> 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.
My folks are around 70 now. I just flew back home to visit them. Every day in the evening the news goes on, and they sit together and watch (muting only the advertisements). Years ago I would watch to, but this time I was observing my folks and wondering about the origins of this pattern / habit.
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".
Not sure if you're from the UK but if you're not then you should be aware that the BBC has become a lot more politicised as the government appointed a major donor as the director in 2021 [1] and have previously threatened the company, for example by changing the license fee to starve them of funding[2]. In addition, the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg is not without controversy and accusations of pro-government bias[3].
Unfortunately both sides of the political spectrum now mistrust the BBC's impartiality.
Yes, I'm in the UK. BBC used to be my "news of last resort", in the sense that it was the least worst of all the UK reporting.
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! :) ).
I listened to the BBC World Service (and VOA and Radio Moscow and many others) via shortwave "back in the day" and the reporter was always introduced by name, and even if they hadn't, they were identifiable by the sound of their voice.
I've not paid attention to that detail of the news website. We but we've always had named correspondents on BBC Radio news. And newsreaders for that matter.
Frankly, the change in the way the stories are written is probably more to do with the evolution of the internet as another form of media. I can remember when the BBC website launched, and it was clear that they, and everyone else, had no idea how things would evolve.
At least the BBC hasn't gone down the route of "Boris ate cake. You won't believe what happened next!" style headlines.
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.