Does the BBC need to change? From the groundbreaking to the overly sensitive

How do you solve a problem like the BBC? The organisation has, over the years, gone from strength to strength and given us lots of great things.

But, for all the good it does, and all the new ground it’s broken since being created, there are times when it deserves criticism.

Take this weekend’s Grand National for example. The main event in the horseracing calendar is a world famous occasion.

Tragic event

Yet Saturday’s was marred by the death of two horses. This was obviously a tragedy, which needed covering.

Yet the BBC shied away from doing so.

Rightly, it received criticism for that. It may not have seen it as being a very sensitive or politically correct thing to do during the showcase event, but even so, an organisation like the BBC should have covered it in more detail.

Ammunition

It’s times like that which do the broadcaster no favours and give ammunition to critics.

Yet for all the damage it does itself, there are moments of genius.

Take a programme which I watched yesterday, called ‘The Truth about Lions’ (catch on iplayer if you missed it).

Brilliant wildlife shows

It chronicled the rise and fall of the animal in Africa, and was another in a long line of high quality wildlife shows which has been produced by the beeb.

So, what deserves more notice? The times when it makes mistakes, or the times when it blows us away?

It’s a hard one to decide, made more complicated by the fact that we, as viewers, pay the licence fee.

What do you think?

Sadly, it’s an issue which could be discussed in a lot more detail than I can go into here.

But what do you think? Should be more critical of the organisation? Or should we let it be?

Read more of Wordsmith:

Japan earthquake shows importance of rolling news

‘Hypocritical’ Clegg hammered as Sun leads witch hunt

Sun and Mirror get Rooney fever over his ‘Coke’ problems

Sorry MacKenzie, you’re speaking rubbish

Murdoch’s News of the World hacked phones? So what

British newspapers: Unethical and sensationalised? Yeah, but so what

(Pic: by Nick Clapp, of newspapers)

It’s often said newspapers have no morals, ethics or sensitivity. People complain about them being biased, sensationalised and prejudiced.

To be honest, this is largely true. And I for one am glad that’s the case.

No responsibility

 The truth is, newspapers have no genuine responsibility to be ‘fair’ and ‘objective’.

This is because they are not public service organisations. Yes, papers play a part in maintaining democracy.

But don’t forget, they are organisations designed to make profits and money first and foremost.

This is why they are full of adverts and fight so hard to get noticed amongst the competition. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating papers lying or making up stories.

 I’m just saying it’s not right or fair to expect them to be impartial.

As journalism students, we are told ‘don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.’ It’s probably the best piece of advice I’ve heard so far.

You may think what I’m saying is pretty unethical. But why is it? There’s no shame in trying to sell newspapers.

Techniques

Headline puns, big pictures and shocking headlines are the best way to do this.

Would you want to read something written in plain, boring language? No, nobody would. It may be factually correct, but it wouldn’t be interesting.

Take for example today’s Daily Express. This isn’t a paper I normally read, and I’m not advocating views in it. But as an example, think about this headline.

“Scandal as millions wait longer to see their doctor.” Now, is it really a scandal?

“People waiting longer to see doctors” would probably be more accurate. But it’s nowhere near as interesting.

The truth is, if you don’t like the way certain papers act, ignore them. You could go your whole life without ever needing to read one.

Like it or not though, the techniques used by papers to intrigue readers and keep their interest are clever and fantastic.

After all, about one in every 12 people will buy one daily. That’s pretty impressive.

So even if you don’t like them, at least show them some respect.

Read more of Wordsmith:

Celeb Gossip: Why people love it

Rupert Murdoch’s media monopoly

Japan earthquake shows importance of rolling news

Matt Baker: David Cameron’s nemesis