Trust me
| 12:18 UK time, Wednesday, 14 June 2006
Apparently 32% of ´óÏó´«Ã½ staff don't think news organisations should be more open with audiences.
More than 600 have voted so far in a ´óÏó´«Ã½ intranet poll which was started after I made a speech to Bournemouth University Media School's (you can read it here).
I'd be intrigued to know how that 32% breaks down.
Presumably some think that news organisations are already open enough with their audiences - though, I guess they've never tried to get a correction to a newspaper story they know to be untrue or watched helplessly as two completely unrelated sets of facts are mashed together into a tasty, but fundamentally misleading, newspaper narrative.
Presumably, too, some think they should be less open - which would be difficult. It's worth spending a bit of time trying to get out of British newspapers anything resembling a code of conduct or ethics. The Guardian has one - - and which goes a little further, though not much, than the , itself more of a trade code designed by newspaper editors for newspaper editors.
The point, though, is this. The new media - including, but not limited to, the web - are giving audiences and readers degrees of choice they've never had before. There'll always be a demand for gutsy argument and opinionated "news" - though it's interesting to ponder where the differentiation will lie in two years' time between "news that confirms my world view"/my favourite column and the blog.
The demand for news - facts about the world that professional journalists have gathered, verified, made sense of - continues to grow. The organisations that will do best at servicing that demand among developing audiences will be the ones that show their workings.
The ones that don't just say "trust me" - but show why you can.
Comments
watched helplessly as two completely unrelated sets of facts are mashed together into a tasty, but fundamentally misleading, newspaper narrative
Isn't this how all science stories are covered in the press and other media? Or am I picking on science because that's what I know about? If all journalism is as poor as science journalism, then none of it is to be trusted.
One source of news is not to be trusted, trust should be formed over time through an input of different journalists views that the individual can relate to as a person. Trust should be the biproduct of self-analysis over a time period.
An example of this is this blog itself.It will become more stable and reliant as a source of news as more opinions are generated, more questions are asked and more interpretation is shown and given.
This relates to Kevin marsh's statement: "the web - giving audiences and readers degrees of choice they've never had before".
Some news channels can be trusted more than others. However, if a viewer began to put trust in one sole news source, belief of every journalists opinion on that news source would be recieved by the viewer as truths rather than a undeluded commentary.
As i am not personally involved in the news production itself, I have a clear audience perspective. I have studied many cases where media institutions have not changed the story, but instead haven't released the whole amount of information. In some cases it may protect an audiences interests, but how much can you wrap us in cotton wool? We need to learn for ourselves and so openess from the news is the key.
I agree with the 32% to some extent. We as an audience do not need or want to know every single thing as it would be of no relevance to us. Take the war in Iraq for example- if the media was 100% truthful with us and showed us all the murder of innocent Iraqis in it's real horrror and gore we would feel ashamed of being associated with a country that willing chooses to cause inflict such damage. Also there are somethings that news institutions can't, for public well being, be completely honest with us about such as if government security is at risk.
While we all want to be told the truth there are times that this isn't possible or advisable. It's okay that the news ins't being completely honest with us but just make sure you take what's being said in the news with a pinch of salt.
As news broadcasters it is their job to give an un-biased story of occurrences at the time, but it seems that a close relationship with the government and advertisers may sway what could actually be said about some a story involving serious issues, that could potentially affect many people.
I think the reason why a growing number of young people aren't watching the news is because a growing number of us are realising that not everything that is said on the news is true, this view gets carried away until it gets to the point where they aren’t interested in what is to be said.
A way that it could be solved is to give the views of the minority in the story and not just ask intelligence gathered by the government or other biased sources.
Blaming people that can't voice their opinion is easy, why is it that when an interview with the prime mister is held it is in a controlled environment, but yet when interviewing your ordinary Iraqi civilian, there is noise and disturbances in the background, giving them a bad image and without anyone hearing their point they have a bad opinion about them. I would like to see a one on one interview with a regular Iraqi citizen, so that we can actually concentrate on the opinions of the Iraqi people.
I also agree with the 32% in a way because if we got told every single detail about a certain story it may distract the reader from the main point of the story and it may also be slightly tedious for the reader.
However, more information on a certain story can have some advantages aswell. By receiving more information, this will give the reader a better understanding to the story and therefore can gain more information with regards to the story.
You don't need to be very privileged to know that certain newpapers in this country regularly distort or invent stories and should be ignored. It takes a bit more work to see where others only deliver the bits that back up their proprietor's view. Overall though if you really want to know what is going on it is pretty easy to pick a portflio of sources you can trust.
One conclusion from this is that no one source is ever enough, leading to a second. Stories do not need to be precision balanced. If the two sides of an argument are part of the news then report them, but don't do it just to put a tick in the box. Government spokespeople and minority representatives are as bad as each other when it comes to muddying the water. The key to trust is variety and competition.
I don't want the news to be more open. I don't want the news to be a friendly face. I don't want the news to be two gurning cheshire cats sitting on a sofa (see the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Breakfast). I certainly don't want the news to be pandering to the few who have the time on their hands to reply to meaningless 'blogs' (and I count myself here). What I do want from the news is for it to be informative, not entertaining. I want it to be authoritative, not titillating. I want to see an end to outside reporters on location, telling us what we have already been told by the newsreader in the studio (and all at the licence fee payers expense). When there is a real need for an on the spot reporter (and let's face it, that isn't very often, unless it's breaking news) I want him to talk to me directly (surely the point of the news is to communicate to an audience) and not to address his colleague back in the studio. I want the news to be unique, and not influenced purely by what other news programmes deem to be 'the news'. The only difference between the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and ITN early evening news shows is the presenters, the rest is interchangable - and mostly lightweight. I certainly don't want the news to try and make itself more accessable to teenagers! I used to watch the news in my teens, but I was a minority and it will ever be so. There is no point trying to attract an audience that isn't interested in what you have to say at the expence of the viewing experience of your existing audience.
Most people don't want the news to be more open. Most people couldn't care less! But what news viwers do want is integrity and substance, not some form of fake news democracy.
People will always make up their own minds, after viewing a accessing a range of different sources. Being more 'open' will not change this.
Anyway, I feel that the problems that newsmakers are having are largely due to overexposure. The advent of 24 hour rolling (crawling would be a more apt term)news has changed the audiences perception of news programmes. The main news bulletins of the day used to be seen as 'events' in their own right. People would have their tea and then sit down to watch the news. No longer.
I have largely given up watching the news. After being an avid consumer of news and current affairs for years, I have come to realise that most news content has absolutely no relevance to my life as an individual, and serves only to create a sense of alienation. I don't recognise the world that is shown to me. I know it is all artifice, edited highlights, soundbites and spin.
The town crier, I suppose, had his purpose. He would tell you what was happening in the immediate vicinity, or the next village. News that mattered. News that you had some sort of stake in.
I'm sorry chaps, but you lot can blog as much as you like, it will not change the fact that you are now largely irrelevant. People are just 'tuning out'.
The whole concept of being impartial and giving an honest report of events is totally false, in my opinion.
The use of blogs by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to try and confirm that they are impartial is missing the point. We all know that the news can be tuned to whatever agenda the broadcaster has - notice the total lack of old school scientific debate on green issues on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for instance. The fact that the beeb is trying to justify itself is more of an indicator than anything it reports on!
One of the cool features of a blog is you can delete the comments you don't like! You only need to try and submit a right wing comment on the 'have your say' section of the site to feel what government censorship feels like.
Anyway, I enjoyed writing this - I doubt many people will get the chance to read it!
I mostly agree with Jon Stone. Too much news is as bad as too little. 24 hour news channels are not necessary really. Also why they have to wander around the studio I cannot understand, what's wrong with them sitting behind a desk and telling us the news straight to camera rather than having to look into different camers all the time.
I work in Saudi Arabia so catch ´óÏó´«Ã½ World, the annoying music that is played between bouts of news telling me what is coming next is absolutely nauseating.
I feel that, yes, news organisations should be more open and in some cases honest to their audience. It is all very well to edit certain facts so that a story is more readable, or politically correct, but the people of today want to know the truth not what may make an amazing front page news story that will bring in record sales. However i am targeting mainly tabloid newspapers of being guilty of this. This country is supposed to be proud of its independence and ability to write and publish the truth, so why is this not happening as much as it should?