-Trump protests, which the media are falling over themselves to cover. They are working overtime to generative the narrative that Trump is deeply unpopular and his policies are forcing people to come out in protest, even though their numbers are miniscule and they represent the lunatic fringe of the American Left. I expect the media will keep this up and before Trump even takes office he will be described as “the most unpopular President in history”, “embattled”, and “under fire”; his policies will be called “controversial” if a single student at Berkeley complains; and headlines will read “Is Trump’s Presidency failing?”
I have every confidence that the American people will turn away from their media in disgust, as they did during the campaign, leaving them to face the economic consequences. Trump and his administration should automatically disregard any criticism of his policies or Presidency based on polling data or media mouthpieces, and should remind them at every opportunity how they utterly failed the American people by the coverage of the election.
And back home, Theresa May should end the BBC’s charter immediately and let them figure out how to make money selling this garbage instead of forcing people to pay for it.
And back home, Theresa May should end the BBC’s charter immediately and let them figure out how to make money selling this garbage instead of forcing people to pay for it.
Amen to that Brother!
Would ending the charter end the chatter? Let’s suck it and see.
“I have every confidence that the American people will turn away from their media in disgust, as they did during the campaign, leaving them to face the economic consequences.”
Indeed:
“Net profit attributable to the company fell 95.7 percent”
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newyorktimes-results-idUSKBN12X1HU
The deplorable One Show on Al-beeb, which I had the enormous misfortune to catch one evening, featured a tosser who had been invited to an ‘election night party’ at the US embassy. Cue film of lots of smiling people sipping wine, etc, but the man who brought this gem to our attention couldn’t resist the parting shot, given in a knowing nod to the camera, telling us the party-people there at the end of a night of convivial boozing were not very enthusiastic about Trump. See, peasants, it’s not just you but also the wealthy who don’t like him, was the message.
Yes, close the BBC down or better still, let them produce things that people will watch by subscription. That will be the true measure of whether Question Time or EastEnders is worth the effort, and while people might pay for another documentary on Sparrows killing Lions or whatever they might be less inclined to pay for repeats of that bit of film of glaciers collapsing — as glaciers always have done — into the sea.
You are talking about our beloved British Brainwashing Corporation that mouth piece for the Progressives popular front. The IRA have not gained the power they now enjoy without Sinn Fein. The progressives will not gain the power they crave without the BBC, the Guardian and the like. So lets not be cruel and not not buy their wretched rags and listen to their propaganda.
“This excerpt was taken from a report on the anti-Trump protests, which the media are falling over themselves to cover. ”
Then they really are fools. No-one but the most deranged Democrat is going to watch footage of spoiled teenagers smashing stuff up and think “Hey, maybe Trump is to blame”.
Aren’t US TV companies funded through advertising? They have a huge weakness there. If the half a country that voted Trump also refused to watch CNN, MSNBC etc their revenues would crash.
It would take quite something to organise a mass boycott like that, and it isn’t the sort of thing the centre-right does, but until you grab the TV networks by the balls they aren’t going to give you the time of day.
I wonder how many Americans there are who voted for Trump reluctantly, and now watch video of the riots and think “I was certainly right to vote for Trump”.
Aren’t US TV companies funded through advertising?
The major news sources have ads, but most Americans who watch TV have a cable subscription, and cable companies bundle all of them in the “basic” package that you have if you have cable TV at all. The channels get a portion of the revenues from the cable subscriptions. So there’s little opportunity to put pressure on specific news channels, since you can’t drop them without dropping cable altogether.
The big threat here is “unbundling”: allowing people to subscribe to cable TV, but pick and choose which channels they want, paying a little for each, instead of getting a predetermined bundle for a single price. Of course this would let people drop channels they’re not interested in.
The other threat is “cutting the cord”: getting rid of the cable subscription and using a variety of Internet sources to get news, shows, movies, etc.
The problem with the BBC is that it is effectively state-funded by the back door. If you have a TV set capable of receiving signals of any sort, you are deemed to require a TV licence to use that TV set; this licence is enforced by criminal law although the licence enforcers do not have legal powers of entry.
So, the people getting caught for TV licences are the honest, stupid poor. People who choose not to pay the licence fee either disconnect their TV altogether, or simply exclude TV licencing operatives and, when said twerps get too intrusive over their badgering about the licence, complain to the police under the Protection from Harassment legislation (which generally puts TVL back in their box for a few years).
The simplest way around this sorry mess is to make the BBC either advertising funded, subscription funded or wholly state grant funded or a mixture thereof.
@ jaed,
Welcome, firstly!
The major news sources have ads, but most Americans who watch TV have a cable subscription, and cable companies bundle all of them in the “basic” package that you have if you have cable TV at all. The channels get a portion of the revenues from the cable subscriptions. So there’s little opportunity to put pressure on specific news channels, since you can’t drop them without dropping cable altogether.
South Park did a great take on this in the episode Informative Murder Porn.