I find 'taste' a cause for curmudgeonliness. Who decides what is good taste and what is bad taste? Surely taste is just taste - it is peculiar to you. You like what you like - no 'right', no 'wrong'. If I don't like strawberries do I have bad taste? If I like the Bay City Rollers is that worse 'taste' than The Rolling Stones?
Even Ken Bruce is prone - he was chatting to a Pop Master contestant and asked them about their musical taste - the contestant said '...oh, I like blah, blah and blah...' and Ken said '...what good taste you have... ' presumably only because the contestant's taste agreed with Ken's. But it was just the contestant's taste - neither good nor bad.
As for stuff on the TV, doesn't it just come down to what you watch and what you like to watch?
For me:
Science stuff with Brian Cox, Mike Mosley, Jim Al-Khalili. History with Neil Oliver, Lucy Worsley. Horizon, Panorama, Storyville, The Rise Of The Nazis...too many to mention.
The Hollow Crown a couple(?) of years ago was a masterpiece (and I have/had a dislike of Shakespeare from school),
State of the Union, Fleabag, Staged, Unprecedented, Talking Heads.
Fleabag was an absolute GEM of TV. One day we might get an Opera or Ballet on TV?? I bet more folk buy tickets to watch opera and ballet than buy tickets to watch women's football, but guess what's on TV and what isn't.
I thought the BBC had done both? My brain goes, but I thought they'd shown some 'stuff' from Glyndbourne - it must be on iPlayer if they did.
I know what you mean though - sport can take up a stupid amount of airtime and that must be frustrating for non-sporty people. I get frustrated with 'formulaic' programming - where a format 'works', then 500 programs are spawned with the same format.
...just checked iPlayer - just Beethoven's Fidelio, Dracula (Northern Ballet) and Culture In Quarantine - so not a great selection....
I remember seeing a survey on AOL during Brexit and 34% said BBC was biased towards Labour and 34% said it was biased towards Conservative. Sounds perfectly UNbiased to me. Maybe one's perception of the bias in others reveals much about one's own bias?
Not unbiased. It suggests that 68% of people believe the content was not provided in the neutral way it should have been. Irrespective of the direction of the bias, on a subject such as Brexit, neutrality by reporters and presenters is/was essential.
There are certainly areas where neutrality would work but that isn't one of them.
From my view here - from the outside - all I can say is that the coverage of Brexit, both before and after the referendum, left much to be desired in terms of journalistic integrity, research and depth. Too often they settled for the easy and repetitive sound-bite.
Vendée - 20kms from Atlantic coast.
"The price good men (and women) pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men (and women)."
From my view here - from the outside - all I can say is that the coverage of Brexit, both before and after the referendum, left much to be desired in terms of journalistic integrity, research and depth. Too often they settled for the easy and repetitive sound-bite.
If the facts are stacking up on one side of the argument how do you report that and remain 'impartial'? It felt to me as if the BBC were so afraid of being accused of bias that they didn't address the issues in any depth at all ... just reported what others were saying.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Posts
One day we might get an Opera or Ballet on TV??
I bet more folk buy tickets to watch opera and ballet than buy tickets to watch women's football, but guess what's on TV and what isn't.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.