As we saw here, the BBC IS a world leader in news reporting. BBC Worldwide is watched in hotels worldwide. 350 million people a week are reportedly watching some content from the various BBC world channels and programmes made.
Its very, very worthy. Equally as worthy and dull as CNN worldwide. The bland leading the bland.
Closer to home BBc News has dropped huge market share since the digital revolution and the rise of workable, readable smart phones. 3-4% year on year decline since 2012. Predicted 25-30% decline in viewers watching any TV news by 2022. And those that are watching are averaging 61 years of age.
So to retain market share, online focus must be the future. The man or woman sitting behind a desk format is coming to an end. Which is just as well as TV channels have exhausted the ways of showing the same thing.
Person behind desk. Phone on desk. No phone. Laptop on desk. Spindly glass desk showing persons legs. Person in front of desk. Balanced on a high stool with no desk. Filmed side on, instead of to camera.. Sitting on a low comfy sofa facing a digital screen. Desk in the middle of a glass box 360* panoramic swiveling. There's really only under the desk and lying flat on the sofa with a bowl of nachos left.
Back to the BBC.
This self censorship is seriously damaging their brand. Because of the politically correct attempts to avoid mention of race or religion in any way, means some news items make no sense at all when read on the BBC website.
During the French election there was a story about riots by French schoolchildren. Secondary school age kids were blockading and threatening to burn down schools. Bizarre.
The piece suggested this would help Le Pen.
There was no indication of why this would help Le Pen. No clue at all.
On further investigation elsewhere the story was about a black boy, who claimed he was caught and raped by the French police with a police baton This led to the rioting in the black areas of Paris. With a few kids on social media calling for protest and the barricading of streets and schools.
Essentially, this was a race story. Disaffected banileue youth. Policing, tensions and immigration.
And that's why it would it was thought to favour Le Pen.
Later on the BBc expanded the story and it was reported with context. And made much more sense. But it was a few days on.
A more recent story was the GTA gang in Moscow. 3 defendants killed in courtroom escape bid.
In the BBC piece it emerged that the gang were suspected of killing 17, unrelated, motorists on the roads outside Moscow. For no reason. Over a long period of time.
Cars had their tires blown with homemade traps. And the occupants murdered. No robbery took place.
What the ..? What's going on here?
The very last sentence of the piece gives a clue.
One of them had fought for so-called Islamic State in Syria before returning to Russia, Russian television reported.
And going anywhere else reveals this is not a bandit gang story at all. Its a terrorist story. An Islamic state terror group are committing the killings. That's the motive. Killing unbelievers.
On other news sites this is immediately apparent. So why was it not made clear?
This strange decision to hide facts. Race and religion should not be mentioned.
Even if it is extremely important to the story.
This is without all the other odd, impersonal noun, choices the wider media have been making recently.
Truck kills ten on London Bridge.
Women wounded by knife in German supermarket.
And another reason not to ever bother sitting down to the main news at ten.
With the solemn woman sat behind/in/on/adjacent to/under/suspended above/ or just flopped on a beanbag beside the desk.
All the news that's fit to print.
New York Times masthead.
All the news deemed fit to print
Updated millennial masthead ?