I insist on less colour

Rather like a television drama programme which uses background music to make sure that the viewer understands whether to feel sad or happy, our newspapers, and other news media use their own form of background sound and vision to make sure we understand exactly what they want us to understand. of course what someone else wants you to understand is unlikely to be the truth,; at best it is the communicators own vision of the truth. the truth is something an individual discerns by his or hers own thought processes; truth, like experience cannot be foist upon an individual. Simply some partial truths can be offered for acceptance or rejection.

So when we hear a news item on the BBC (a particularly loud player of this kind of background music) which tells us a politician “insisted” a particular argument the use of the word “insisted” is like background music in a film, intended to direct our thoughts to a particular conclusion. “Insist” is not an alternative to “says” offered to provide the ears with a relief from hearing the same words over and over again; it is a word of colour, implying a defensive quality on the part of the politician and confuses the listener as to whether the news is being reported independently or whether we are chained to the reporter’s (or editor’s) train of thought. We are all clever enough to figure out that in a debate each side puts forward his or her own point of view; we do not need to know that one person “insisted” and another person “claimed”.

This kind of reporting treats the audience like idiots, needing to be told stuff that they can figure out for themselves and at best confuses understanding an issue by covering it with an unnecessary gloss. It also annoys one listener, at least.

 

2 Responses

  1. I’m sure the BBC started out as a responsible broadcaster of entertainment and information but it has become a propagandising entity.

    It promotes many of its own employees’ ideas. It uses the emotional rather than intellectual. It can be bought. It promotes the interests of the elite. It never questions or seriously debates the official line on many issues such as MH370/17, ISIS, Ukraine, Syria, certain MP’s disgusting predilections, the corruption within banks etc.

    There are those who say it aided the intent of those who arranged for the demolition of WTC 7 because it broadcast the news 40 minutes before the building supposedly fell down of its own volition, i.e the BBC might have prevented the deaths of many fire fighters and rescuers had it properly warned of the impending danger. Instead Helen Boaden excused herself that the apparent foreknowledge was just part of the confusion on the day.

    The BBC takes bribes from the EU budget so as to disseminate good information about the EU and not to broadcast unhelpful news. It promotes NATO’s agenda without criticism. Whilst trying to report impartially on the scottish referendum it cynically denounces those in east Ukraine who are culturally Russian and who do not want to be ruled by Kiev fascists supported by the EU and USA.

    Where is Geoarge Orwell when you need him!

    • I think it is the same with every organisation that gets too big and bloated; the BBC manages itself for its own benefit, primarily, with chains of nepotism. The BBC takes bribes from the EU as done the Ukrainian government. Is it any surprise that we do not hear much from the BBC about the anti-Ukrainian position?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: