What is in the public interest is not the same as what the public are interested in. Yet these days, pretty much everything can be (and is) justified through claims that it is 'in the public interest'.
This is an abuse of journalists' powers.
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Journalists interviewing journalists
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)