Friday, April 24, 2009
The defence rests
Today is the beginning of Slow Down London Week, a campaign to persuade Londoners of the value of taking the time to enjoy their surroundings. This seems like a good idea. Everyone of sound mind would presumably agree. So why then do the Today Programme feel that they can only interview one of the people behind it if they then follow him with somebody who's against it? I know this adversarial approach to covering issues is time-honoured (though it always favours the glib and snappy over the slow and considered) but does it really apply to something as gentle and harmless as this? Is there anybody in the world who thinks that slowing down to enjoy London is not a good idea? Anyone, that is, apart from a hack who's been rung up by a producer at the BBC and asked to oppose it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree. I heard the same item and wondered why they couldn't have come up with a more interesting way to cover it. Hearing people disagree about stuff for the sake of it is not why I listen to Today.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. Today just can't "do" lighter, non-contentious items. Meanwhile, R5 is fine for sport but little else. Hence I spend my early mornings swinging between the two: R4 for politics; R5 sport. Quite why Today can't fix this block they seem to have, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteI quite like R5 for it's less pompous approach, and I particularly like Peter Allen in the afternoon/early evening slot, but I get a bit tired of all the "man in the street" stuff. I want to hear the opinion of someone who has a clue what's going on. If I want ill informed comment I can get that down the pub anytime.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Victoria Derbyshire would pose a phone in question - "should fast living in London be banned?"
ReplyDeleteWas the journalist who opposed the idea of Slow Down Week proposing a Speed Up Week?
ReplyDelete