This is always an irritation. Can't get anyone into the studio in time? Interview your boss. Can't find anyone who wants to talk to you? Interview your boss. The only expert who can actually comment knowledgeably is stuck in a meeting all afternoon? Interview your boss.
Prime example on the Today programme this morning. Sports reporter talking about an FA management review report gave a tiny amount of information about what was actually in the report, and then spent most of his time interviewing the BBC's sports editor (who does what, exactly? Nobody seems to know) about the significance. Do we care what he thinks? Why not give us more info about what the report says? You are, after all, a reporter. Oooh, radical idea.
Thursday 31 May 2007
Tuesday 29 May 2007
Sunday 20 May 2007
Goodnight, And Good Luck
After watching George Clooney's biopic of US broadcaster Ed Murrow, I'm thinking a few of today's British broadcasters should watch it too. Here's an actual Murrow quote that sums it up ...
"Just once in a while let us exalt in the importance of ideas and let us dream to the extent of saying that on any given Sunday night, the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey on the state of American education, and a week or two later, the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thorough going study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse, and insulate us . . . It is merely wires and lights in a box."
"Just once in a while let us exalt in the importance of ideas and let us dream to the extent of saying that on any given Sunday night, the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey on the state of American education, and a week or two later, the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thorough going study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse, and insulate us . . . It is merely wires and lights in a box."
Thursday 17 May 2007
The Observer Effect
... refers to refers to changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is most often encountered in science, but it's something that today's media should perhaps reflect on a little.
There are currently two big news stories running in the national press in which media reporting has actually changed the subject being reported.
The first is Prince Harry's possible deployment to Iraq, which the head of the British Army General Sir Richard Dannatt has rescinded, blaming detailed and persistent news reporting of where Harry might be and what he would be doing.
Dannatt said: 'A contributing factor to this increase in threats to Prince Harry has been the widespread knowledge and discussion of his deployment. It is a fact that this close scrutiny has exacerbated the situation and this is something that I wish to avoid in future.'
The second case is that of the missing child Madelaine McCann. A Mirror reporter's suspicions of a man close to the investigation have provided several days of sensationalist headlines, speculation and probing. If this man turns out to be innocent, his life will have been ruined. If he is prosecuted, the media coverage will have done much to ensure he cannot face a fair trial. Either way, the news media has acted with shocking irresponsibility.
Journalists hold great power, but with great power comes great responsibility. This is something most of our media have yet to learn, and I fear will not learn unless they are forced to do so by repressive media laws. Yet these would indiscriminately constrain the most serious and important reporting, along with the salacious fripperies. Journalists, especially commissioning editors, should seriously think about the role that they are playing in current affairs, and how they choose to use the power that they hold over other people's lives.
There are currently two big news stories running in the national press in which media reporting has actually changed the subject being reported.
The first is Prince Harry's possible deployment to Iraq, which the head of the British Army General Sir Richard Dannatt has rescinded, blaming detailed and persistent news reporting of where Harry might be and what he would be doing.
Dannatt said: 'A contributing factor to this increase in threats to Prince Harry has been the widespread knowledge and discussion of his deployment. It is a fact that this close scrutiny has exacerbated the situation and this is something that I wish to avoid in future.'
The second case is that of the missing child Madelaine McCann. A Mirror reporter's suspicions of a man close to the investigation have provided several days of sensationalist headlines, speculation and probing. If this man turns out to be innocent, his life will have been ruined. If he is prosecuted, the media coverage will have done much to ensure he cannot face a fair trial. Either way, the news media has acted with shocking irresponsibility.
Journalists hold great power, but with great power comes great responsibility. This is something most of our media have yet to learn, and I fear will not learn unless they are forced to do so by repressive media laws. Yet these would indiscriminately constrain the most serious and important reporting, along with the salacious fripperies. Journalists, especially commissioning editors, should seriously think about the role that they are playing in current affairs, and how they choose to use the power that they hold over other people's lives.
Yes, but is it news?
#3 - The Today programme regaled listeners this morning with a piece about the release of a film that's based on some real-life murders that happened in America (in AMERICA, please note) ages ago. No news angle at all. The point of the piece seemed to be an attempt to justify sending a reporter to Cannes.
Monday 14 May 2007
Wednesday 9 May 2007
Sneery cunts ...
... are nothing new as far as Jessie Wallace is concerned, but I still feel the need to make a point of order on her behalf. In 'Right Old Belter' in the Sunday Times review section, Tim Teeman gives her a very snotty write-up.
She gave him an interview because she's promoting a new show. He clearly saw the performance - yet Teeman's piece isn't a review. Instead he acts as though he's writing an audition item for a job at Heat magazine. He rehearses Wallace's Eastenders history and private life at length, wallowing in cruel mockery that ends by sniping at her intelligence and her social class.
If her performance is bad, say so. If she's an arse in the interview, say so. But the job of a Times reviewer isn't to rehash meringue-light gossip. I suspect Teeman knows that.
If he doesn't, then his editor certainly should.
She gave him an interview because she's promoting a new show. He clearly saw the performance - yet Teeman's piece isn't a review. Instead he acts as though he's writing an audition item for a job at Heat magazine. He rehearses Wallace's Eastenders history and private life at length, wallowing in cruel mockery that ends by sniping at her intelligence and her social class.
If her performance is bad, say so. If she's an arse in the interview, say so. But the job of a Times reviewer isn't to rehash meringue-light gossip. I suspect Teeman knows that.
If he doesn't, then his editor certainly should.
Saturday 5 May 2007
Feminine fripperies
'Women buy clothes and fashion is important to them.'
This is the justification given by a senior BBC News suit for its 360 degree coverage of the launch of Kate Moss's range of clothing for Topshop.
Yes, that's right, some clothes went on sale. Big news eh? But this is the age of 'consumer journalism', in which people spending money on something puts the news value of that thing beyond debate. And obviously the little ladies like their fashion fripperies, so who are we to bother their pretty heads with dull Darfur or the yawn-worthy United Nations, when we can look at floral blouses and lame waistcoats instead?
Speaking to News 24, the BBC man continued: 'Are we bringing our editorial values, scpeticism and judgement to it? I think we are. We have to bring the same kind of rigour and sense of analysis to it [as we do to other news subjects] and if we weren't doing that then I think we'd have a problem.'
In what sense one can scrutinise Moss's garments 'analytically' is not apparent, but it's clearly supposed to distance the Beeb's coverage from that which 'news consumers' may have encountered on other outlets - gossip weeklys and the tabs, mainly.
So, the BBC execs can say at their Islington dinner parties, let's pat ourselves on the back for managing to justify running an extremely facile, lowbrow story - while being snotty about it. Clearly they've been taking lessons from the Guardian.
This is the justification given by a senior BBC News suit for its 360 degree coverage of the launch of Kate Moss's range of clothing for Topshop.
Yes, that's right, some clothes went on sale. Big news eh? But this is the age of 'consumer journalism', in which people spending money on something puts the news value of that thing beyond debate. And obviously the little ladies like their fashion fripperies, so who are we to bother their pretty heads with dull Darfur or the yawn-worthy United Nations, when we can look at floral blouses and lame waistcoats instead?
Speaking to News 24, the BBC man continued: 'Are we bringing our editorial values, scpeticism and judgement to it? I think we are. We have to bring the same kind of rigour and sense of analysis to it [as we do to other news subjects] and if we weren't doing that then I think we'd have a problem.'
In what sense one can scrutinise Moss's garments 'analytically' is not apparent, but it's clearly supposed to distance the Beeb's coverage from that which 'news consumers' may have encountered on other outlets - gossip weeklys and the tabs, mainly.
So, the BBC execs can say at their Islington dinner parties, let's pat ourselves on the back for managing to justify running an extremely facile, lowbrow story - while being snotty about it. Clearly they've been taking lessons from the Guardian.
Wednesday 2 May 2007
Chip wrappings on the gogglebox
Clueless hack comes up with terrible 'Web 2.0' attempt, gets demolished by geeks. Fab stuff, here.
Poetry please!
'From the floor of the Axe valley, it looks like a white dot. Looking out to sea halfway up the eastern slope, almost hidden by trees and hedgerows, is Brimclose, the cottage Cecil Day-Lewis and his wife Mary bought for £1,600 in 1938,' wrote biographer Peter Stanford in last weekend's Sunday Times review section.
All well and good. But Stanford continues: 'Day-Lewis, who later became poet laureate but is now perhaps best known as the father of Daniel Day-Lewis, the actor, was at the time among the most prominent young literary figures in Britain.'
The Daniel Day-Lewis factoid pops up several more times in the article, as if attempting to hold the reader's interest, including a picture of DDL starring in Last Of The Mohicans. One might expect Sunday Times review readers to have a vague inkling of who Cecil Day-Lewis is. If they don't, they should, and not simply for who he spawned. What's most disappointing, however, is that the Sunday Times review section subs and editor clearly believe that Cecil Day-Lewis being DDL's papa is a huge selling point for the piece, when in fact it bears very little relevance to the stage in CDL's life that is being written about.
All well and good. But Stanford continues: 'Day-Lewis, who later became poet laureate but is now perhaps best known as the father of Daniel Day-Lewis, the actor, was at the time among the most prominent young literary figures in Britain.'
The Daniel Day-Lewis factoid pops up several more times in the article, as if attempting to hold the reader's interest, including a picture of DDL starring in Last Of The Mohicans. One might expect Sunday Times review readers to have a vague inkling of who Cecil Day-Lewis is. If they don't, they should, and not simply for who he spawned. What's most disappointing, however, is that the Sunday Times review section subs and editor clearly believe that Cecil Day-Lewis being DDL's papa is a huge selling point for the piece, when in fact it bears very little relevance to the stage in CDL's life that is being written about.
Tuesday 1 May 2007
Accessibility of information and the digital divide
The BBC News website likes to host little video clips of various news stories, and flags these up on its front page to lure news 'consumers' (God I hate that word) towards them. Which is all very well if you've got an up to the minute computer with all the relevant bits n bobs to play VoD (video on demand, for you Luddites out there). What's becoming deeply irritating, though, is that the Beeb doesn't seem to have thought about those website users who either don't have the capacity to use VoD, or who might prefer to 'consume' their 'news content' (yuk) in written form, for whatever reason (like, oh I don't know, say being at work and therefore not being able to bung on the headphones and listen to a videocast, perhaps).
The result of this is that I can't find out about the current eruption of Mt Etna because there's no actual news story about it on the BBC News website (at time of writing) - just a shitty piece of VoD.
Given all the Birtspeak about digital divides and consumer accessibility across 'platforms', you'd have thought someone would have realised this by now.
The result of this is that I can't find out about the current eruption of Mt Etna because there's no actual news story about it on the BBC News website (at time of writing) - just a shitty piece of VoD.
Given all the Birtspeak about digital divides and consumer accessibility across 'platforms', you'd have thought someone would have realised this by now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)