Endy0816 Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I've gotten hooked on watching foreign news stations lately and have noticed seemily disproportionate coverage. Is there a reason for it? Economic or sentimental? Not the only pair of countries I've noticed either, just the one that first jumped out at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian#Population_distribution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Yes, there's a very longstanding India-originated population in the UK and we play cricket against them as well so stuff about India features quite often here. BBC News is very multicultural in its ethos as well, if that's the one you are following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 In a not so serious survey a few years back Chicken Tikka Masalla was voted the Nation's favourite dish; this is an English variant on an Indian recipe , prepared in a Pakistani method, and cooked almost certainly by Bangladeshis. Some areas of Indian culture are completely foreign - but other parts are totally embedded in the National psyche (if such a thing exists). The 'powers that be' and a fair percentage of the population set great store in the Commonwealth; it is a mixture of often having a common language, shared history (much of it shameful to the UK unfortunately), incredible richness and variety of culture, and cricket obviously. I know pubs that show only three sports; the Football, the Grand Prix and the IPL (that's a mad Indian Cricket League of 20:20 between city franchises). We in the UK would get coverage of problems in Jamaica but not in Martinique, politics from Kenya but not Senegal, and intrigue from Singapore but not Jakarta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 The really sad part of the whole thing, is I find the BBC's reporting of incident in America to be more accurate (or at least more journalistic and less sensationalist) than many of the American news outlets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Ah, okay wasn't aware of the population composition. ...and yeah, I've been watching BBC. In a not so serious survey a few years back Chicken Tikka Masalla was voted the Nation's favourite dish; this is an English variant on an Indian recipe , prepared in a Pakistani method, and cooked almost certainly by Bangladeshis. Some areas of Indian culture are completely foreign - but other parts are totally embedded in the National psyche (if such a thing exists). The 'powers that be' and a fair percentage of the population set great store in the Commonwealth; it is a mixture of often having a common language, shared history (much of it shameful to the UK unfortunately), incredible richness and variety of culture, and cricket obviously. I know pubs that show only three sports; the Football, the Grand Prix and the IPL (that's a mad Indian Cricket League of 20:20 between city franchises). We in the UK would get coverage of problems in Jamaica but not in Martinique, politics from Kenya but not Senegal, and intrigue from Singapore but not Jakarta Thinking back, I was aware of the UK, Canada, Australia association; but not that there were additional members. News makes much more sense now. The really sad part of the whole thing, is I find the BBC's reporting of incident in America to be more accurate (or at least more journalistic and less sensationalist) than many of the American news outlets. Yeah, this was a large part of what prompted this. Some of it is just the fact that I only need to hear so many different takes on the same event and half the time everyone is rehashing AP material(which can be more directly found on AP's station). Edited April 12, 2015 by Endy0816 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Ah, okay wasn't aware of the population composition. ...and yeah, I've been watching BBC. Thinking back, I was aware of the UK, Canada, Australia association; but not that there were additional members. News makes much more sense now. Yeah, this was a large part of what prompted this. Some of it is just the fact that I only need to hear so many different takes on the same event and half the time everyone is rehashing AP material(which can be more directly found on AP's station). I don't know where Reuters is in the news food chain but the BBC seems to use it as a source quite often. These are the two I use everyday. Reuters is quicker to get the world news and updates events a bit quicker if one is keen following some current event. I don't feel that either of them are pushing any particular agenda other than to present news in a reasonably impartial way. Opinions are always clearly tagged as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 A few years ago the BBC was the largest news gathering broadcaster in the world. Reuters is another of the very big news gatherers, it's unsurprising that they're a common source. The BBC has a legal requirement to be unbiased and whilst not everyone agrees that they get that right they do a much better job than some other news agencies I'm sure we could all name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 A few years ago the BBC was the largest news gathering broadcaster in the world. Reuters is another of the very big news gatherers, it's unsurprising that they're a common source. The BBC has a legal requirement to be unbiased and whilst not everyone agrees that they get that right they do a much better job than some other news agencies I'm sure we could all name. It recently occurred to me that, although I want to see the licence fee abolished, that would be a significant loss to many people in the world for a relatively unbiased, advert-free news source with public service at it's core rather than the whims and mercenary desires of shareholders. I'm wobbling a bit now on that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 It recently occurred to me that, although I want to see the licence fee abolished, that would be a significant loss to many people in the world for a relatively unbiased, advert-free news source with public service at it's core rather than the whims and mercenary desires of shareholders. I'm wobbling a bit now on that idea. Pretty much why I support the licence fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Pretty much why I support the licence fee. I must be getting old thinking like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now