Audience off the mark
| 15:24 UK time, Friday, 29 June 2007
I have received complaints this week about The World Tonight's coverage of two different stories - the changing of the guard at 10 Downing Street and our report from the Basque country that asked why ETA is still fighting on. In both cases I have to say I am puzzled as the complaints bear little relation to what we broadcast.
The complaint about our political coverage said:
- "Why are there only men discussing politics on this and so many other programmes? Women are under-represented in the arena of political discussions on the 大象传媒."
Now, how do you go about replying to this - as I do reply to all complaints as long as they aren鈥檛 abusive - when the programme in question (which you can listen to here) had a panel of three discussing the relative merits of Gordon Brown and David Cameron of which two were... how can I say it... women?
This is not as uncommon as you might think - but why do people take the time to complain about things we have not broadcast, rather than what we did? Do they not pay attention or do they hear what they want to hear?
I think a clue lies in the complaint above - someone who believes the 大象传媒 in general doesn't invite enough women on the air to discuss politics decides to complain about a programme to make a general point and - here I admit I am speculating - maybe he or she didn't listen to the programme carefully and heard what he/she wanted to hear. Or actually switched off early in a fit of rage and got on the phone/computer to complain.
Our presenter, Robin Lustig, tells me there may be another explanation. He says he was asked at a party recently why he says every night 鈥淵ou're listening to The World Tonight鈥, The person who asked this then answered her own question 鈥 鈥淚'm not listening鈥, she said 鈥淚've just got the radio on鈥.
Having said that, we are accountable to the public who have to pay the licence fee, so I will respond to the complaint as I respond to all others - politely but straightforwardly.
Comments
I'm surprised at your apparent soul-searching as relates to the 'no handrails' quagmire that multi-media blogging must attract some folk to!
There will always be the statistical percentiles who will see a (topical) 'bad bounce'. :-/
(Quagmires and Wimbledon seem good metaphoric bases, atm!)
Whether the anonymised commentators wer in-court with their return is just one of those things that constitutes an umpire's lot!
The less accountable a body is, the less they will act responsibly! Both at the individual and the corporate level!
It must be very risky with live input from un-vetted 'contributors', but there's no reason that non-live input has to be broadcast.
Crocodile tears, perhaps?
I am suspect when Katy Kay gets her facts absolutely wrong. In her report last night she said that a small minority did not approve of the immigration bill. The Gallup Poll reported 47 Against and 30 In Favor. To make matters worse the only guest she had on disscussing the matter was a far left immigration activist. I don't know if I should chalk it up to bias or ignorance, probably both are to blame. Why not give fact based journalism a try and an even handed discussion?
Too many Daily Mail readers and Murdoch-apologists who would have 'complaining pointlessly about the 大象传媒' in their hobbies listed in 'Who's Who'?
'Perception is reality'. The fact that you have Martha Kearney on the World at One, but not on the World Tonight may be enough to explain this. Or the fact that Carolyn Quinn is on the Westminster Hour at ten o'clock on Sundays, but clearly not the rest of the week, might create a 'shadow'.
Or might it, rather more scarily, be a reflection of the drop in the percentage of female cabinet members which is being transmitted to your programme in a 'passive smoking' analogy...?
After all, one can get the 大象传媒 to respond to complaints far more easily than Gordon Brown's cabinet.
Just a thought..
Women should be judged by their talent,mental agility and results. They should be given equal opportunities to reach the pinnacle. Why are the yard-sticks so different when it comes to appointing women? Agreed their approach to problems is different but are usually very effective at the end.If the PM is not prepared to see a balance in his cabinet, how can you expect others to give equal opportunities a chance?In the 21st century, the political world should not be dominated by men at the helm. Rather women should be given full equal opportunities as well!!
"Too many Daily Mail readers and Murdoch-apologists who would have 'complaining pointlessly about the 大象传媒' in their hobbies listed in 'Who's Who'?"
and vice versa
Do you remember "Jeremy Hardy speaks to the nation"? He received a complaint that it was OTT, to which he responded, with audible misery, that it was supposed to be ironic.
Is it just possible that the irony of this complaint gives a clue to the message?
The wrong individual show upon which to hang the criticism, but in general the criticism is more than justified.
Too few women, and too many of those who are used, after positive discrimination, being too low quality, reflecting the huge barriers to women's participation in the process of politics - as politicians, lobbyists or reporters. Not least that many consider it unseemly for girls and women to comment strongly on political matters, or to mix in the still largely male political circles, and "unattractive" too.
Hence the relatively weak, and disappointing, Blair-babe cabinet ministers who have now almost all been dropped by Brown, who one hopes has plans to bring forward better replacements.
That women of the calibre of Shirley Williams, Betty Boothroyd and Barbara Castle are more rare now reflects how the pressure towards overt sexiness and the cult of celebrity has dumbed down the "norm" against which women carefully measure themselves.
How typical for the editor of this usually very male-dominated (and male-issue dominated) programme to comment upon one misplaced criticism on this particular topic.
While trying to find the latest 大象传媒 editorial views on recent terrorist attacks in the UK I found this editor's blog entry. The editor was complaining about the 大象传媒's audience complaints about what didn't happen in a news broadcast.
Having worked with, or better said between the media and the public much of my career, often what appear to be strange comments, complaining about what was not reported or how it was reported, generally means the news organization has a significant underlying problem. Often the public is perceiving a bias and through criticism are making suggesting that they believe would decrease or at least change what they believe is bias.
It wasn't until the media, especially radio and TV, added commentary, discussion and "debate" to their news reporting that I heard similar complaints. Just maybe a better distinction being news reporting and commentary might be appropriate. Of course anytime one attempts to be politically correct, especially when funded by taxpayers, one will get into trouble. Attempt to protect a minority by presenting too much of their position runs the same risk.
I would far rather listen to a discussion between people who have something pertinent and interesting to contribute to a discussion or debate regardless of their ability to conform to a required percentage of participants who should conform to politically correct quotas regarding sex, colour, ethnic origin, religious beliefs or sexual orientation.
Dear Sir,
I think the reason people complain about things that are not there or happened is because people do not pay attention any more. To themselves or what other people are saying.
I know this sounds cliche, but I blame it on the television news. We are force-fed this thing, we call 'news', as if we were cattle lined up at the trough. Half the time it(the news) is so woefully written or just plain awful. I blame this on the american news broadcasters.They cannot possibly (with the exception of CNN)call themselves newscasters.
I digress, so I shall stop here.
Ok, so there may not have been a problem with that particular programme. But on the day of the handover, it was white blokes talking to white blokes only interspersed by Sophie Raworth in the newsroom.
Surely the situation warrants greater consideration than this flippant response?
I think women are less interested to participate in politics than men though they are more interested to cast a vote.