Stung by recent criticism of the output of its Siamese twin, the Guardian decided to rebut criticism of the BBC by soliciting the opinions of.... people who produce scripts for the BBC.
Aren't nationalised industries great?
Personally, I can't wait until the Guardian starts polling arms company executives on defence policy. Until that day, we'll just have to wonder whether the existence of 'celebrity writers' might just be part of the problem.
On the plus side, the Guardian featuring articles from celebrity writers about the BBC surely gives the lie to all those who complain that the MSM is too incestuous. The most noticeable feature of these articles is the sheer lack of self-awareness of these people. The whole thing reads like something from Ross - they really don't have any idea how they come across.
Take Tony Jordan's article. Take away the obscenities and the oh so daring! sexual references and you're left with.... well, nothing really. The guy isn't being foul-mouthed for effect, the naughty words are the effect. He swears a lot, what more do you want from a writer?
The most - indeed, only - interesting thing about Jordan's rant is what it says about the BBC's attitude to the working class. The 'soft bigotry of low expectations' doesn't quite cover Jordan's belief that working class authenticity is conveyed by sounding like a perv with Tourettes.
Mind you there's always Billy Ivory there, Guardian of the Working Class, ready to..... hey, haven't I seen this somewhere before?
Again, the most notable point about Ivory's article is the complete absence of any actual arguments. He throws out all the usual diversity duckspeak but never explains in what sense evil, straight white guys are making him write rubbish scripts.
To the point: nothing speaks to the inbred bubble world of the BBC than the arguments of its defenders. Or, more precisely, the lack of any actual arguments. They simply assert their own supremacy and denounce opponents as bigots. That's the problem with a political monoculture like the BBC: there are no normal people around to tell them their talking points suck.
Aren't nationalised industries great?
Personally, I can't wait until the Guardian starts polling arms company executives on defence policy. Until that day, we'll just have to wonder whether the existence of 'celebrity writers' might just be part of the problem.
On the plus side, the Guardian featuring articles from celebrity writers about the BBC surely gives the lie to all those who complain that the MSM is too incestuous. The most noticeable feature of these articles is the sheer lack of self-awareness of these people. The whole thing reads like something from Ross - they really don't have any idea how they come across.
Take Tony Jordan's article. Take away the obscenities and the oh so daring! sexual references and you're left with.... well, nothing really. The guy isn't being foul-mouthed for effect, the naughty words are the effect. He swears a lot, what more do you want from a writer?
The most - indeed, only - interesting thing about Jordan's rant is what it says about the BBC's attitude to the working class. The 'soft bigotry of low expectations' doesn't quite cover Jordan's belief that working class authenticity is conveyed by sounding like a perv with Tourettes.
Mind you there's always Billy Ivory there, Guardian of the Working Class, ready to..... hey, haven't I seen this somewhere before?
Again, the most notable point about Ivory's article is the complete absence of any actual arguments. He throws out all the usual diversity duckspeak but never explains in what sense evil, straight white guys are making him write rubbish scripts.
To the point: nothing speaks to the inbred bubble world of the BBC than the arguments of its defenders. Or, more precisely, the lack of any actual arguments. They simply assert their own supremacy and denounce opponents as bigots. That's the problem with a political monoculture like the BBC: there are no normal people around to tell them their talking points suck.
No comments:
Post a Comment