大象传媒

Kevin Marsh concludes by saying that British newspaper journalists are not good at taking criticism, this at the end of a post where he seems to suggest that the criticisms of modern media made by Davies cannot be applied to broadcast journalists, or at least 大象传媒 ones. It seems to me the tone of the post demonstrates that the 大象传媒 is just as sensitive to criticism as newspapers are.
As for his attack on print journalists for confusing "verification with impact" - this is laughable coming from the 大象传媒, the organisation behind News 24 where presenters breathlessly report "breaking news" without obvious independent verification and where reporters fill hours with speculation as to what may or may not happen later in the day. And who can forget the helicopter used to film the return of the McCanns to the UK?
There are strengths and weaknesses to the Davies analysis but if there is a fundamental problem in the British media then journalists in all media, web, print and broadcast alike, must face up to it.

Hi Kevin

Nick Davies may well be right about print journalists on "Fleet Street". However, I would be wary about drawing too many paralells between what they get up to and what the 大象传媒 should be doing.

You are, rightly, held to a completely different set of behavioural and editorial standards than your commercial cousins.

Your charter to operate is granted on the condition, amongst other things, that you meet the needs of the whole population and that you are scrupulously fair and impartial. This is particularly so because of the compulsory nature of the License "fee".

It may make you feel better to look at commercial news journalists and feel superior but the 大象传媒 has a huge number of its own ethical problems to solve. Problems that simply don't apply to commercial print journalists.

The 大象传媒's problem is cultural bias and a shocking level of "groupthink". Editorially it is a monoculture and as such it fails to fulfil its side of the Charter "bargain".

I would hope that the 大象传媒 College of Journalism is training new recruits to be truly curious about all sides of an argument, to explore issues with a scrupulous fairness and to leave their personal beliefs at the door each morning.

Such a rethink is desperately needed. The state of journalism at the 大象传媒 has been corroded by decades of "hiring in our own image". Where are the true iconoclasts? Where are the true anti-establishment young turks - ones who will recognise that the establishment is no longer crusty colnels in Pall Mall but lefty editors in White City?

As long as the 大象传媒 continues to be used by its employees as a megaphone and lever for "social change", it will continue to degrade until it is effectively no different from print titles you are so sniffy about.

You could be the generation of managers who saves the 大象传媒 or you could be the generation that finally kills it. We will never forgive you if you choose the latter.

Your choice.

Although I found this article interesting it smacked of liberal (i.e. 大象传媒/Guardian) bias. The Guardian's reputation in the UK is hardly that of an accurate newspaper. As for 大象传媒 impartiality, well a Guardian journalist is going to attack the opposition, but does the 大象传媒 need to join in the attack? Where is the balancing comments reporting Guardian inaccuracy against say a News International title's good research?

I agree with most of the points you make. I will add that I think churnalism begins at local newspapers and continues upwards. I should know, I'm a local reporter.
I would have loved to have attended your college of journalism, by the way.

For a lot of this, the key thing is the word "news".

Watching 24 news channels, you find very little news.

Lots of speculation from on-the-spot reporters about what is about to happen or what may have happened (pending further details)

Lots of stream-of-awareness eye-witness narration when something does happen nearby

Lots of regurgitation of previous speculation

Lots of repetition of the few facts which have emerged

Lots of advertisements dressed up as news - for 大象传媒 programmes, or hi-tech gadgets, or Christmas toys whose supply has been deliberately restricted until the last minute

Lots of opinion and pontification from pundits and politicians

Not a lot of news.

Still, it fills up 24 hours nicely.

OK, if you are a good journalist tell me the difference between mean and median.

Why does no-one in the 大象传媒 make the dictinction?

I have to concur with Michael Howard #3, how on earth are you allowed to advertise a Guardian journalists book?.

As the Editor of the 大象传媒 college of journalism I am amazed that you cannot see how idiotic it is to give this minority newspaper such space in your blog.

The 大象传媒 is in dire need of reform, I suggest that rather than only employ ex members of Labour or the Guardian that you try the other 99.9% of eligible employees.

大象传媒 proud of it's impartiality, what a pathetic joke.

I for one never demanded 'bigger' newspapers and it seems odd that i pay to throw sections of the saturday newspaper straight into the recycle box unread. I distrust much of what i read if the owner also owns a film studio or too as well.

Journalists often fail through lack of time to research anything and literally copy and paste stuff from press releases from one side - Robert Soloway is a good example from last year. That was 100% pure press release in essence trust me as i read the press release.

The other problem is that the journalists little address book came out and when the deadline came the bbc found a person who by no means was an expert but they did do 'telegenic pr person'

Glad that you recognise the issue but fixing it will take a lot of work.

"Result, he goes on: journalists are now forced to shovel unchecked drivel from PR firms straight onto the page or onto the airwaves - "passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by PR to serve some political or commercial interest."

As the 大象传媒 does time and time again with 'stories' from it's favoured groups, such as Greenpeace. I mean, you have just had a reporter 'embedded' with Greenpeace. Do you really think they did not know what they were doing when they invited the reporter aboard the ship? They were looking for PR, and they got it in spades.

And that's not even mentioning the NuLab PR that gets regurgitated day after day on this website.

Kevin, interesting article. I sometimes think that the 大象传媒 still is 'the publishing arm of no 10'.

Stories like this for example don't boost my confidence that the journalist who wrote it did little more than re-publish a no10 press release:

PM's boost for school sports

I don't see any comments about the proposal contained within the article from anyone other than the PM and his Sports Minister. Both, unsurprsingly say this proposal is the best idea since sliced bread. Why no comments from others. Opposition spokesmen? Tories, Liberals? Or perhaps teachers? If you want an example of 'sloppy' journalism, this is it.

If I want to read a no 10 press release, I'll visit the No 10 website. I don't expect the 大象传媒 to reguritate propagnda from any political party.

As a long standing 大象传媒 employee, perhaps your perspective on 大象传媒 journalism is less than impartial?

"Result, he goes on: journalists are now forced to shovel unchecked drivel from PR firms straight onto the page or onto the airwaves"

It is not just newspaper journalists that are guilty of arrogance Kevin.

Your love in with the Guardian (good journalists) as opposed to your disdain for the News of the World (bad journalists)is clear. This only shows your own prejudices up all the more clearly.

What are your veiws on the journalistic standards at the Telegraph by the way? You don't mention them in your article. Are the standards of their journalism less interesting because they don't fit in with your 大象传媒/Guardian worldveiw?

I've been a 大象传媒 Editor for twenty five years and I just don't recognise the groupthink/liberal monoculture line. I've seen and fought against many examples of 'groupthink' in that time ... but not the soft-liberal mindset the 大象传媒 is lazily accused of.

That's precisely the point, you don't recognise it or fight it.

Far more frequent and far more corrosive is the very thing Nick Davies warns about ... the journalist herd piling into a story without asking "is this true?"

But - as I've pointed out to 大象传媒 staff many times - you persist in left-wing misinformation even when the truth is repeatedly pointed out to you. And it's only ever left-wing stuff. This "herd" mentality never ever results in mistakes being made which accidentally push right wing views.

As a regional 'churnalist' I couldn't agree more with Nick Davies observations. In a 24-hour news culture, the British press has become a monster producer of 'distortion,' designed to reaffirm prejudices and shift newspapers, rather than educated and inform.
A 'churnalist' from a popular rightwing newspaper called our newsroom recently asking for information on our immigrant population. I and a fellow reporter fed them a load of rubbish for a laugh and the next day we were shocked to see that what we told them was printed as fact! The journalist/publication didn't even bother trying to attribute the information to one of the paper's so called 'spokesmen.' As a result, I laugh whenever I read a so called shocking expose or report in this 'newspaper.' Unfortunately, however, not everyone has my insider's view of the news machine or the individuals, with ten axes to grind and reputations to build, that power it. The people who suffer at the hands of this ill-informed lynch mob 'churnalism' are the poor, vulnerable and defenceless.

To Chloe Sanderson I would point out that Private Eye, not a known bastion of dyed-in-the-wool socialists, is also giving space to cover this important book.

Secondly, why do you care what the 大象传媒 does ? He who pays the piper calls the tune. She who does not pay the licence fee really has no leg to stand on.

Dawn - you clearly haven't read the book. Davies covers the example of the Guardian's sister paper the Observer, and the shenanigans going on in the political reporting under Roger Alton.

Flat Earth News is written by a Guardian journalist - but he has everyone in the firing line of his argument, which can only be a good thing if it raises the standard of reporting.

I grant you he reserves special ire for the Daily Mail - but that is nothing to do with being right vs left wing - it is to do with the truly abysmal standards of accuracy and journalistic integrity on that so-called 'news' paper.

Thanks for responding to my post kevin. I agree the snooping of the kind that led to the Goodman conviction is wrong and broadcast news journalists have not been found doing the same. But that is not the main thrust of the Davies argument. Rather he is saying that in all media there is now a drive to fill space which places far less emphasis on quality than was previously the case. Hence my questioning of News 24. Here hours are spent with reporters previewing announcements / report publications etc without any obvious insight as to what they will really contain as well as studio-based presenters reading wire copy off computer screens as PA et al file it rather than after it has been checked. That is just as damaging as some of the practice at newspapers - what Davies calls "churnalism".
Paxman recently said: "the problem is that all news programmes need to make noise.
The need鈥檚 got worse, the more crowded the market鈥檚 become. We
clamour for the viewers鈥� attention: 鈥淒on鈥檛 switch over. Watch us! You
won鈥檛 be disappointed!鈥� (I confess that making this appeal in the dog
days of August is peculiarly dispiriting. Sometimes you want to sit there
and say, 鈥楴ot much has happened today. I鈥檇 go to bed if I were you.鈥� But,
no, the pretence must be maintained that forty-five minutes鈥� worth of
discussable material exists.)"
If he can say that about an evening news magazine (newsnight), what does it say about filling a 24 hour news channel?

You're absolutely right about most of our newspapers, of course, Kevin. The standard of accuracy is abysmal.

But glass houses, stones, and all that?

Granted, the 大象传媒 is much better at factual accuracy that most (all?) newspapers. But that doesn't mean you're beyond criticism.

Let me give you a recent example: You make the unsubstantiated claim that the book was turned down "because it could be offensive to Muslims". OK, that makes a good story, and is much more interesting to read than "the book was turned down because it wasn't very good." But if you look at the Becta website you see that the latter was the real reason why the book was turned down.

This kind of stirring up race hate is the sort of thing we expect of the Daily Mail. But the 大象传媒 really should know better.

You people at the 大象传媒 just don't get it.
When you are accused of liberal-left bias it's not that you all sit around the office thinking "how can we give our reporting a 大象传媒 lefty spin." You don't even realise you are doing it.
I bet everyone in your office thinks that for example -Gay Marriage = good, Greenpeace = good, immigration = good, Barrack Obama = good, Big Business = bad, Thatcher = bad, Prison = bad,E.U.= good, American Health Care or Military = bad -and so on.I expect you could give good reasons why most or all of these are true.
The point is everyone with power at the 大象传媒 has roughly the same basic views. Therefore all your ouput just assumes ,say, capital punishment is wrong or mult-culturalism is right. But there are millions of people who think the opposite. Even when you report their views you then bring on a liberal pundit to explain why they are wrong.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of whether journalists like the book, I looked and failed, to see any comments which reflected the people who buy the papers or pay the licence fee.
Never mind the egos of journos, what about some talk in programmes which let the listeners/viewers have their say about the real world without some sanctimonious person having to comment "Well, while mr jones`s comm ents were quite good, what you really need to understand......"
If opinions from the sharp end were considered, you could fill time with REAL VIEWS from REAL PEOPLE. A bit like those non stop music programmes with continuous music...but instead reflecting the views of people out in the real world....
Still, I won`t hold my breath!!

In January 2002 Kandahar Afghanistan a herd of journalists followed the 101st Airborne in when they relieved the Marines.

My son said the UPI print reporters were top notch putting on a ruck, getting the story, writing with a complete knowledge of every aspect of the conflict with profound understanding.

They did this on a shoe string and great professionalism.

Of the photo journalist Martin Savage, really a writer, was excellent, went out in harms way, got the story, got it right, and communicated the story of the troops as well as events.

The rest of the herd, were "feeding the beast", coming up with anything to say they could think of the be catchy on TV, essentially no journalism, no reporting, just a minute or two of video with some ridiculous remarks.

As our print media stopped sending reporters abroad, and CNN finds talking heads more profitable, what did you expect?

A brief final observation to underline my point. Last night at around 9.30pm News 24 reported problems with the Space Shuttle as debris had been seen falling off during launch by witnesses - cue presenters speaking in concerned tones over images of the launch on a loop. 20 mins later NASA said there was no problem.
What was that about confusing verification and impact? As Adam (22) says, glass houses, stones and all that.

One of the strong points of the 大象传媒 is this publishing of this set of responses.

What is here often called "bias" is simply the fact that the media individual is not aware that another view of reality may be valid. I suggest that, usually, it is unconscious on the part of the reporter.

I ask that one "examine the unstated premises", but I wonder if anyone knows what I am talking about!

I wonder how many journalists have pointed out untruths and inconsistencies to their newsdesks only to be told to write it regardless.
I'm sure I've not been alone in this but where do we go for support? To my mind, being forced to file copy that does not meet the standards to which a journalist is dutifully pledged, is tantamount to dismissal because it makes our skills redundant.
I feel most journalists long to exercise the integrity instilled in them during their training, but in reality their boss鈥檚 pie-encrusted finger points at them menacingly as they bellow the words 鈥淩emember I鈥檓 in charge of you鈥�.
I say this because newsrooms and kitchens, possibly the last bastions of the bully, appear to have been granted an opt-out clause of the rules governing acceptable employee treatment in the UK.
Furthermore, if a paper鈥檚 senior management take a 'political decision' to follow one line of reporting over another, or to censor reporting of an issue, the journalist has no recourse.
Ultimately, their continued employment depends on doing exactly what they are told.
A true journalist, like Paul Foot, would tell the boss to stick the job. He did this, according to details in an article whcih I can鈥檛 independently verify right now, when editor David Banks (allegedly) refused to publish one of Foot鈥檚 investigations.

Apparently Footie walked out with photocopies of the story and handed them to people on the street, thereby abruptly ending his Mirror career.
It鈥檚 hard to imagine a reporter doing this now but I鈥檓 living (unemployed) proof that journalists are still capable of that level of integrity.
Perhaps we could use this 大象传媒 forum to sow the seeds of an independent council that would provide assistance and support for journalists who find themselves in this position.
I certainly could have done with it. In my opinion; the NUJ fell woefully short in this area.

To Bedd Geelert,

Just to correct your assumptions, you must be a 大象传媒 Journalist to not check your facts first...I do pay my license fee, I happen to work in Maastricht and come home to the UK at weekends.

So go away you silly man and learn to stop making false claims.

Regarding the comments about churning out unverified stories I have a related comment.

As a scientist (physicist) I am becoming increasingly worried about the depth of science coverage in the news. It all seems to be shallow and to come from press releases (I surmise this because I see the same stories in the newspapers). I feel there is no depth of knowledge here and perhaps, as the space for news has grown, you have lost something in your science coverage. I shall not mention names but I do not get the feeling on the rare occasions I see or hear a science reporter that they know what they are talking about. Certainly in my subject they make elementary gaffs.

In the 90's I think it was better so what has changed 大象传媒?

Perhaps Mr Marsh could look into it.

Kevin Marsh wrote here a most outstanding editorial. Refraining from "sensationalism" is a true measure of good journalism. Living in the US, non-sensationalist reports from the 大象传媒 are a breath of fresh air compared to the US media. I do not share the concerns about the arrogance of journalists, for good media companies must be staffed by experts and any expert, in any field, has to have a measure of confidence in his judgement. I do applaud the remarks about letting journalists carry out their jobs without pressure from editors to artificially inflate the volume of news reports.

What disappoints me is that there seems to be no place for reasonable debate of issues. There is antagonism and sensationalism instead of objective discussion. People placed on a particular 'side' of an argument. The recent misrepresentation and furore over the Archbishop's comments is a case in point - the only way for me to find out what he actually said was to check out the transcript of his lecture and interview (something it seems many journalists/commentators have not bothered to do). That story has been badly reported by the 大象传媒 - perhaps because of the pressure to fill a certain amount of space instantly? But this again reminds me not to trust anything I read in the news.

The whole coverage of the Rowan Williams + sharia story is a case in point - and sadly the 大象传媒 is among the worst - witness "calls for resignation from General Synod" line taken by 大象传媒 on-line - in fact TWO members of General Synod have been quoted in an none too informed way. There is no general call from the Church at all - we just wish that journalists would read what he actually said rather reporting what other reporters said that he said. Churnalism at its worst and the 大象传媒 is not much different.