May 18, 2012

Posts Comments

You are here: Home / Alan Stevens / Is “The Media” to blame?

Is “The Media” to blame?

November 2, 2011 By
Pin It
Email

No, of course not.

I often hear the phrase “it’s the fault of the media”, whether it’s the economy, the riots, the behaviour of young people, etc, etc.

Let me first state my interest. I’ve been a member of the National Union of Journalists for over 30 years. Many of my pals work in TV, radio, web and print, reporting news stories. I’m bound to defend my profession. Notwithstanding that, I hope you’ll allow me to set out my stall.

Blaming “the media” for all sorts of troubles and tribulations is the last resort of many a scoundrel. I’ve lost count of the number of celebrities whose indiscretions were revealed, only to turn round and blame “the media” for their demise. Of course, not doing the silly thing in the first place might have been a better way of avoiding public humiliation.

Newspaper fire orange

Image by NS Newsflash via Flickr

First and foremost, there is no “The Media”. There are newspapers, radio stations, TV channels and the web. There are thousands of separate media sources, few of whom speak to each other. The idea that “The Media” has an agenda is ludicrous. There are no journalistic cabals, no conspiracies, and certainly no Government control. If there was even a hint of the latter, then successive Governments would not get into difficulties, and blame, er – you know who – for their poor image. There is no secret lair, hidden deep in a mountain on a remote island, where a monocled and scarred press baron strokes a white persian cat and controls news output globally. There are media owners like Rupert Murdoch who do have agendas, and stations like Fox News, which is far from “news”, but there is no overall plan. None at all.

Secondly, news is news. It gets reported, not created. It would be poor journalism, in my view, to suppress stories for fear of upsetting people. News is about exceptions, human interest, local angles and conflict. ‘Twas ever thus. The fact that pastor from a small church in Florida was going to burn a holy book was news, like it or not.

There’s another common opinion about news media: “they only report bad news”. That’s true, but the reason is that news is about exceptions to the norm, and natural disasters and wars are exactly that (even if they aren’t as exceptional as we might like).

All of us hacks simply report what we see and hear that we think will interest our readers and listeners. There is also the natural human interest in things that have gone awry. I’ve seen many attempts to launch “good news” newspapers or radio shows, all of which have failed through lack of interest.

Interestingly, we often admire our pals when they get on the news to tell their stories. We say “well done them”. But when it’s someone we don’t know, doing something we don’t care for, we blame the media for not telling the story properly.

The best advice I can offer you is to take everything with a pinch of salt. Life is good, and mostly funny. At least from where I sit.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts with Thumbnails
Pin It
Email
Filed Under: Alan Stevens, Business, Latest: Tagged With:
  • Stephen Bray

    I enjoyed this post, and I accept that journalists aren’t part of some conspiracy, even if media barons have agendas. But, those who found, own, or even work for newspapers do have their own agendas, mostly ones they consider to be benign. There’s nothing new about this.

    When Stefan Lorant persuaded Odhams Press to launch Picture Post in 1938 Lorant had been a prisoner in Nazi Germany. His disposition was humanistic, which unlike communism which many think the opposite of fascism, is truly the dictators’ natural enemy. Good journalists are really humanists, even when they don’t realise it. This is the lodestone that enables them to report as fairly as is humanly possible, and to bring out the qualities, for good or ill, of those of whom they report.

    Lorant who didn’t fancy his chances under Hitler’s hospitality pushed off to America in 1940 before the Battle of Britain had been fought and his deputy Tom Hopkinson took over. In war time, under heavy censorship the magazine printed pages with black squares denoting the images the bureaucrats had removed, which effectively identified them as nerks and resulted in the policy being reversed so that morale boosting images, and stories might appear once more.

    Unfortunately Picture Post found its way under the umbrella of Hulton’s Press, and when a story and images on the treatment of Koreans by James Cameron and Bert Hardy was submitted Edward Hulton, the magazine’s owner objected to it. Hopkins and many of the best journalists left.

    Is such a story possible today? Yes, I’m certain of it. The messages portrayed by different publications across the world vary considerably. In the example of Vogue, for example, American Vogue continues to publish some erudite articles, the paper stock is thinner – perhaps in tune with the economic zeitgeist. Dresses are pastel, and reflect something of the 1950s. Turkish Vogue, by comparison, is printed on better paper stock. The pages are larger, the jewels more in evidence - last year there was advertised in it a chocolate bar stuffed with real diamonds. The colours are bolder, there are articles but most are about how to be smart and fashionable.

    Like you I don’t thin the press are resonsible for the ills of society, but I don’t think they’re altogether separate from the social and political systems about which they report. Dennis Potter the screen writer long ago noted the the BBC, for example was losing its humanism because of fiscal demands upon it.

    You may think I’m a little crazy to cite as examples an extinct publication, and a woman’s magazine?  You see I don’t read newspapers anymore, so I’m a bit limited in what I can offer in support of your article, unless it’s written up in the Tatler.

  • http://twitter.com/presentations Simon Raybould

    I’m with you 95% of the way – the five percent I have a problem with is where you say news gets reported, not created.  Bollocks.  We all know that if there’s not ‘real’ news then something will be used to fill the gap! :)

    From the point of view of my old profession – that of a researcher – it’s interesting to note that we generally regarded the media as ‘the enemy’ and were trained in how to avoid them because, essentially, the journalists would bastardise research in order to make the story. Caveats were ignored, assumptions were treated as fact and good, appropriate academic caution was thrown to the wind….

    Personal example?  I did over 40 media interviews in a week to try and put out the fire created by the Observer reporting my research with the headline “Chlorine causes cancer shock!”. Now I ask you, does that sound like something I’d have said?  Or meant? Or even implied?  I’d HAD said there was prima facia evidence, which warranted appropriate investigation, that there might be a statistically significant deficit of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemias in children under 16 years in some parts of Sunderland where the drinking water might (but at the time we didn’t know how to find out!) be drawn more, on average, from deep water bores than from surface water.

    I’m with you that there’s no conspiracy – but there’s precious little high moral ground sometimes, either!

  • Stephen Bray

    Simon,

    The problem with writing: “I’d HAD said there was prima facia evidence, which warranted appropriate investigation, that there might be a statistically significant deficit of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemias in children under 16 years in some parts of Sunderland where the drinking water might (but at the time we didn’t know how to find out!) be drawn more, on average, from deep water bores than from surface water”, is that most Observer readers wouldn’t understand it  ;-)

  • Anonymous

    Sorry Stephen – typo!   The ‘d should be cut!  :)

  • Stephen Bray

    Don’t worry Simon, ‘noise’ gets in my systems all the time :)

  • http://twitter.com/mediacoach Alan Stevens

    Simon,

    Thank you for observing that one of my beliefs is “bollocks”. I can’t get that level of academic debate everywhere these days. ;-)

    Best wishes

    Alan