A pretty reasonable post from Labour MP Tom Harris' on his blog caused a certain kerfuffle (less than a ruckus, greater than a to-do) last week, when it was picked up by the media. Keen to perpetuate the worst stereotypes of their profession, they twisted his words out of context and tried to turn them into something more than simple observation. The discussion that followed was interesting, in particular, Tom Harris' various responses to being suddenly thrust into the spotlight, and the follow-ups from the less sensationalist portions of the media.
A few things occurred to me reading through these over the last week or so. The first is that the idea of MPs running blogs is a good one. Tom Harris' may be an exception, but from what I've seen since I started following him, his posts are thoughtful and accessible. Having an outlet like this would be an excellent way for MPs to connect with the public without having to go through the media, lessening the risk of their words being twisted to manufacture headlines. Rather than being a waste of time, it could be an invaluable resource for public scrutiny (though no doubt if it becomes a more widely accepted practice, there may be some level of party censorship).
The only way that this can happen, of course, is if the MPs know that they are not going to be dragged onto the front of the Mail every time they say anything interesting. As Harris himself asks: "Am I being too optimistic in expecting a grown-up debate about this?". Unfortunately, I fear that hoping for grown up debate is indeed too optimistic.
People look to newspapers to filter news for them, and to provide legitimate comment. They do this because they don't have time themselves to read the sources, talk to those involved, and sift through the data. If we lose trust in the papers to deliver the truth, we'll go somewhere else (unless we don't want the truth, but that's a whole 'nother argument), but most of us haven't lost that trust yet. Papers still have an enormous power to deliver information to the masses, and if it is anticipated that they will abuse that power, we will see less passion and independence from our politicians, and more blandness and party rhetoric.
On the point of our generation being less "happy" than our parents' or grandparents', I'd say it's almost an impossible thing to measure. The explosion of communication technology makes us more aware of the potential highs and lows around us, and puts us into a situation almost unimaginable to earlier generations. A child today grows up surrounded daily by media images of total excess and total deprivation. Flicking channels between Big Brother and pictures of dying children in Somalia, between Wayne Rooney's wedding and the Chinese earthquake, between glossy, airbrushed, models and suicide bombers. To try to compare that kind of graphic exposure to extremes with the local communities and 'make-do-and-mend' attitude of earlier generations in terms of "happiness" is not only impossible, but also incorrect. I'm not a psychologist, but it seems like such simple terms are not useful to describe or analyse things that are different in so many ways.
That was a bit rambling, but I think I covered everything I wanted to.
Error'd: Believe It Or Not
5 hours ago
3 comments:
"If we lose trust in the papers to deliver the truth, we'll go somewhere else (unless we don't want the truth, but that's a whole 'nother argument), but most of us haven't lost that trust yet."
It's worth saying that though informed by high principles, much of the business of news distribution fails to live up to them. This is not automatically a bad thing, if/when the news-consuming public is aware of it. Newspapers should always strive to tell the truth, but whatever makes it out into print will, by nature, be only a version of the truth, almost certainly not all of it, maybe not most if it, maybe a slightly mangled version of it, occasionally complete falsehood, depending on the professional standards of the journalist writing it.
I was aware of this before I chose journalism as a career and recommend a healthy dose of scepticism for anyone consuming news media and a broad pool from which to get your news.
However, I've since decided anyone who reads news uncritically almost deserves to be spoon-fed poor quality information if they can't be bothered to engage intellectually.
Far too many people of my acquaintance, even intelligent ones, are not able to understand the irony of a newspaper they disagree with being "wrong" and a newspaper they agree with being "right". That the latter simply aligns with their own prejudices does not enter their heads. Ever.
Many news organisations have an agenda, some more than others. Find out what it is and read accordingly. Eg. The Daily Mail thinks all women should stay at home and have babies. The Guardian exists to slate the Daily Mail.
A broader reaction to this post: I think I agree with the general thrust of Harris' post, but timing-wise, he was waaaay off.
Note the used of the word "revealed" in the Daily Mail article, making it sound as though they'd cleverly unearthed something which, hey, was already on the internet where ANYONE could look at it. Another thing, newspapers are great self-publicists.
"whatever makes it out into print will, by nature, be only a version of the truth, almost certainly not all of it, maybe not most if it, maybe a slightly mangled version of it, occasionally complete falsehood"
Why? Are journalists not striving to tell the truth, or are they trying but failing?
"However, I've since decided anyone who reads news uncritically almost deserves to be spoon-fed poor quality information if they can't be bothered to engage intellectually."
So is there any way for a news source to be trusted? Or should we be expected to follow every story we read back to the primary sources? That seems like the safest way to avoid being lied to.
Some, I would like to say most, journalists are striving to tell the truth. However, the profession has an unflattering reputation for a reason as, unfortunately some of the stereotypes are true and some journalists regularly devious. I thought this before I'd read most of Flat Earth News and now feel justified for believing so.
However, to a certain extent, I was being philosophical. How do you define truth? How do you define objectivity? How do you define news?
Newspapers don't have space to include everything they're sent. Journalists are trained to spot which information is important and make that into the story. Anything less important is expendable and will either not be included in the first place or may be chopped out later to make room for something else. The information removed is part of the truth but by getting rid of it, the size of the picture presented is decreased.
Also, although journalists are taught to certain standards, everyone has their own view. No two people will write the story in the same way. They might choose a different angle, they will almost certainly use different words, different registers of language. This is adding a layer of personality to the story that isn't there in the raw facts. Journalists can try to account for it when they write stories, but the way a writer filters the information will give it some sort of slant, though maybe only a small one.
As for the third question, news is news because it's in the papers. It might have happened a month ago, but a paper might not make it immediately public for all sorts of reaons, including filling space at a later stage when fewer things are happening. Some newspapers make it clear when this happens. Others don't. Various details may be omitted to make the story seem more current, without explicitly saying so. Is this lying?
As for trusting news sources, I would simply say this. Ask yourself whose interests are served best by the story. That may give you a good indication of the source of the material contained in it. And browse. If as much as content is recycled between news outlets as Nick Davies suggests, it's time we looked elsewhere. Blogs have broken several crucial stories in recent times. Reading partisan political blogs may be a good start. They may be biased, but at least the bias is obvious from the start, rather than fed into stories via PR agencies.
Post a Comment