Once upon a time, a self-styled environmentalist was interviewed on a current affairs programme. He has, or had, supposedly, a house on the main road through the middle of Wales. He complained about “motorcyclists from all over the country racing along the road at night at 100mph”.

The interviewer gushed, emoted and cooed sympathetically. But never once challenged any part of this statement.

• How did he know where the riders came from?
• As they zoomed past at  high speed in the night, did he note the registration numbers?
• Did he have access to DVLA records to ascertain locations for the registered owners?
• If so, why did he have access?
• How did he know the speeds?
• Did he monitor them with a radar gun, standing at the roadside in the middle of the night just  in case someone came by?

None of these questions were asked. His claim was taken for fact without question.

Media coverage, radio, television and social media, is now so pathetically uncritical as to be completely useless.

I do not want to hear about “out of control wildfires”. Of course they’re out of control.

I do not want to be told that Southwark is 1,000 miles from Hollywood, when it is in fact about 5,400.

And these are some other things I don’t want to hear from “objective” reporting:

SCIENTISTS – this term ceased to be useful over 100 years ago. Be specific. Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Statistician, Meteorologist? If a Meteorologist is claiming expertise on nuclear physics – not interested. And what qualifications do these “scientists” have. A degree in Domestic Science and Media Studies at the university of Budleigh Salterton? – not interested.

STUDIES HAVE SHOWN – this is a favourite.

• What studies?
• By whom and with what credentials for the subject?
• When were the studies done?
• What organisation?
• What peer review process?
• What sample was taken – 10, 100, 1,000,000 cases?
• What control group?

Responsible “Studies” very rarely conclude without a detailed paragraph of caveats, limitations and indications that further work is necessary.

PREDICTIONS – by whom? A lady at a fairground with a crystal ball? What confidence rating? I can predict that tomorrow will be blazing hot with hailstorms and a meteor strike. Confidence level – 0.

EXPERTS – who decided they were expert? What qualifications, experience, technical knowledge of the subject? Professional or Amateur. A particular favourite is the “Climate Change Expert”. An absolute impossibility, like saying a man strapped to a wild bronco is an expert on riding.

RESEARCH / RESEARCHERS – you mean you Googled it? What organisation? Not dear old Budleigh Salterton  again? What establishment? What was the brief for the research? Who funded it? This last is very important. If some large corporation selling maple syrup funds research into the causes of obesity and heart problems, it’s not likely to be willing to keep paying unless the answer can be made to look like “a fatty diet is the problem”.

PASSIONATE ABOUT – this is positively weird. In this age, that seems to qualify anybody as an authority on a subject. Being passionate about a subject is not a qualification. Small children can be passionate about cars, that does not qualify them as automotive engineers. “Passionate” is not possible without an opinion, and I do not want an opinion. I want facts. Yes, after presenting the facts, it is permissible to present an opinion. But it must be declared as such, a personal opinion, a belief and not a fact.

HEROES – Heroes belong in comic books, graveyards and statues. They are idolised myths that do not exist. “Courage” is different. Courage is the soldier who stands to his post, knees trembling, with his own piss and shit dribbling down his legs, terrified beyond comprehension, but will not quit till the job, or his life, is done. It is the mother who will not leave her trapped child in the crumbling ruin of a shelled building. She could run, but she stays until they are rescued or she dies. Courage is not the blazing action, it is the conquest of fear within ourselves, it is the decision that something is worth more than our own life. Courage looks around and says, “In these heels? Shit, if nobody else is going to do it, then I’ll have to.”

And I’m tired of the same old stable of go-to talking heads who are trotted out, presumably on a retainer, to pontificate on practically any subject. I suspect there is a duty roster of universal mouths  on standby to gob off on any subject.

I don’t want to see reporters despatched, complete with camera crew, to some crisis zone, hampering rescue work as they stand in front of yet another collapsed building, virtually indistinguishable from all the other disasters they’ve attended. Save the cost of a useless trip and give it to the relief fund. Save the use of a vehicle that could be used to move survivors.

Why send a reporter to stand in the middle of a flooded street to tell us the street is flooded? Save the cost and do something useful with it.

In almost all cases, particularly these days, drone footage would be more revealing and more informative.

Recently, a reporter was “monitoring the situation in Khartoum” from  —   Johannesburg. Khartoum – Jo ’burg 2883 miles. Khartoum – London 3072 miles. WTF?

Why do reporters have to stand in front of the Houses of Parliament, the White House, the Kremlin or wherever, just to prove that a lot of money has been wasted getting them there?

They might as well be sitting in nice comfortable offices, a hotel or, better yet, a sleazy bar in Rio. That would probably be a more interesting backdrop. It would be just as informative if the report were presented from the Mongolian steppes or the Patagonian pampas. (I hope those two places are correct, have not checked my facts)

The era of  Teams, Zoom and Webex means we are used to seeing people on our screens against the background of their bookcases. Vulcanologists telling us about an eruption do not have to be spattered with molten lava to show they know their stuff.

I do not want to hear reporters, their voices trembling with emotion, probably fake, putting a filter of sentiment over their presentations.

I find that insulting to the watcher’s humanity.

I want the news presented as independently, as factually and dispassionately as possible.

I do not want any hint of emotion or opinion from reporter or interviewer.

I will provide the emotion and I will form the opinion. Both based on the facts given to me.

I want interviewers to challenge what they are being told. To question the sources, either quoted or implied.

I understand that media companies and organisations are chasing an audience. But does it need to be a demographic devoid of emotion or intellect? That has to have spoon-fed, so that it knows what to feel and think?

Because if it does, then you’re wasting  your time broadcasting to them. Just put on another obviously scripted un-reality show. Uh, hang on. That more or less is what they are doing.

Silly me.