The other day whilst trundling around the internet I discovered that some broadcast news anorak had uploaded an episode of the BBC Nine O’Clock News from the 21st November 1980. While I was watching it I was struck by the feeling that this was better produced and more informative than the content which the BBC and other news broadcasters put out today.
Of course, then as now, there was a light hearted story about the finale of a soap opera that was about to be broadcast but the majority of the stories, both international and national, were much more informative than what you get today. Back then the BBC didn’t treat their viewers as idiots, when they broadcast a story about a fireman’s strike, they covered all the bases and, in my view, allowed the Fire Brigades Union and the employers to put their point of view over without too much editorialising.
The coverage of a hotel disaster in Las Vegas was extremely well done and quite rightly, bearing in mind that at the time of broadcast there were forty deaths, led the news which was read by Jan Leeming. The report was made in a professional manner with excellent use of video footage from the scene of the disaster which was quite the achievement back then due to technical limitations.
Other stories such as one about the Yorkshire Ripper murder case and a domestic murder were put out with the minimum of editorialising. The domestic murder case in this edition of the BBC news which was about two women who were gaoled for three years for killing their brutal father (see archive story here) was also dealt with much less sensationally and with less editorial bias than I believe that the BBC would treat this case today.
Another story about serving soldiers being accused of engaging in a vigilante scheme aimed at a man accused of killing a young boy was dealt with in a notably matter of fact way as befits a court report.
One of the stories that were treated very differently back then than it would be treated by the BBC today was the story of a euthanasia campaigner who was charged with aiding and abetting those who committed suicide. Today I’ve little doubt that the BBC would have, within the restrictions of crime and court reporting, done much more editorialising than was done in the past.
What stood out for me also was how the BBC reported political and industrial relations stories. These stories, which include a dispute at British Leyland, the new Youth Opportunities Programme and former Foreign Secretary Dr David Owen returning to Labour’s back benches, were covered in a much more politically neutral way than the BBC and other British broadcasters would cover these stories today.
The word that keeps popping into my head when watching this episode of the BBC Nine O’Clock news is ‘informative’. This was not a programme put together by activists or those with a political or cultural axe to grind, or the product of a news organisation with a noted bias, this was a proper news programme put together by proper committed journalists. I reckon that if anyone or any organisation could put together something this professional and this good today then they’d do very well indeed as an antidote to the sort of guff masquerading as news that too many of us get fed to us today.
Here’s the news report. What do you think is either better or worse with today’s news when compared to this example of a news broadcast from Britain’s past?
Please don’t fall into the idiotic habit of saying – or writing – “than what”; it is just moronic prole-speak. “…more informative than the BBC…put out today” is just fine.
Whoops! Fast typing to blame. Have edited. Thanks
I suspect the BBC have had to dumb down to the lowest common denominator in order to compete with other platforms. The general public are clearly far less well informed or interested than they were. Just look at the Daily Mail on line. For the last four days its lead article has concerned the lives of the presenters of “Today” and their alleged tiff. I’m tempted to add “as though anybody cares” but the sad fact of the matter is that sad people do.
If that constitutes “news” then the BBC is faced with having to meet those very low expectations.
Still, better than what passes for “news” across the pond.
If the public are less informed than they should be then surely it should be the duty of an organisation like the BBC to inform the public? Agree that there’s a race to hoover up the most viewers and this has led to a drop in quality as they chase the lowest common denominator.
Without a doubt the US news market is very very polarised with much of what goes out on the networks as incredibly bland. The polarisation is in my view down to the chasing of particular market sectors and the blandness might be down to an overwhelming amount of sclerotic management in news organisations as Tim Worstall points out today https://www.timworstall.com/2023/05/one-with-fewer-editors-my-luvver/
The problem with the British news landscape is that we don’t have a free market in news and neither do we have anymore news organisations that can be completely trusted not to editorialise.
I always find it amusing that at 27 minutes past the start of a half-hour news programme there is something that I call “Fluff”.
I’ve heard this also called the ‘…and finally’ section.
Well, for a start I don’t think we can objectively compare news coverage in 1980 with today as the invention of the internet has changed so much of the style of dissemination of news and the impact of our instant feedbacks. Meaning that in the past with only print media subject to editorial control a contributor wanting to express opposition as to how a news story was covered would have to have waited for their letter to be published, if it even stood a chance of being published at all.
Then the BBC came along as ‘objective news without debate’. Strange, but at least we now have social media presenting challenges to the BBC.
I have something of a vested interest as an amateur local and family historian lamenting the decline in local newspapers which used to report much more fully on what was going on in an area, including verbatim reports of all the Council meetings for instance even including the laughs and boos.
Whilst the technical landscape of media has changed greatly, for example broadcasters no longer have to rely on silver based film that requires time to process and convert to a broadcast format, to provide moving images for a news broadcast, what should not have changed is professionalism. The journos working for the BBC knew that if they didn’t act with due impartiality then they’d be in deep trouble, now the BBC can indulge in editorialism in political programmes and nothing really seems to happen to those who do this, especially if the presenter has a big media profile and is a star for the corporation.
I would put it to you that the sort of walls that existed in print media against public comment still exist today. The public can comment to their hearts content on social media about the shortcomings of the BBC but it never really appears to change things. Look at the Guardian for instance for another example of this. Whilst it is true that it is no longer the case that the only way for the public to get their views in the paper was to submit a letter and that now there is a comment board, what the Guardian does is shut down comments for pieces where the writer might be expressing views that might attract negative comment from the public.
I completely understand and agree with you on the subject of the decline in local newspapers
Edit to add:
Some things in media have improved. I remember the days of the closed shop in the newspaper game and in particular one incident when a member of the NUJ had to swear me to secrecy about his ownership of a wire machine (a glorified fax machine in essence) as such a device was at the time only to be operated by a member of the National Graphical Association union.