Oxbridge and the BBC
My kitchen radio is set to Radio 4. It's a tricky little booger and I canny be bothered trying to reset it every time I hear something I don't like (which is often) so I just leave it and leap for the off switch when it gets really annoying.
A few weeks back, I was emptying the dishwasher and put on the radio, to hear two men discussing why teachers at state schools (obviously in England - or was it England and Wales - I never know which services are devolved these days - mainly because mainstream media fail to make it clear) don't encourage young people to apply for places in Oxford and Cambridge. The discussion was honestly bizarre: it was as if the only universities worth applying to were those two. These was no mention of any others - and there are surely quite a few universities that are not Oxford and Cambridge, some of which are excellent places to study, do well in the world league tables of universities - and are quite hard to get into.
It was clear the two men speaking saw acceptance at Oxford and Cambridge as the pinnacle of success. The sub-text was: career-wise, you were quids in if you got a place. The degree didn't really matter. Not the category of degree you got. I wondered if both of these men had attended - oh, it takes too long to write, so I'll just call them O and C. And then I thought how far up its own arse the BBC is if it can punt a segment like that on the 'national and international' news.
And, as I switched off the radio, I remembered all the reasons I so dislike the BBC's news output:
The continuing domination of men. Not men with plummy voices. The BBC doesn't do plummy any more but mostly kind of neutral Home Counties voices, with gey few 'regional' accents. There's Eddie Mair but he's on his way to LBC, I believe. And on the telly, there's Huw Edwards but you'd never know for a minute he's Welsh, not these days. The rest are a bland assembly who all sound exactly the same.
The domination of London. In fact, I think it's worse now than 30 or 40 years ago. It's almost a miracle if you can get a news reporter out of his comfy seat in Broadcasting House (if that's where they're based - what do I know or care?) and tripping along the streets of England outwith London, Surrey and Kent, microphone in hand. Do they ever get to Leicester or York - never mind Stroke City or Pontypool or Glasgow?
The failure to understand what 'national and international news' means. It doesn't mean the effect of Brexit on London or the visit of Donald Trump to - yep - London or what Jeremy Corbyn said at a rally in - you got it - London. It means these overpaid journalists should be doing a bit of analysis of the crap they are fed on a daily basis by Westminster (or just copy from the right-wing press) and maybe cast the net wider to find out the state of the United Kingdom they are so fond of.
The nauseating adoration of the royal family. Yes, there are many people who like the royals - or rather, adore the queen. A lot of them live abroad and so don't pay for these people to continue their cosy inherited (that means unearned) lifestyle. Again, there is never any examination of the cost of the royal family - or of how much money they bring in. It's all a tribute to Ruritania (google it), part of the bread and circuses approach to life in the UK that keeps our eyes off how skint we actually are.
And we are skint. The national debt is horrible. We can't actually pay for anything and that includes the NHS we all love so much. Not to mention social care, education and transport - some of the basics of life, taken for granted in other parts of the EU that some of England is so keen to leave.
We live in a Union (no, the United Kingdom is not a country) that can't afford the style of life we have become accustomed to and the Tories are either too stupid or too cowardly to tell people.
And if you think the BBC is going to blow the lid off the state of the Union, you'll wait a long time.
A few weeks back, I was emptying the dishwasher and put on the radio, to hear two men discussing why teachers at state schools (obviously in England - or was it England and Wales - I never know which services are devolved these days - mainly because mainstream media fail to make it clear) don't encourage young people to apply for places in Oxford and Cambridge. The discussion was honestly bizarre: it was as if the only universities worth applying to were those two. These was no mention of any others - and there are surely quite a few universities that are not Oxford and Cambridge, some of which are excellent places to study, do well in the world league tables of universities - and are quite hard to get into.
It was clear the two men speaking saw acceptance at Oxford and Cambridge as the pinnacle of success. The sub-text was: career-wise, you were quids in if you got a place. The degree didn't really matter. Not the category of degree you got. I wondered if both of these men had attended - oh, it takes too long to write, so I'll just call them O and C. And then I thought how far up its own arse the BBC is if it can punt a segment like that on the 'national and international' news.
And, as I switched off the radio, I remembered all the reasons I so dislike the BBC's news output:
The continuing domination of men. Not men with plummy voices. The BBC doesn't do plummy any more but mostly kind of neutral Home Counties voices, with gey few 'regional' accents. There's Eddie Mair but he's on his way to LBC, I believe. And on the telly, there's Huw Edwards but you'd never know for a minute he's Welsh, not these days. The rest are a bland assembly who all sound exactly the same.
The domination of London. In fact, I think it's worse now than 30 or 40 years ago. It's almost a miracle if you can get a news reporter out of his comfy seat in Broadcasting House (if that's where they're based - what do I know or care?) and tripping along the streets of England outwith London, Surrey and Kent, microphone in hand. Do they ever get to Leicester or York - never mind Stroke City or Pontypool or Glasgow?
The failure to understand what 'national and international news' means. It doesn't mean the effect of Brexit on London or the visit of Donald Trump to - yep - London or what Jeremy Corbyn said at a rally in - you got it - London. It means these overpaid journalists should be doing a bit of analysis of the crap they are fed on a daily basis by Westminster (or just copy from the right-wing press) and maybe cast the net wider to find out the state of the United Kingdom they are so fond of.
The nauseating adoration of the royal family. Yes, there are many people who like the royals - or rather, adore the queen. A lot of them live abroad and so don't pay for these people to continue their cosy inherited (that means unearned) lifestyle. Again, there is never any examination of the cost of the royal family - or of how much money they bring in. It's all a tribute to Ruritania (google it), part of the bread and circuses approach to life in the UK that keeps our eyes off how skint we actually are.
And we are skint. The national debt is horrible. We can't actually pay for anything and that includes the NHS we all love so much. Not to mention social care, education and transport - some of the basics of life, taken for granted in other parts of the EU that some of England is so keen to leave.
We live in a Union (no, the United Kingdom is not a country) that can't afford the style of life we have become accustomed to and the Tories are either too stupid or too cowardly to tell people.
And if you think the BBC is going to blow the lid off the state of the Union, you'll wait a long time.
Comments
Post a Comment