Simon Wood
@simongwood.bsky.social
Broadcast Executive Producer, Shooting Director, Editor, Writer.
Presumably it's also tax deductible.
December 4, 2025 at 12:41 PM
Presumably it's also tax deductible.
We can absolutely deny that, certainly given the way you've phrased it. The primary motivation of news and current affairs is always to inform. But part of informing people is engaging them. A programme that doesn't engage people simply won't be watched. That's just the reality of programme making.
December 4, 2025 at 10:32 AM
We can absolutely deny that, certainly given the way you've phrased it. The primary motivation of news and current affairs is always to inform. But part of informing people is engaging them. A programme that doesn't engage people simply won't be watched. That's just the reality of programme making.
Confirmation bias is nothing to do with hiding ignorance. It's central to the very way the brain works. We each construct our individual realities in order to save scarce processing time. Without cognitive biases of all kinds we would rapidly be overcome and completely unable to function.
December 4, 2025 at 1:48 AM
Confirmation bias is nothing to do with hiding ignorance. It's central to the very way the brain works. We each construct our individual realities in order to save scarce processing time. Without cognitive biases of all kinds we would rapidly be overcome and completely unable to function.
think we have a monopoly on the facts. We never do. Apart from anything else we never know ALL of the facts, in fact we rarely know even a majority of them. And we must never forget that the greatest enemy of reason is certainty.
December 4, 2025 at 1:30 AM
think we have a monopoly on the facts. We never do. Apart from anything else we never know ALL of the facts, in fact we rarely know even a majority of them. And we must never forget that the greatest enemy of reason is certainty.
That's really weak. Confirmation bias tells us that we all seek out and choose the facts that best support our preconceived beliefs. We ignore, seek to discredit or explain away those facts that don't fit our hypotheses. There are ALWAYS facts on both sides and it's arrogant for any of us to 1/2
December 4, 2025 at 1:30 AM
That's really weak. Confirmation bias tells us that we all seek out and choose the facts that best support our preconceived beliefs. We ignore, seek to discredit or explain away those facts that don't fit our hypotheses. There are ALWAYS facts on both sides and it's arrogant for any of us to 1/2
Of course there are. Don't be silly. Now you're pretending that your side has to be right and everyone else must be wrong. That's a classic sign of cognitive biases at work, which was precisely what the interview was about.
December 4, 2025 at 1:08 AM
Of course there are. Don't be silly. Now you're pretending that your side has to be right and everyone else must be wrong. That's a classic sign of cognitive biases at work, which was precisely what the interview was about.
Eh? Now you're just talking gobbledegook. Re-read what I actually wrote.
December 4, 2025 at 1:04 AM
Eh? Now you're just talking gobbledegook. Re-read what I actually wrote.
single voice wasn't proven right until long, long after its owner died. Never dismiss the single voice simply because the consensus is against it. Neither science nor politics are written in stone. They are ever-evolving phenomena.
December 4, 2025 at 12:59 AM
single voice wasn't proven right until long, long after its owner died. Never dismiss the single voice simply because the consensus is against it. Neither science nor politics are written in stone. They are ever-evolving phenomena.
I once interviewed a prof of psychology. "But surely facts are facts," I posited. He replied: "Facts are facts. The problem is there are facts on both sides." Some of the greatest scientific advances began with a single voice fighting against a powerful scientific consensus. Many times that 1/2
December 4, 2025 at 12:59 AM
I once interviewed a prof of psychology. "But surely facts are facts," I posited. He replied: "Facts are facts. The problem is there are facts on both sides." Some of the greatest scientific advances began with a single voice fighting against a powerful scientific consensus. Many times that 1/2
Agreed. I despise any journalistic organisation that deliberately sets out to mislead or deceive the public for its own nefarious purposes. It's just plain dishonest. In a democracy people have to be free to make up their own minds given the facts and opinions on all sides.
December 4, 2025 at 12:46 AM
Agreed. I despise any journalistic organisation that deliberately sets out to mislead or deceive the public for its own nefarious purposes. It's just plain dishonest. In a democracy people have to be free to make up their own minds given the facts and opinions on all sides.
I don't agree I'm afraid. I think Byline Times has a very obvious agenda and I'm highly suspicious of any publication with an agenda. I was brought up with fairness, accuracy and impartiality firmly imprinted through the core of my being.
December 4, 2025 at 12:39 AM
I don't agree I'm afraid. I think Byline Times has a very obvious agenda and I'm highly suspicious of any publication with an agenda. I was brought up with fairness, accuracy and impartiality firmly imprinted through the core of my being.
Mmm. Well, Byline Times is more of a far-left propaganda outfit in my view (and I'm a committed Labour voter) so I wouldn't hold it up as any particularly virtuous example of great journalism. It seems to spend most its time telling people what they want to hear.
December 4, 2025 at 12:29 AM
Mmm. Well, Byline Times is more of a far-left propaganda outfit in my view (and I'm a committed Labour voter) so I wouldn't hold it up as any particularly virtuous example of great journalism. It seems to spend most its time telling people what they want to hear.
I'm British so it's not really my place to suggest reforms. But, observing US politics from outside, which I do almost obsessively, it certainly seems to me that the US has spent far too many years telling itself the "shining beacon on the hill" myth instead of fixing an obviously flawed system.
December 4, 2025 at 12:26 AM
I'm British so it's not really my place to suggest reforms. But, observing US politics from outside, which I do almost obsessively, it certainly seems to me that the US has spent far too many years telling itself the "shining beacon on the hill" myth instead of fixing an obviously flawed system.
I hated the way it was done but we have to be honest and admit that the old ways of working simply couldn't have survived in this new media distribution environment.
December 4, 2025 at 12:20 AM
I hated the way it was done but we have to be honest and admit that the old ways of working simply couldn't have survived in this new media distribution environment.
I also witnessed huge cutbacks, though by then I was working in factual TV. The issue there was new technology and I agree, the accountants went berserk doing huge damage to quality in the name of cutting costs. But you can't deny that they'd anticipated what was about to happen with a vengeance 1/2
December 4, 2025 at 12:20 AM
I also witnessed huge cutbacks, though by then I was working in factual TV. The issue there was new technology and I agree, the accountants went berserk doing huge damage to quality in the name of cutting costs. But you can't deny that they'd anticipated what was about to happen with a vengeance 1/2
Now you're being disingenuous. Profits don't mean upgrades if the profits are misappropriated as they've allegedly been in the case of certain water companies. So I don't understand your point.
December 4, 2025 at 12:10 AM
Now you're being disingenuous. Profits don't mean upgrades if the profits are misappropriated as they've allegedly been in the case of certain water companies. So I don't understand your point.
Of course they are. If you don't make profits you can't be sure you can go on settling the bills, you can't attract the necessary investment to replace the outdated printing presses or, today, upgrade the servers or re-equip the TV studios. That's just the way the world works.
December 4, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Of course they are. If you don't make profits you can't be sure you can go on settling the bills, you can't attract the necessary investment to replace the outdated printing presses or, today, upgrade the servers or re-equip the TV studios. That's just the way the world works.
Profits have been at the bottom line since the first newspapers were printed in the 17th Century. Someone has to pay the journalists and settle the huge bills that collecting stories and disseminating them generate.
December 3, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Profits have been at the bottom line since the first newspapers were printed in the 17th Century. Someone has to pay the journalists and settle the huge bills that collecting stories and disseminating them generate.
I think you're ignoring the realities of what's happened. In fact social media and the internet in general has brought about a sea change in the way people consume news and that's created a hugely competitive environment that's had an unprecedented impact on the profits of news organisations.
December 3, 2025 at 11:51 PM
I think you're ignoring the realities of what's happened. In fact social media and the internet in general has brought about a sea change in the way people consume news and that's created a hugely competitive environment that's had an unprecedented impact on the profits of news organisations.
I don't think that TV news sees itself as part of the entertainment industry at all, far from it. But it is aware that it has to survive in an unprecedentedly competitive environment where attention spans are miniscule because of social media. Ideological paragons don't live long in such a climate.
December 3, 2025 at 11:46 PM
I don't think that TV news sees itself as part of the entertainment industry at all, far from it. But it is aware that it has to survive in an unprecedentedly competitive environment where attention spans are miniscule because of social media. Ideological paragons don't live long in such a climate.
I don't disagree with you on that. But, in a world where social media often dictates the news cycle because of its immediacy, things are very, very different from when we started in the industry (I began in local newspapers writing stories on typewriters with carbon copies).
December 3, 2025 at 11:41 PM
I don't disagree with you on that. But, in a world where social media often dictates the news cycle because of its immediacy, things are very, very different from when we started in the industry (I began in local newspapers writing stories on typewriters with carbon copies).
Okay. So we're you talking about major breaking news stories?
December 3, 2025 at 11:36 PM
Okay. So we're you talking about major breaking news stories?
I'm suspecting you're American. I'm British. The US and UK media landscapes are very different, particularly when it comes to TV and radio, which is regulated in the UK.
December 3, 2025 at 11:32 PM
I'm suspecting you're American. I'm British. The US and UK media landscapes are very different, particularly when it comes to TV and radio, which is regulated in the UK.
I didn't call you an armchair critic. Wow, you're a bit touchy aren't you?
December 3, 2025 at 11:27 PM
I didn't call you an armchair critic. Wow, you're a bit touchy aren't you?
What? Are you talking about major breaking stories where information dribbles in slowly but surely?
December 3, 2025 at 11:26 PM
What? Are you talking about major breaking stories where information dribbles in slowly but surely?