back to article Online media outstrips TV as source of news for the first time in the UK

TV has lost its crown as the most popular source of news in the UK, according to research from Ofcom. The telecoms and media regulator has found that online news sources are now more widely used than TV news, whose viewership saw a steep decline last year. However, for now the popularity of TV news remains only slightly …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "TV remains more trusted news source"

    Nope. Not any more. TV news is just the official government source.

    If you want the truth, nowadays, you have to look for it, and the only place to look is now the Internet.

    I'm not happy about that, but one must never forget that "news" is presented on stations that belong to some billionaire or another, and those guys have multiple agendas, none of which include telling you the truth.

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

      During COVID, the BBC regularly let MP after MP on talking absolute bullshido without even questioning it. The only person at the time who was taking the MPs to task was - and believe me I feel dirty for this - Piers Morgan. It got to the point the government wouldn't let their MPs appear on GMB because of it.

      Even in the last election, all the coverage on election night was about Reform. They did nothing. The Greens and Independents won more (the Greens especially had higher gains) but you couldn't move for every Reform bootlicker appearing on the BBC talking about how they were going to win 15 seats.

      And then there are the (surprising) movement of former Tory party donors and party members who end up in high positions of power within the BBC. Again, plenty of reports regarding the links political commentators or news controllers have with various parties.

      That's not to say that online sources are any truer, but generally speaking you get to hear more of the news and the nuances about a story than you do on the TV.

      1. Tron Silver badge

        Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

        As Sterling declined 25% causing rampant inflation, migrant blocks starved UK companies of staff and new border rules delayed access to goods, the BBC went silent on Brexit being the cause of it. Despite having been a huge fan of public service broadcasting, I lost all faith in BBC news at that. That faith will not return.

        In case foreign readers are not aware: British newspapers have always been unreliable and untrustworthy - they each target their own politically prejudiced readership, telling them what they want to hear.

        Better sources: 'Private Eye', El Reg, foreign news sites with no skin in the game, and the mixture of views of commenters. Yes, you lot.

        1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

          Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

          As Sterling declined 25%

          When?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

            How quickly folks have forgotten The Lettuce Queen...

        2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

          Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

          As Sterling declined 25%

          Who?

        3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

          I personally train the decline to two events: the greed behind consolidation in ITV which then stopped competing on news and current events; the appointment of serial failure of Greg Dyke as Director General, who decided that education, entertain and inform was too long and that entertain on its own was probably enough. He started the cull of the news and current affairs department from which the Beeb has never really recovered. And, of course, by then there was no real competition left. To its credit, Channel 4 still does a pretty good job, but I don't think a lot of people are aware. It's no coincidence that many respected former BBC and ITN journalists have moved to formats like Times Radio.

          Government interference, from all sides. but particularly from the Tories with the threat to financing and the Charter, increased and we got the pathetic attempts to provide balance by giving the idiots a free say.

          COVID in many countries led to the kind of shameful groupthink that independent journalism should be above; that should be a lesson but it won't be.

          1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

            Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

            I forgot to say that part of Dyke's legacy was the huge gap between factual programming on TV and Radio. In many ways, news and current affairs on Radio 4 have been allowed to remain largely as they were, though the faux adversial style "But minister…!" seems here to stray; the best interviewers are the ones who listen best.

    2. charlieboywoof

      Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

      absolutely correct, its the slime oozing out of your tv set FZ years ago

    3. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

      So which is it: government mouthpiece or billionaire hobby? Can't be both.

    4. heyrick Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

      "Nope. Not any more."

      21 upvotes, 21 downvotes. Come on, one side has to win this!

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

        It's a closer vote than Brexit!

    5. Binraider Silver badge

      Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

      When my sector makes the national news, it's usually introduced at such a Noddy level you would be genuinely better off watching newsround (a kids news magazine show on our state broadcaster) than the headline news shows.

      It is safe to assume they are equally naive about most other subject matter given how bad they are.

      And this is why a few demagogues can be such a powerful force. They dont need details to stoke up some divisions.

      Broadsheets are all but dead as are the tabloids, leaving only highly specialised channels for those that want to think and learn.

      Sad, but hardly a new phenomenon. Tom Hanks did an entire episode of the excellent From Earth to the Moon series dedicated to the tabloid tosh overrunning detail in 1968.

      The register, among a handful of other sources are ones I do value.

      There are exceptions, BBC Education for instance has done some excellent documentaries on Crossrail; proving they can do the detail. But it's relegated away from mainstream channels.

  2. elsergiovolador Silver badge

    "TV remains more trusted news source"

    "War is peace"

    and so on...

    Legacy media are owned by investment funds and their interest is ensuring the other investments they have turn profit.

    This means there is an agenda. Certain topics cannot be talked about and other have to be framed in the way to not harm investments.

    Then they cannot cross the government, which has many instruments to ensure only the "right" message is coming through.

    If you learn about propaganda techniques, watching TV can be fun, when you start seeing patterns of disinformation and manipulation.

    1. Evil Scot Bronze badge

      Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

      So wrote the BBC journalist Eric Arthur Blair.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "TV remains more trusted news source"

        In fairness to Eric, he left there is disgust at the work he was told to do for the war effort.

        101 is an office there. The BBC wallow in the accolade and have inscribed his words on their temple adorned with paedophilic statute from a sick 'artist'. Sicko Saville was theirs.

        I have hated the BBC since they came to us at Vodafone Global KK to partner with us and I said, thanks, but no thanks. we are 100 times bigger. Not worth it. We will just keep Reuters, etc.

        In spite, they shut down their first-gen mobile site saying mobile internet wasn't worth investing time in. LOL. Got that right, didn't u? You said Interactive TV would brush all aside. Oops

        Same to Sky in 2011. No amounnt of money Rupert. 5 days only and £3000k. Never work with or for TV people. 'ossers every man, dog and rat of them.

        NOT AC

  3. Pete 2 Silver badge

    It's the source, of course.

    > most of the respondents said they had encountered misleading content during the recent UK General Election

    Though wouldn't that have come from the various parties running in the election?

    While you would hope the news services would weed out the fake, false and misleading content they are presented with, most seem happy to repeat verbatim everything they are told.

  4. Andy 73 Silver badge

    If you want the truth...

    ... probably best to give up now.

    The ongoing fight for eyeballs, and the dominance of data in the media has meant that most outlets and commentators are tuning their output for attention, not some value of "truth". That largely means telling your audience what they want to hear, or causing some sort of strong emotional response (of the "they're eating our cats!" variety).

    The reporting of the recent presidential debate is a case in point. Those searching for news are being fed wildly asymmetrical views of how the debate went, and a huge number of online users are spending their time trying to find (and share) the report that fits their views. A rational external view is that the "attention filter" is denying a significant portion of the population any fair analysis of the candidates and their campaign. That not only helps a weak candidate, but also fails to challenge a stronger candidate to fine tune their policies. We're seeing the results across most of the West, with significantly weaker political parties, much higher distrust and ineffective governments.

    Unfortunately, for many people, the knee jerk reaction is to hunt for the media bubble that is "more truthy" rather than recognise that being fed a better flavour of slop is still eating slop.

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: If you want the truth...

      The reporting of the recent presidential debate is a case in point. Those searching for news are being fed wildly asymmetrical views of how the debate went, and a huge number of online users are spending their time trying to find (and share) the report that fits their views.

      This one has been interesting. I'm currently re-caffeinating after watching the debate. Something that struck me was that despite the hosts bigging up the debate was when it started, the official Disney.. I mean ABC News channel had only 1.2m viewers. This from a US population of around 300m and a lot larger potential global audience. Viewers also dropped off during the stream. Some of the audience would have been split because other online channels were also streaming the debate.

      So my view of the debate was it seems that most Americans probably just aren't interested. Nothing really new was advanced and I doubt it will change many voters minds. Neither side really made any substantive policy statements and it devolved into more of the same arguments.

      We're seeing the results across most of the West, with significantly weaker political parties, much higher distrust and ineffective governments.

      Yep. I think it's partly the problem of politicians living in their own bubbles and perhaps being fed too much 'fake news' by their own advisors. Voters have more information sources now and there is also mistrust in the 'MSM'.

      Unfortunately, for many people, the knee jerk reaction is to hunt for the media bubble that is "more truthy" rather than recognise that being fed a better flavour of slop is still eating slop.

      Agreed. Unfortunately for politicians, their knee jerk reaction is to try and impose more control and censorship in the media bubble so we can be fed only the official misinformation. A plurality of news is important, if people want to try to understand or get a balanced view. This is especially problematic with the velocity of news. So when the Panicdemic happened, some 'fact checkers' were very fast to brand aspects of that as 'fake news' or 'misinformation'. So my favorite example is good'ol Ivermectin. There was some initial evidence that it might be beneficial, but that quickly got stomped on by the 'fact checkers'. So we ended up with official stuff like the infamous 'you are not a horse', despite Ivermectin being very widely prescribed to humans. The 'fact checkers' could not possibly know the facts because finding those requires formal clinical trials and data to support any conclusion. Those take time.

      Then there was the Biden laptop. There was a carefully co-ordinated campaign to brand that as 'fake news', 'Russian disinformation' and supress that story ahead of the elections. Of course the laptop later turned out to be real, which some bubble dwellers still don't seem to believe. But that kind of official disinformation campaign damages the credibility of the news, fact checkers and politicians.

      But such is politics.

      I think there is a need to both educate people to think critically and be able to detect the odor of bs, official or unofficial. Some of that also comes with experience, ie the ability to read or see something and go "Huh? That doesn't make sense..". Or just act on really dangerous online stuff. Don't eat Tide pods. Governments should have the ability to take down and warn people against doing blatantly dangerous stunts like that, but when it drifts into suppressing ideas, that gets very bad.

      1. Andy 73 Silver badge

        Re: If you want the truth...

        Agreed.

        The interesting thing about the debate audience is that more people will decide "who won" based on second hand reporting, than actually watched the debate. And the amount of spin being applied to that second hand reporting is quite astonishing. I've had to take a second shower to wash off all the hyperbola.

        (Edited to add: note that I'm being very careful not to endorse either candidate in the debate, or summarise their relative performances - knowing that if I show any sign of political bias it will guarantee down votes from people who object to <party-x>, regardless of the point being made or the reasoning being given. Luckily The Register doesn't filter or order posts according to votes, but most other social media does, perpetuating the bubble)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If you want the truth...

        One candidate is a strong supporter of things that I cannot in any way support. The other is entirely off his rocker and I consider a threat to democracy as a whole. I'm not sure how listening to them talk would help me become better informed on how to vote.

        Where's the ballot option for "absolutely not any of the above, give me some better options"?

        1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

          Re: If you want the truth...

          Some student unions use "RON" (re-open nominations) as an option, but it generally doesn't work well. It's a bit like FOSS: if you don't like what;s there you are free to stand (contribute) yourself and if you are not willing to do that you can't gripe about those who do put themselves forward.

        2. ChoHag Silver badge

          Re: If you want the truth...

          > Where's the ballot option for "absolutely not any of the above, give me some better options"?

          I think you will find it somewhere in here: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/forms/

        3. I am the liquor

          Re: If you want the truth...

          Sounds like an easy choice. Vote for the one who's not a threat to democracy. At least you'll have the option to vote for someone you like better next time.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: If you want the truth...

            @I am the liquor

            "Sounds like an easy choice. Vote for the one who's not a threat to democracy. At least you'll have the option to vote for someone you like better next time."

            The problem with that is both sides seem to believe the other is such a threat. I guess it comes down to how good peoples memories are.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: If you want the truth...

              But only one candidate has tried to instigate a coup, to stop the transfer of power and also tell the world they want to be a dictator, hmm?

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: If you want the truth...

                @AC

                "But only one candidate has tried to instigate a coup, to stop the transfer of power and also tell the world they want to be a dictator, hmm?"

                Who?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Stop

                  Re: If you want the truth...

                  Don't play coy. You're not very good at it.

                  1. codejunky Silver badge

                    Re: If you want the truth...

                    @AC

                    "Don't play coy. You're not very good at it."

                    I didnt instigate a coup or try to be dictator. So who?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If you want the truth...

        "I think there is a need to both educate people to think critically and be able to detect the odour of bs, official or unofficial"

        Are you sure? Why bother anymore? We gave them so many chances. Just move on and wave tot them as them depart on ArkB.

        "Then there was the Biden laptop. "

        Indeed. "Caught red-handed, Guv, I was, but ... see that over there?"

        'Turn your eyes to the children' is a poor strategy. The US is well past its sell-by date politically. I don't think they ever reached the levels of the ethereal Sir Humphrey Appleby.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Boring format online, but good and important

    For news online I prefer official channels, but my impression is they do not get the Internet: there are few short formats, boring talking heads with hollow "opinions". They feel too long, sluggish, lazy, bureaucratic sometimes. Even CNBC-alikes mostly feel like opinion-makers by silly presenters, who do not know what to ask interesting guests, or worse, get into discussions with them.

    And, over anything else, they should absolutely prioritize comment moderation. Because official channels are often targeted by foreign bots, even by like-boosting of whiny useless comments from real people. This is how the bots shape public opinion online. Instead they should allow only constructive or informative comments, similar to editorial policy of old style newspapers. Really: 50% of their budgets should go to comment moderation.

    Online platforms, like YouTube must allow removing like-counts from comments, and their corresponding automatic sorting as heavily manipulated. Because people tend to take likes as manifestation of truth. Instead what really matters for gov-funded news channels is topics and events they report on at all. Something to think about - it is a too serious issue to take it lightly.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Boring format online, but good and important

      "I prefer official channels, but my impression is they do not get the Internet: there are few short formats, boring talking heads with hollow "opinions". They feel too long, sluggish, lazy, bureaucratic sometimes"

      That's because most serious matter are complex, nuanced, difficult, require knowledge to understand, where all official actions have to weight different views, and to balance an intended outcome against unintended consequences or collateral harms.

      The news appetite of most of humanity is for everything digested into short "tell it like Ted" soundbites that mix attention grabbing visuals with content that's presented as definitive, stripped of detail, doubt, woven through with an emotional storyline, and a call for action.

      I'm preparing an official report for publication. The document is long, it's dull, loaded with acronyms and numbers; it describes 500 man years of work that affects about 80% of all business, and 100% of all citizens. We do have plans to have an internet friendly format, but what can we say in around 3 minutes? That gives me around 400 words, or which at least a hundred will be taken up by the niceties of introductions and the summary.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: Boring format online, but good and important

        That's because most serious matter are complex, nuanced, difficult, require knowledge to understand, where all official actions have to weight different views, and to balance an intended outcome against unintended consequences or collateral harms.

        Sounds like most countries energy policy. Global Warming will cause more extreme weather events, so let's build windmills and solar farms that are very vulnerable to those events. And then there is the policy cost..

        The news appetite of most of humanity is for everything digested into short "tell it like Ted" soundbites that mix attention grabbing visuals with content that's presented as definitive, stripped of detail, doubt, woven through with an emotional storyline, and a call for action.

        Yep. Labour did this with a scarey Global Warming video that came complete with a drowning puppy. OhNoes! And then there were Hockey Sticks, and exploding children.. Ah, 10:10, whatever happened to them?

        We do have plans to have an internet friendly format, but what can we say in around 3 minutes? That gives me around 400 words, or which at least a hundred will be taken up by the niceties of introductions and the summary.

        I say screw the niceties and get to the point. Having dealt with masses of documentation, both technical and sales stuff, I've always hated the 'exec summary'. But like you say, it's the attention grabbing bit that has to get a decision maker to read further. Or just throw it at the nearest minion to read further and make their own report. It's also where Global Warming stuff gets interesting, or just incredibly tedious. So there are the IPCC reports. They're meta-analyses of the state of the art since the last report. So delegates por over thousands of scientific publications, cherry pick some, include those in their Working Group reports. And then there is the 'Summary for Policy Makers' that has to condense the condensate into something those policy makers might actually read. And requires its own exec summary. And then it gets unleashed on the world, who'll make their own interpretations.

        But good luck, and if as you say it'll affect everyone, kinda curious what the report will be now :)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Boring format online, but good and important

          "But good luck, and if as you say it'll affect everyone, kinda curious what the report will be now :)"

          It's an annual report, for a government body. Due to the scope of the government body, it affects everyone (in the country to which it refers), but it's historical, essentially "what we did with your money last year". I prefer short, punchy stuff. But I don't think this lends itself to short and punchy unless we leave out huge areas of the work we do.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "I don't think this lends itself to short and punchy unless we leave out huge areas of the work."

            Think of all those poor civil servants. It will be chunky. Too chunky too read properly. Best kind.

      2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

        Re: Boring format online, but good and important

        Yeah, I'm drafting a local government report, and in my mind it would be about four pages: three maps and a paragraph of descriptions. But it is going to have to be at least a magnitude longer. For this sort of stuff it's like being in primary school, you have to show your working at every step and describe how you got to the conclusion you are arguing for. And, of course, everybody wants to put their oar in and "contribute".

  6. codejunky Silver badge

    Why not

    Instead of our home grown national media we have access to global media. Instead of the approved message and one sided views there is easy access to a range of perspectives. Add the certain agenda's that have been pushed and it is easy to see why people would look for different sources.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why not

      look for different sources

      Tufton Street and Russian troll farms aren't a real alternative though, hmm?

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Why not

        @AC

        "Tufton Street and Russian troll farms aren't a real alternative though, hmm?"

        Amusingly the implication of your stupid trolling is that Tufton and Russian trolls say the same as home grown national media. I see why you coward

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: Why not

          Amusingly the implication of your stupid trolling is that Tufton and Russian trolls say the same as home grown national media.

          The national media is an increasingly irrational media, fighting for their survival and terrified of poking their heads out of their comfort bubble. Neat example here-

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8l35xl1l2o

          The Spectator has been sold for £100m to Sir Paul Marshall, a hedge fund tycoon and major investor in GB News...

          ...The Telegraph newspapers remain for sale, and Sir Paul is also in the running to buy those as he continues his bid to build an empire of right-wing media outlets.

          OhNoes! People might be exposed to wrongthink! Or if there's a plurality of news, just be able to view opinions from left & right and draw a balanced view. For some, this is unacceptable. Then again there have been a few reality checks recently. Sony spaffed $200m on a game called Concord that managed to get 700 concurrent players before Sony pulled the plug on that one after only 2 weeks. Or Dustborn, which PC Gamer describes as "Dustborn let me smash fascists and flirt with my situationship on a road trip across America". Apparently the EU chucked money into the development of that one, and is also getting slammed. As the developer put it-

          Ragnar Tørnquist denied the cast's diversity was due to outside pressure, stating that they were targeting a "wider and more diverse audience" than typical games.

          Or there's Disney, and The Acolyte. $150m wasted on that one and cancelled after 8 episodes. Much fury around that one with an online petition to save it. Think it had 70,000 people signed up, which is probably about the number of people that actually watched it. If those fans stumped up $2,500 each, they could perhaps crowd-fund series 2. Or people could try and figure out how the show cost $150m+ in the first place.

          But all examples of bubblethink. Make content for 'diverse' (ie minority) audiences, trample over the canon and alienate the existing fan base (hello Rings of Power) and don't be suprised that you get minority ratings. People just aren't buying what they're selling and are voting with their wallets or eyeballs. People want to be entertained, not preached to. Entertainment can still preach, ie Rockstar has a lot of messaging in it's GTA titles, but they're a lot more subtle and have made billions.. Despite a lot of their messaging being anti-consumerism.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Facepalm

            Re: Why not

            Almost all of the print media in the UK is rightwing, you muppet.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Why not

              "Almost all of the print media in the UK is rightwing, you muppet."

              Just so you know, 8chan is still going and misses you. Print media is controlled by a few people and they are both right/left/centre around theirs pots of money … fool.

              1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

                Re: Why not

                Print media is controlled by a few people ...

                Go on. Say the word. We know you want to.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Why not

                  You're not suggesting Mr/Ms Tank wants to point at certain group of people who have been persecuted throughout history?

            2. HT7777

              Re: Why not

              Almost all of the print media in the UK is rightwing, you muppet.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "Or there's Disney, and The Acolyte. $150m wasted on that one"

            Bile forms in the pit of my stomach and perhaps that is their intention. Lots of little kids, animals and other forms of intelligence would do well with that.

  7. Dr. G. Freeman

    I've found that for local news and sports results have to go online as TV aren't covering it. STV and BBC Scotland are rather Glasgow-centric in their coverage, and hardly cover Aberdeen and Inverness news.

    Also there's no science news programs in the UK, so again have to go online for it.

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      I've found that for local news and sports results have to go online as TV aren't covering it. STV and BBC Scotland are rather Glasgow-centric in their coverage, and hardly cover Aberdeen and Inverness news.

      Yep. I guess that's a combination of the cost of media rights for a lot of sports, and the cost of journalists. I do think the Bbc misses a trick by trying to chase after the big-budget stuff when it could be covering and promoting less popular sports. Like this one-

      https://www.green-events.co.uk/world-bog-snorkelling-championships

      I doubt the sports rights would cost much and it's one of those weird & wacky events that almost anyone can try. It also looks like an equal opportunity event and a women won this year's event. Stuff like that probably doesn't need Lineker-sized salaries to report on either. But for other local news, it's still a case of funding it. Online costs a lot less than printing, but there seems to be challenges with advertising. So free newspapers were funded by local ads, but there doesn't seem to be a good way for them to sell those ads online.. Even though there's a market for that. It's perhaps not helped by a lot of the traditional local news titles having been snapped up by larger media groups.

      Also there's no science news programs in the UK, so again have to go online for it.

      Yep. I'd love to see shows like Tomorrow's World, Mythbusters or Scrap Heap Challenge brought back. The UK needs kids to get interested in STEM and shows like those were a great way to get them hooked. Also in the unlikely event I were ever made governor of the Bbc, I'd drag it kicking and screaming back to the original Reithian ideals of Inform, Educate and Entertain. I rather miss the days when Open University shows were on the Bbc, and now daytime TV is wall-wall garbage. Government wants to bring people back into the workforce and more educational content could help support that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "and now daytime TV is wall-wall garbage. Government wants to bring people back into the workforce and more educational content could help support that."

        I already thought that the complete shite on daytime TV was a government plot to ensure people wanted to be out of their houses and away from their TVs during working hours. Not sure that the audience of "Cash in the attic", "homes under the hammer", "A place in the sun", "Chateau DIY", "Antiques road trip" "Celebrity Homes", "Celebrity antiques road trip", "Celebrity antiques road trip in the sun" etc etc wish to be educated and brought into the workforce.

        And only one of those programmes is made up, sadly.

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          And only one of those programmes is made up, sadly

          Yep, I'm going to be in hospital again soon, which is where I get to experience the quality 'entertainment' that is daytime TV. I guess the NHS saves on sedation by having that on the wards. But there's never been a better time to get kids interested in STEM. YouTube has a ton of educational content, especially people making stuff and explaining how they did it. The Bbc used to have more educational content but seems to have abandoned it in an attempt to chase ratings. Government keeps wibbling about how the UK is going to be a world leader in X, but doesn't do enough to get kids interested in making the stuff to support those lofty ambitions.

          1. W.S.Gosset Silver badge

            Bring back Robot Wars!

            1. W.S.Gosset Silver badge

              Also: good luck in hospital, mate.

              (Keep an eye on the chart at the foot of your bed. If you see "DNR" appear on it, be sure to cross out the "N".)

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Also: good luck in hospital, mate.

                I think I'll need comfort food. It's just for a colonoscopy, so I can't exactly say I'm looking forward to that. But there is an IT angle and apparently I'll be able to watch the progress on TV, so might be somewhat more interesting than the usual daytime TV. Coming from a medical family, I'm not to bothered and having done my degree in medical technology, I find the gadgets fascinating. Things like digital X-rays must make life a whole lot easier for doctors and surgeons to do their job. Also had a friend who was treated for a brain aneurysm recently and that procedure apparently involved injecting a metal bead, using magnetism to guide that into the site, do some spot welding and then guiding the bead back to where it could be recovered. The physics and engineering to do that must be quite impressive, and we bet the neurosurgeon is probably really good at doing those ball mazes.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Colonoscopy TV

                  Indeed, watching the progress of the camera as it progressed up was quite interesting. I was expecting a quiet, almost intimate setting for the exam, perhaps just me and the person driving the camera. How wrong I was! There must have been 5 people in the room, all watching the screen closely. Funniest part of the exam - the oversized paper 'underpants' with a velcro flap at the back, and the riiiiip as they are opened! Weirdest bit - on it's way out, the camera is flipped downwards, so you get to see the otherside of your @rsehole :-)

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  All the best for that, even though I don't often agree with your posts.

                  I too have had that, thankfully nothing found, but as I spend most of my day probing machines I reckon it is fair game to be probed by a machine in return.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Robot Wars wasn't robots and was almost completely fake. Bouts were staged and edited to make sure that the right machines "won".

        2. CountCadaver Silver badge

          Modern day version of "prole press"?

          An educated populace being far harder to manipulate (hence why so many religions are hostile to education and free thought....too many "awkward" questions)

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Stop

          ""A place in the sun""

          Watch your mouth.

      2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        I rather miss the days when Open University shows were on the Bbc

        There are lots of Open University co-productions on the BBC.

      3. Binraider Silver badge

        The height of Grandstand was when they were showing some obscure events. Rallycross and the Banger Racing remain particular favourites.

        As impressive as athletics and tennis players are, they aren't much fun to watch.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      local news for local people

      "STV and BBC Scotland ... hardly cover Aberdeen and Inverness news."

      It's about time they broadcast all-day streaming of a deserted Union Street on some charidee's - see what I did there? - flag day.

  8. Cruachan Bronze badge

    Whataboutist journalism really needs to be chucked in the bin everywhere. Even today, let's gloss over the state of the UK because look at the state of the US and here's a picture of Taylor Swift with a cat telling her fans who to vote for.

    1. Like a badger

      The poor quality of modern journalism (and its patchy coverage) can mostly be traced back to the fact that most people won't pay for it. Even before the internet, local journalism was in decline, moving from paid publications to free-issue ad-supported rags. Until such time as people are prepared to pay for quality journalism, we won't see any.

      I don't see any green shoots - the Graun is very slowly seeing Scott Trust assets decline, its inflation adjusted revenues have been stagnant for years, and the actual content is uncritical Islington dinner party tripe. And even then the lead article (at this moment) in their "News in focus" session is headlined by Taylor Swift. The other former news greats are now either tiny circulations behind paywalls, or you've got the tabloid ad-slingers who do no real journalism and merely publish tedious clickbait alongside endless adverts. Or most shamefully, the Independent, that went from being the best newspaper ever to nothing, through a long shameful decline under people who should never be allowed anywhere news.

      1. Cruachan Bronze badge

        Internet certainly didn't help, and Murdoch and his evil empire started the attacks on the BBC and the quality of their journalism when they were forced to charge to make money whilst the BBC (which of course we do pay for) was obliged by their charter to make their website free. I see headlines and stories from most of the UK media on Bing (only use it to get MS rewards points to get free Game Pass) and the difference in the same story when you know that the source has a red or blue tint to their glasses is incredible.

        Nowadays you never see anyone reading a paper unless you're on public transport, and even then it's The Metro, cos it's there and free.

      2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        and the actual content is uncritical Islington dinner party tripe

        The basic thrust of the Grauniad is that everything could be lovely if only the working classes would do what they were told to. This is also the basic thrust of the Daily Heil.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      <pedant> She said who she was voting for 'after doing her research' and she encouraged her fans to do their own research and vote. She did not say who they should vote for. </pedant>

      aka: she/her people are not idiots.

      Of course some argue that she has a lot of young female fans who are thought more likely to vote for one specific candidate, so merely by encouraging them to vote she is supporting that candidate. Saying people should not be encouraged to vote is a tad, err, odd.

  9. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    And yet...

    People still buy newspapers because they like the news that is presented in _that_ paper.

    People watch news broadcasts - either broadcasters, youtube, facebook, whatever - because they like the news that is presented in _that_ channel.

    There's no difference. People _will not watch/listen to_ broadcasts with which they disagree, except in very rare cases. Any news channel is always going to be mediated by an editor; how much he is beholden to the whim of his owner/controller varies only in scale, not in scope. In spite of all the anti-BBC posts which are so popular here (disclaimer: I worked directly or indirectly for BBC News for over thirty years) I believe that the BBC is one of the less-constrained sources.

    Wolfetone's points are valid, but not having seen them in context at the time I can't comment. And it's ten years since I last worked there; things have certainly changed. But I do think that it's rather marvelous that the BBC's perceived bias seems to switch 180 degrees after every general election where the government changes... they're obviously doing something right.

    I think the way to consider things is to look at an individual program or news item, and ask why that particular spin is applied. I'm not convinced by conspiracy theories of government control.

    1. CountCadaver Silver badge

      Re: And yet...

      The BBC is the voice of the establishment and hence leans socially conservative with occasional dalliances in some modern attitudes in between articles about obscure appliances Peter from Basingstoke and Doris from Slough want brought back.

  10. Julian Poyntz

    Social Media ?!

    My misses seems to spend most of her phone time in Facebook, still.

    Recently I woke up and she was already awake and on her phone. asked "anyhing happen overnight ?" to which I got "No, nothing". I rolled over, grabbed my phone and the main headline was "Trump assination attempt"

    still, it seems the Beeb use X for most of their sources of news these days and there is naff all local in any of the new reports and a couple of sites that used to have "local" news have now stopped or just gone bust

    1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      Re: Social Media ?!

      I rolled over, grabbed my phone and the main headline was "Trump assination attempt"

      So she was right - nothing had happened. Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?

  11. Groo The Wanderer Silver badge

    Of course the news from the BBC in the UK, CBC in Canada, and ABC in Australia are more trustworthy than the internet.

    They're news sources, not "opinion" sites.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No, sir, they are selective news sources.

      Whilst there's relatively little fake news from those sources, they won't carry news (or detail content within a news story) that doesn't fit their inherent political belief set. And they're more than happy to push out crap like "celebrity news", or sports, rather than anything heavyweight or contentious.

      1. FreddieSingsTheBlues
        Facepalm

        No, sir, they are selective news sources.

        Can you point to any news source that isn't? while it might be nice to think we once had a media that reported all stories without fear or favour, that has never been the case. There is too much going on in the world for even a large organization to publish it all, and any publication will have to have some knowledge of it's readers/viewers sensibilities (although the don't always get it right).

        It's also a bit naive to think that everyone will seek out all news, everywhere and take in all points of view. Some are only interested in local news, or tech news or politics. The Internet can specialize in these things, but individual sites will have their own biases. People will choose accordingly.

        The problem is not that there is opinion and bias, that predates the Internet. It's when the powerful (tech companies as much than governments these days) try to close out the opinions they don't approve of.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    TV News has been steadily turned into infotainment

    They no longer touch controversy, detail or investigative journalism.

    They just pick a side and stay in their mediocre lane.

  13. Lee D Silver badge

    People still watch the news? I haven't since... well... before 9/11 that's for sure.

    No TV news, no radio news, no newspapers. They have no interest in *NEWS* at all. Even the online versions are full of celebrity tripe.

    Headlines on BBC News as I speak - US election debate hangover nonsense from last night occupying 50% of the front page.

    Articles about Campbell's soup, Harry Potter auditions, a celebrity fathering a child, bad statues of the royals (the worst kind of "celeb" news), etc. There's one tiny article about Kiev on there, that's it.

    Hopefully the kind of person who is still watching TV and especially TV news will die out (quite literally) in the next 20 years or so.

    1. Like a badger

      "Hopefully the kind of person who is still watching TV and especially TV news will die out (quite literally) in the next 20 years or so."

      To be replaced by others who are retired and slowly fading away. You're never going to lose that older generation because we're getting better at prolonging people's lives without either preserving their mind or bodies to enable them to enjoy the time they have left. And if they get us into the care home, then we'll be left to drool soup down our shirts, sat listlessly in front of the goggle box. According to Ofcom, average TV consumption for adults over 65 was 350 minutes per day. FFS, I'm not more than a handful of years away from that age group.

      I suppose it's better for everybody else than them clogging up the buses and shops, but what sort of existence is that? When people ask what I want for my birthday I'm going to ask for Dignitas gift cards in future.

      1. CountCadaver Silver badge

        Then again how many spend that much time online or more? Or otherwise sat in front of a pc / games console?

        It's just the older people get that they become less technologically interested as a rule - my grandparents both in their 80s for example have zero interest in computers or the internet, however their recently departed 90 year old neighbour had a Mac and spent time online

      2. Lee D Silver badge

        I will be requiring Internet in my retirement, it's absolutely 100% certain.

        Maybe the world will have moved on and I won't be with the Holographic Internet 2.0 crowd, but I'll still want Internet. I will not suddenly revert 30 years and do something I've never significantly done in my adult life, like buy and stare at a TV for hours on end letting the adverts wash over me.

        Sure, maybe the next gen will consider The Internet that I know and can operate tainted and biased. That's always a possibility. But I won't be watching broadcast TV like my parents, buying newspapers like my grandfather, etc.

        TV will be dead by my retirement, the same way we view black-and-white TV, "the wireless" (as in the original usage of the term), etc. now. The Internet will be old and obsolete, most likely, or unrecognisable from its current state - like the Gopher or Ceefax of today.

        But TV and TV news will die out just as a natural technological consequence of the times, regardless of what else takes over. You don't even get old dears queuing in the Post Office any more because we made them all get with the times and deposit directly into their bank account now.

        Retirement will still make people cling to the legacy of their adult lives that they became accustomed to, so they will be "out of date", but it's not going to make them revert to what you and I remember of our grandparents as they were 30+ years ago and what they enjoyed and could handle. Nobody of my generation is going to care a jot about Vera Lynn, going to Margate for the day, playing bingo or whist, or having a knees-up to Chas and Dave.

        The retirement homes of even our generations will have fibre internet connections and whatever the modern equivalent of a Netflix box will be. They won't be writing postcards to each other, they'll be emailling and Facebooking (even if that's obsolete by then) their old school pals. They'll be breaking their hips to Beyonce, not Dusty Springfield.

        I fully intend to still be using my Steam account, entirely online banking and having my media collection at that age. I might even get to actually complete Factorio with 350 minutes of spare time a day.

        1. PB90210 Bronze badge

          But, according to all those TV ads, everyone's online playing <random name>bingo.com safely and chatting to their online mates about their gambling addiction...

        2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          I fully intend to still be using my Steam account, entirely online banking and having my media collection at that age. I might even get to actually complete Factorio with 350 minutes of spare time a day.

          Argh.. you've reminded me that their Space Age DLC should be releasing just in time for Halloween. New critters, new planets and giant flying space factories! And the pre-release videos show I still need to get better at optimising my layouts. But then cthulu-belting is part of Factorio's charm..

        3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          "nobody of my generation is going to care a jot about Vera Lynn, going to Margate for the day, playing bingo or whist, or having a knees-up to Chas and Dave."

          I think it's really funny how that is the general impression many, especially the younger generations, have of retirement homes, everyone lived through WW2 and love to sing along to Vera Lynn :-)

          Has anyone checked how old Mick Jagger is? His generation, and the earlier Teddy boys, mods and rockers, even punks are some of the people in those retirement homes these days, the very people who rebelled against Vera Lynn, Glenn Miller and the like.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'm trying to remember when I last used a TV to watch anything other than through a device or streaming service - certainly not news. It's been many years. (Not counting TVs in restaurants, but I don't really pay that much attention to them.) Antisocial media is something I don't use anymore; I have a FB account, but only so people can find and contact me. (Which sends me an email; I don't actually go to the website otherwise.)

      My two main news sources are both websites - El Reg and a sorta-local news agency. While the local one has a definite political lean, I'm pretty confident that the stuff they say is at least accurate.

      Newspapers? What century are we in again?

  14. Paddy

    BBC toadying?

    The other day I caught the BBC heading a news section by calling the return of the Starliner "a success".

    Only later did it fill in the less than optimal details.

    I watched Carol Vorderman's critique of TV at the Edinburgh TV Festival, too. Yes you do have to find multiple TV news sources online, and cross-check; but I too have less trust in TV news now.

    1. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Re: BBC toadying?

      BBC news reported on Vorderman's speech of course.

      With links to information she referenced.

      And asked the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 "for comment"

  15. tiggity Silver badge

    must be ahead of my time for an oldie

    Generally avoid UK TV news whenever possible - if it does appear (e.g. after I have watched preceding programme), I turn telly off or switch channel.

    .. because

    a) it only covers a tiny number of topics

    b) quite likely to be topics of no interest to me (had misfortune to catch a few seconds of the "major story of the day" a while ago - it was about Kate Middleton cancer all clear - FFS, that is not major news IMHO)

    c) There tends to be quite a lot of bias in how news is reported on UK TV (and additional bias by what IMHO newsworthy stories are not reported, whilst irrelevant tat takes up most of the broadcast)

    This made me smile about TV news

    "Ofcom found that most of the respondents said they had encountered misleading content during the recent UK General Election."

    No surprise there: If any TV news item featured a politician speaking then an extremely high chance it would contain "misleading content"

  16. Helcat Silver badge

    UK TV requires a license to watch broadcast TV, including news. There's been a noted reduction on people buying licenses over recent years so that would be fewer people able to legally watch live broadcast news (not just the BBC - any live broadcast).

    So this could just be a move by people to on-demand services instead, so I'm not surprised at all that online sources are gaining popularity while broadcast (TV) are on the decline.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "UK TV requires a license to watch broadcast TV"

      No! First off, it's licence. In the civilised world, license is a verb.

      Next, it's UK law and not "UK TV" which requires a licence to watch broadcast TV. Enforcement of that law is done by Crapita.

      1. Helcat Silver badge

        Yup: I got lazy in my writing. Mostly because I'd been having a hard day (aren't we all) and wasn't paying as much attention as I should have been.

        That and I'm not that good at spelling: A hangover from my childhood where speed was more important than accuracy. Or legibility. Some odd idea that we were entering the age of the computer that'd handle all that trivial stuff.

        And by UK TV, I was referring to the BBC rather than legislation as they're the ones who want everyone to have a TV licence* and they're the ones who get the money from said licence*. The law is that a licence is only needed for broadcast signal: It's not required for on demand. The bad old BBC, however, via their enforcement gang, Crapita**, would have you believe otherwise.

        *When reminded, I do make the effort to get the spelling correct.

        **Considering the tricks these scum try, calling them Crapita is being polite. Their techniques seem to come from the Mafia's handbook for extortion, only they will abuse the legal system to enforce their extortion efforts which helps them bully people into paying for a licence they may not need.

        Oh, but "Enforcement of that law is done by Crapita." isn't correct: Craptia doesn't have any enforcement powers: They're not enforcement officers, despite them liking to present them self as such: They're licence inspectors (and sales-scum). They can inspect your property, with a valid warrant issued by a magistrate*** (Scotland it's a Sheriff, I believe) and usually accompanied by a police officer. But if they still have to to court to prosecute if they find proof that you're watching broadcast TV without a licence - although the courts are using some shortcut system to prosecute the accused that doesn't allow them to defend themselves (apparently). Anyway, Crapita are inspectors, not enforcement: They claim to be the latter as part of their intimidation efforts.

        *** This is where they're likely to be inventive with the truth and why they more than earn their 'crapita' title.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          "The law is that a licence is only needed for broadcast signal: It's not required for on demand."

          FWIW, it's a little more nuanced than that. It covers live or near live transmission, so that includes streaming services "broadcasting" near live such as iPlayer so in theory, even if you don't have a TV, you have to prove you never watch live streams. At a push, that could include clicking the link on the BBC New website to their live news channel and suddenly becoming liable for a TV licence. Whether Crapita have the data to check for stuff like is another matter. I suspect they only ever target the low hanging fruit.

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            FWIW, it's a little more nuanced than that. It covers live or near live transmission, so that includes streaming services "broadcasting" near live such as iPlayer so in theory, even if you don't have a TV, you have to prove you never watch live streams.

            Ah, well.. It's a lot more nuanced. So there's specific legislation requiring a licence to use iPlayer. Installing it gets more murky given iPlayer comes pre-installed on stuff like 'smart' TVs, games consoles and often cannot be removed. This seems wrong given the legalities in the UK and it should be possible to delete iPlayer, if we do not want it. Then there's the way iPlayer can be accessed without installation, ie via a browser. As it is a criminal offence, the burden of proof should be on the accuser as well, ie I don't have to prove anything, the Bbc should have to prove an offence has been committed.

            The definition of live TV is also as clear as mud. It's legal to watch live streamers, just as long as they're not a TV station. The Bbc can't provide a list of what those are so they could be added to the killfile. Then there's potential fun. So ABC News livestreamed the Presidential debate. They're a TV station, so a licence should be required. But if you watched that via another stream that added their own context and commentary, would it still need a licence? Then to make matters more FUN!, the way licence evasion is enfarced is via bulk magistrates processing, so you can't challenge anything unless you can appeal.

            Whether Crapita have the data to check for stuff like is another matter. I suspect they only ever target the low hanging fruit.

            It isn't whether Crapita have the data, it's whether the Bbc has that data, and could have it legally. The latest threatograms from the Bbc have started implying people have been caught watching live TV streams but I very much doubt they have the legal right to do this as the Bbc isn't an authority entitled to do bulk data collection, and it would need a mechanism to tie any IP address to an unlicenced household.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What about radio?

    TV vs online ... well I have you know I get all my news on the radio! Young people these days wanting pictures with everything.... :)

    Usually listen to just the headlines though.

    Apart from tech news of course. That has to be online.

  18. DS999 Silver badge

    The most disturbing thing along these lines I saw

    Recently I heard that young people in the US get most of their news from social media. Hardly surprising. The really terrifying thing is that half admitted that they only read the headlines!

    Considering that social media doesn't even show the whole headline a lot of the time, but even when you see the whole thing the problem is these days the headlines are chosen to generate clicks not to summarize the article! Not to mention that if you aren't even looking at the article, safe to say you probably aren't looking at the domain - so that "news" you saw in your feed might be a scam site, might be Russian disinformation, might be almost anything.

    Say what you want about the problems with "mainstream media" back when TV, radio and newspapers were the only sources of news, the situation now is much worse for the low-information consumer of news!

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: The most disturbing thing along these lines I saw

      "these days the headlines are chosen to generate clicks not to summarize the article!"

      These days? The print media have done that for generations

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: The most disturbing thing along these lines I saw

        Really, newspapers in the 1970s were generating clicks? Where? Once newspapers became almost entirely subscription based the headlines did a very good job of summarizing the article, because there was no need to "sell" the paper based on headlines. Maybe back in the pre WW II days when newsboys were hawking them on a street corner for 2c they did, but the headline didn't need to be wild, the newsboy could say "some crazy thing happened, read all about it!" since he isn't bound by what the headline says.

        The crazy headlines were used to sell papers people didn't subscribe to, i.e. tabloids like the National Enquirer or the New York Post.

  19. Brave Coward

    A remedy

    "She said I was taking too many old drugs. But, given the objective conditions of our lives, how can we avoid taking drugs? It's our only defense against information."

    (Thomas McGuane, "Panama" - Sorry, re-translated to english; original may differ a little bit.)

  20. R Soul Silver badge
    IT Angle

    Ofcom misses the point - as usual

    Ofcom has failed to realise the "trustworthiness" of TV news is an irrelevance. TV news (and news media in general) is a branch of showbusiness. As such, its values reflect that. Commitment to reasonable journalistic behaviour and values - accuracy, fact-checking, transparency, impartiality, etc - no longer matter. Except maybe at the BBC World Service. Which mostly goes unnoticed. Sigh.

    IMO, Ofcom should be fixing that instead of running popularity contests on some flavour-of-the-week social media platform.

  21. charlieboywoof

    err

    the BBC isn't news, that why we don't fund it

  22. Oh Homer

    TV ... what's that?

    I supposedly fall into the geriatric demographic still loyal to TV, however the reality is that I gave up watching TV two and a half decades ago in the late nineties, around the time of the rise in popularity of "reality TV".

    The sort of garbage on TV at the time included such masterpieces as "Ibiza Uncovered", "Cops", and my personal favourite, "Britain's Most Violent Pubs".

    I remember thinking at the time that, if I really want to immerse myself in anti-social behaviour for entertainment purposes, all I need to do is step outside, and frankly I got more than enough of that in real life. I watched TV to escape that shit, not subject myself to a rerun of it.

    There were also very early warning signs of the emergence of "Woke" culture in TV, or what used to be called "political correctness". Everything felt a little too preachy for my liking.

    From what I've heard, mainstream media has now fully succumbed to Woke cancer, and things have only gotten significantly worse, so it seems I cut the cable at exactly the right moment.

    These days I get orders of magnitude more entertainment value from certain youtubers and Twitch streamers than anything the mainstream media has to offer. And as far as the news is concerned, I was never that interested in the blatantly manufactured propaganda peddled by mainstream news outlets in the past, I'm even less interested in it today.

  23. Zibob Silver badge

    TV remains more trusted news source

    You mean the thing that had pictures of bojo in front of a big red bus with 350million on the side.. yeah there was a lot of truth in that. Where that money for the NHS now?

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: TV remains more trusted news source

      You mean the thing that had pictures of bojo in front of a big red bus with 350million on the side.. yeah there was a lot of truth in that. Where that money for the NHS now?

      NHS funding has been increased since Brexit, but no idea how much. Somewhere on the Internet there is probably historical data that shows budget over time. I suspect that if wage bills & payrises are included, it's probably been more that £350m.

      But things also aren't looking too rosy in EUroland-

      https://commission.europa.eu/topics/strengthening-european-competitiveness/eu-competitiveness-looking-ahead_en

      Mario Draghi recently released a report that makes pretty grim reading, and if correct, the EU is going to have to make some tough decisions. Especially as his solution seems to be to print more money, issue a LOT more EUrobonds. It is also interesting to look at surveys into STEM graduates by country. In EUroland, Germany dominates, further afield UK does pretty well compared to some other developed countries. Then there's more political comparisons, eg Russia produces around the same number of graduates as the US, but Russia has a much smaller population. And of course everyone's dwarfed by China and India.

      So if the West is going to innovate its way out of Draghi's economic crises, we really need to invest in those young, fertile minds that might come up with the next big things. Then it's just the problem of getting those ideas to market, which can be a challenge given the higher costs and bundles of red tape. Outside of the EU, the UK has a bit more flexibility to reduce bureaucratic burdens and costs.

      1. Binraider Silver badge

        Re: TV remains more trusted news source

        I know we don't agree on much, but on this, bang on.

        Innovating our way out of a 40 year deep hole by having the highest student fees outside the US, impossible living costs, underfunded schools, toothless teachers with no authority to stop disruption, often recruited from those not able to get a better paying job in industry... while simultaneously competing with India and China and also expecting better living standards?

        It is quite, quite ludicrous.

        Throw in companies running everything to the wire rather than actual succession planning.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: TV remains more trusted news source

      The TV reported Bojo' stunt -that is part of their job.

      They also dismantled the claim when Gisela Stuart made it.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060

  24. ScottishYorkshireMan

    The problem with news is....

    Well its really the viewer.

    If the viewer hears news that meets their own internal belief system, then that's great news. They like that and will parrot it out to whoever will listen. However, if they hear a story that lets for now say is factually true, but it doesn't fit their internal belief system, then whoa there, the viewer decides its BS. Very few go beyond the realms of the Daily Distress (Express for those regular buyers and the hard of thought) Daily Heil (Mail for those hard of thought and regular buyers) and in Scotland, well the Scottish Daily Distress is a fabulous source of the most random bullshit around, but usually angled to slant the SNP, in similar guise to The Herald and The Scotsman.

    But we are talking TV here and since the likes of every eugenics supporting member of the 'Tory' party is now a Gammon Bollocks News TV star I think it says a lot both about the quality of what is broadcast and in a lot of cases, the viewer.

    As with beauty, the news (or truth) is in the eye of the beholder (or viewer).

    Given we know that the UK newspapers are shite, but when your broadcast world requires every single sentence to be fact checked, what the fuck is the point of watching?

  25. Long John Silver
    Pirate

    News and comment/opinion are unreliable in the UK

    1. The BBC

    I use the BBC website to gain an impression of current British concerns, fantasies, and of trivia filling vacuous minds. As a news source, it is dire, but far superior to commercial offerings. Some discussion pieces are excellent. The BBC publishes far fewer reader comments than before NATO hubris and Covid-19 hit the scene; topics upon which response is permitted are restricted to the bland, i.e. matters irrelevant to the grand Western narratives we are expected to parrot by heart. Comments posted to the BBC site are subjected to strict censorship should they stray into 'narratives'. Only a marker of their existence is offered; however, the BBC sends a standard email to the author mentioning breach of conditions; it does offer to consider objections.

    Although the BBC has declined from its postwar heyday, its non-news output, particularly that directed towards 'high culture' remains good. I get the impression that the BBC retains many programme producers of notable calibre; regardless of their individual political views and social values, I posit there being considerable anxiety over persistent government interference and imposition of 'narratives'. Recent governments (going back to Mrs Thatcher), Conservative and Labour alike, nowadays, each of Neo-Liberal outlook, hold the threat of privatisation over the BBC: that would be a disaster.

    2. Independent broadcasters

    Long ago I ceased all contact with these. They are lowest-common-denominator outlets intent upon maximising advertising revenue. I avoid being subjected to advertisements. That entails ignoring these sources of news and 'entertainment'. Also, the WWW would be out of bounds were it not for blocking software; for instance YouTube, if not subjected to 'home censorship', would be too much of a nightmare. Incidentally, 'FreeTube' for Linux does an excellent job of weeding out crap; similar utilities exist for Android and can be accessed via the free F-Droid application.

    3. Print and online news vendors

    Up until the current era of thought control, the Daily Telegraph did a sterling job with respect to news integrity and commentary. Also, the online community of comment-making subscribers was lively. Only the most egregiously distasteful remarks were deleted. Moreover, a couple of decades ago, the Telegraph provided a now abandoned, WordPress blog platform which was a forerunner of Disqus, and many similar.

    Gradually, the online Telegraph descended into a tacky purveyor of goods for readers. In parallel, it commissioned frothy 'life-style' pieces from second-rate writers. Nowadays, the Telegraph appears to have taken on the rôle of official spokes-organ for the Ministry of Defence and NATO.

    The Telegraph lost all claim to integrity when it began shadow-banning online subscriber comments. This seems to have been effected via the Canadian company the Telegraph uses to manage the online comment system. Shadow-banning is the most dishonest tool for censorship yet devised. Paying subscribers are misled into thinking their comment was published; that is misrepresentation and dishonestly accepting money under false pretences. I have a series of screenshots proving my assertions.

    Once upon a time I dabbled with the Guardian. Before the most recent Editor took office, there were some interesting writers. Comment moderation was prissy, but one could get around obstacles by deploying irony. It was quite fun trying to best 'politically correct' moderators. It seems a general phenomenon that people who take themselves very seriously are so blinkered they cannot recognise irony (the brighter twin of sarcasm). Also, Americans don't do irony. My greatest success was a comment on an article about so-called 'Travellers'.

    4. Alternative sources of news and opinion

    To override BBC news trivia and its adherence to government diktat, I daily visit RT (formerly 'Russia Today'), and sometimes dip into Al Jazeera. RT is an excellent source of international news, and of informed opinion (writers drawn from many places). RT offers excellent documentary films and discussion 'shows'. Also, RT provides a more or less 'free for all' reader comment system hosted by Tolstoy Comments. Although lambasted by Western interests, I believe RT to have sound editorial policies, refreshingly so.

    During WW2, no attempt was made in the UK to prevent people listening on the radio to German propaganda. In fact, the broadcaster, an Irishman named William Joyce, colloquially 'Lord Haw-Haw', was a great hit, but not in the manner expected by the Reich. Joyce, not a British citizen, was subjected to a gross postwar miscarriage of justice: hanged by the British. RT is forbidden to broadcast in NATO nations. Its online platform is blocked in the UK and throughout Western Europe. One has to resort to a VPN or a mirror site. Ironically, RT cannot be blocked, as yet, in the USA because that would breach the Constitution; therefore a VPN masquerading as originating in the USA makes a reliable connection.

    If one seeks honest reportage on events in Israel, RT is one of several places to go. RT is also forthcoming over NATO's proxy war in Ukraine. However, for a detailed day by day account of the battles I recommend a Rumble channel called 'Military Summary' which has no affiliation with nations participating in the fighting.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: News and comment/opinion are unreliable in the UK

      I think we all know who's paying for that "opinion".

  26. heyrick Silver badge
    Unhappy

    So we've gone from broadcast news that used to attempt the illusion of impartiality by annoying everybody equally...

    ...to having people search out their own private echo chambers on opaque services that may well be bankrolled by foreign regimes (particularly those who would appreciate the downfall of your country).

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If you're able to filter out all of crap, porn and misinformation ...

    ... then Twitter remains an excellent source for breaking news and for news that the BBC and Mainstream Media wish to remain Silent on.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like