Network News Comparison 

                                                     Breaking News on a red background. Image courtesy of kchanews.

    Today I tuned into a BBC broadcast followed by CBS. Both of these newscasts covered major and minor events through a geographical lens. We'll start by looking at BBC. 

    

    BBC began their newscast with a local opinion on the interrupted global food supply. With the conflict between Ukraine and Russia escalating, the U.K. has seen prices skyrocket. Many common household food products such as sunflower oil have been hard to come by. This segued into the Ukraine refugee crisis in Britain. There was great coverage on the topic, ranging from experts in the matter, to clips of politicians, and an interview with refugee sponsors. I felt that anyone tuning into the crisis, especially locally, would feel confident that the source was pertinent and well-informed. After this bit, the newscast bled into local concerns surrounding the impending privatization of Channel 4 in the U.K. They broke this down into concise terms and included a guest speaker from the channel to weigh in on what privatization would mean. There was a valid, factual case made for either side of the issue. There was plenty of opportunity for those tuning in to formulate their own opinion. The guest speaker informed the reporters that privatization would in fact produce more jobs, but it could impact the content. Instead of obligations to its audience, the channel would have a greater obligation to its stakeholders. The newscast was rounded out after this segment with initial speakers weighing in and saying farewells. 

    CBS had a different approach with their newscast. This might be expected when they are reporting from a very different geographical region. Everything was rather formal. The initial opening story was about ghost gun regulations, violence, and corresponding statistics in the U.S. within the scope of the Biden Administration. Prominent professionals were interviewed live. The scope of information was coming from a trusted, reliable source. (Though not always indicative of the entire picture) This blended into the topic of Donald Trump and the criminal charges he could be facing for involvement in the January 6 insurrection. There was also a discussion of financial allegations pertaining to Trump's organization. Again we see prominent professionals weigh in on the matter to give viewers a sense of trust or source for the data. The remainder of the newscast I watched dived into the Ukraine crisis but through the lens of the average American citizen. They discussed economic statistics and inflation. The war in this particular newscast was used to define the inflation we are seeing after the pandemic. This was rather biased in my opinion. This bled into midterm elections and an economic narrative. A reporter weighed in with a democratic senate member about the general negative connotation that the Biden Administration faces as midterm elections loom. The strategy she identified they are using to turn Americans away from the right was to shift blame onto Putin and the Ukraine crisis. Overall, it was an unbiased news segment. It definitely catered to liberal-minded individuals, however. 

In comparison, I feel that both sources offered a professional platform that offered concise, factual information. Things were kept simple and easily applicable to anyone who might be watching. Names were put to faces. Evidence and statistics were used often and woven into interviews. I am not someone who typically watches the news on either of these platforms. I got the general impression that either source was fairly reliable for the average person tuning in. All news stations tend to be biased in the sense that they are going to report the news through a local lens, even if it is a national or international topic. The dialogue is likely to follow a regional bias, too.  

In contrast, I felt more trustworthy about the BBC platform. After growing up in a house where the news was constantly on and varying between several of the major U.S. news outlets, I probably have a bias myself. I never liked the news growing up. I preferred to read as much as I could as often as I could. The news felt like it was missing a level of self-discovery. It felt narrow. BBC seemed to have a broad opinion even with the local lens. The war on Ukraine was not thought of through inflation or food supply shortages alone. Reporters built off of this local scope with regard to the rest of Europe and especially Ukraine. I felt it was more informing than CBS. CBS seemed to have the approach of "bating" with the news. Major headlines and leads were thrown right out and contrasted with BBC's approach of starting off with a character interview. CBS was especially particular about throwing out hooks to the American public. Things that affect them were of utmost importance in each story or headline. CBS stories also tended to come from a leftist perspective. Someone looking to glean information about the upcoming midterm elections with any general sense would have come away from the program with only an idea of what the Democrats were doing to prepare. Whereas BBC's political content was general or corresponded to the Ukraine crisis. There was critiquing of leadership involved, but never dialogue that separated the "left" or "right." Perhaps this is because of the bipartisan system in the U.S., but I feel it to be redundant and annoying. I don't want to hear about the left or the right so much as what politicians are engaged in and how this might impact others. Overall, I feel CBS was leaning toward appealing to a certain political group. BBC tended to be broad about the statements and opinions they built their newscast off of. I would risk a guess that CBS subscribers tend to be a little more defined than their BBC counterparts.

In hindsight, both newscasts sought to inform the public through engaging hooks and interesting or meaningful interviews. Reporters and editors compiled valid, concise information to deliver to the public sector. In my own attempts at journalism and communication, I feel I could take some key pointers from both sources. News has to be engaging to keep people tuned in. This is something I will work harder to implement in my own efforts in the near future.