My blood does boil even there, with the subtle editorializing tell us what to feel about what is essentially a neutral news item, but it's much easier to control than the online media.
The article is on the BBC news site. As someone that's a bit older than the average on here, I can remember when the BBC news site was just that - news.
Now, it's changed subtly.
Some articles now have 'by John Smith', the author, underneath it, whereas some do not. Way back in the mists of time, almost all articles seemed to be anonymous.
The other change, and your point, is that select articles now have commentary or opinion by one of the BBC journalists, which it never previously had.
Still, if the BBC are paying big salaries for 'big' name journos they have to promote them.
At least the BBC hasn't gone down the route of "Boris ate cake. You won't believe what happened next!" style headlines.
I still wish they'd lay off the op-ed pieces.
During WW2, the AM radio informed the population, no doubt saving lives. Families would gather around the radio for BBC news, compelled by uncertainty and fear. The war finished, the years went by, radio became a TV. When I suggest maybe skipping the news, it's met with shock and something along the lines of "not watch the news? we need to be informed".
> Still, if the BBC are paying big salaries for 'big' name journos they have to promote them.
But maybe they could let the content speak for itself.
Unfortunately both sides of the political spectrum now mistrust the BBC's impartiality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sharp_(BBC_chairman) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Kuenssberg#BBC_political...
But with things that you mentioned and recently Martine Croxall [1], I've pretty much switched to Reuters and Bloomberg quite some time ago without realising.
You only have to look at the BBC news site front page, versus their 'most read' section to see what the BBC editorial staff think we should be reading (relentless politics, doom and gloom) versus what people are actually reading (today, right now, Peter Kay's comeback! :) ).
This is like the Tim Ferriss approach: if some news is really that huge, you'll hear about it from a friend or coworker eventually. And if it's news like globalthermonuclear war, you won't benefit from hearing about it 5 minutes earlier anyway ;)
My life was filled with unnecessary external inputs / noise (such as news) that often dictated the mood and output of my day. Example, waking, unconsciously unlocking my phone and scrolling news or socials. It was like gambling my day away but with no upside. These days I start with things I can control (make bed, tidy up) to build positive momentum to plow through the inevitable challenges of the day.
News was one of my worst... along with sugar :) Now I beat both (kinda).
Dear god yes. Give me the facts without trying to insert your politics there. Even the AP does this constantly. I'd pay gold for a news organization which prints something to the effect of:
>The current situation in XYZ in unknown. We have heard from partisan sources that A happened, we have heard from other partisan sources that B happened and the state department has told us C would happen. Please check back in three weeks for an update.
Report about the cost of housing driving people to homelessness? That's the "left-wing media".
Report about people grifting off of BLM protects? It's the "right wing corporate media".
And those stories can very well be in the same newspaper or news show.
One can't blame the news for being a mirror. Especially where I live (India), it is almost a joke to suggest (as so many here do) that the media should focus on "positive" stories - when doing so would be Goebbelsian.