tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3007066.post8863798493313994603..comments2024-03-19T01:45:29.978+00:00Comments on feeling listless: BBC One ageism.Stuart Ian Burnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18132101517832896837noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3007066.post-12746179380355455512010-03-22T12:20:39.831+00:002010-03-22T12:20:39.831+00:00Thank you for the comment.
In the final paragraph...Thank you for the comment.<br /><br />In the final paragraph I do say:<br /><br />"Whilst it's true that older presenters and actors can get a raw deal on television"<br /><br />Nothing of what you say is untrue, anonymous. But the thrust of my argument is that if you're going to back that up with research as Anchor are attempting to do, you have to make sure that the research isn't flawed or showing elements of bias which was my point.<br /><br />The way this is being reported is as "BBC fails again" even though the percentages suggest that commercial broadcasters are failing just as much and it doesn't take into account that BBC One shows on average three hours of children's programmes a day which is bound to effect the percentages.<br /><br />This research doesn't seem to extend to "how they are presented, the manner in which they are portrayed" because it doesn't include contributors and interviewees which are an important proportion of who appear on-screen and how an age group is presented.Stuart Ian Burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18132101517832896837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3007066.post-51519877952478500302010-03-22T12:04:53.315+00:002010-03-22T12:04:53.315+00:00Regardless of how these researchers gleaned their ...Regardless of how these researchers gleaned their sample, the basic premise remains noble.It is interesting that critics of this latest research are keen to present various anomolies that fly in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the media is inherently biased. This is not just a numbers game; it is not simply a tally of how many older people are given screen time. It extends to how they are presented, the manner in which they are portrayed.<br /> <br />I believe that all channels have an obligation to represent all corners of our population, and to do so in a respectful and responsible manner. Clearly, one does not have to conduct such a large scale survey to establish the fact that the media tends to favour younger actors/presenters. Aligned with ageism, there is the inherent sexism and homophobia which permeates our media. It is certainly not unusual to have our news read by an older male alongside a much younger female; our weather forecast to be delivered by either an older male so called "meteorologist/weather MAN" or else a younger, glamorous, "weather girl". How often is sex between older people celebrated, or at the least presented in a respectful way. Rather, adversely, it is derided and ridiculed, a source of humour for the younger viewer.<br /><br />Such blatant bias undoubtedly has adverse implications for viewers who often look to the media for guidance and acceptance. It appears that little has changed over the years and we are no more enlightened, sadly. Women are still considered the second sex, and older ones, unfortunuately are afforded and perceived to have even less value. <br /><br />I'm not sure anyone can rightly argue against the promotion of equality in our media. Concentrating on the possible flaws of the research only serves to distract from the validity of the argument for more representation of the population and a reduction in the negative implications of not doing so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com