Since October 7th, only one Journalist has been allowed into Gaza and the journalist from CNN was only allowed to stay for two hours, was not allowed out of her vehicle and was only allowed to travel directly to, and back, from the UAE field Hospital, couldn’t talk to any Palestinians and was accompanied by Israeli representatives at all times.
The only journalists working in Gaza are the ones who were there when the attacks began and although it's difficult to get absolutely accurate statistics, it is estimated over 90 journalists have been killed in Gaza in the past 124 days since the Israeli offensive began with many more injured.
In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attacks, all foreign journalists had access via the Israeli army to many of the worst-hit Israeli border communities, obviously to show the World the horrors inflicted on them by Hamas but with the exception of the single CNN reporter, not one foreign journalist has been allowed into Gaza, not even embedded into the Israeli army as seems to have become the norm in recent times.
I have heard from Israeli supporters that the details which do come out of Gaza, courtesy of the brave journalists trapped inside, are not independent or 'real' Journalists but are just reporting Hamas propaganda but every media outlet has been trying to gain access to Gaza but have been denied by Israel, citing the Journalists safety concerns.
Media organisations have sent letters to the Israeli's and even took them to the Israeli High Court, arguing they would take responsibility for their own safety but they refuse to allow access and the BBC's Jeremy Bowen, reporting from Jerusalem has said: 'There's no foreign correspondent worth their salt who doesn't want that access - to evaluate the situation first-hand. Why aren't we getting it? I can only surmise that Israel is not allowing reporters to work freely inside Gaza, because their soldiers are doing things they do not want us to see.'
The Israel military like to describe themselves as the most moral army in the world but until journalists are allowed to see for themselves, and with the news that is getting out seeming to make a mockery of that statement, we can only speculate that the Israeli's concern is that journalists will uncover evidence that backs up those allegations of war crimes and genocide.
What are we to deduce otherwise?
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, 28 February 2024
Journalists In Gaza
Sunday, 18 April 2021
GB News Coming Soon
British Television News is ruled over by Ofcom, the Office of Communications, which ensure that the television news channels keep to a Broadcasting code of accuracy, impartiality and fairness so the arrival of the right wing GB News channel this year shouldn't be too much of concern, they are bound by the rules the same as everyone else.
The channel, led by former BBC host Andrew Neil, has set itself up as a mixture of news, opinion, and debate and is being described as a British version of right-wing network Fox News which consistently puts out misinformation but America has no regulator, we do and Ofcom booted Fox News off all the UK services for not being accurate, impartial or fair so GB News will be very short lived if it follows that blueprint.
GB News Chairman Andrew Neil was always politically to the right, he has some very right wing views on AIDS and Climate Change and was a vocal supporter of both the Afghan and Iraq Wars but he is a first and foremost a journalist of some regard who has been at the game for longer than most which is why the names recruited so far are from both sides of the ideological curtian such as Michael Portillo, Diane Abbott, Kirsty Gallacher, Alastair Stewart, Nick Ferrari, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Rachel Johnson and Piers Morgan.
The Official BBC NEWS response is that it welcomes the competition and GB News refute any comparison with Fox News, stating that it will conform to Ofcom rules on due impartiality but i am certain that Ofcom will be watching very closely that it does.
Saturday, 23 May 2020
About Time Piers Morgan Did Some Good
During the current Coronavirus pandemic, Piers Morgan is on the end of a lot of admiration for actually been doing his job well and holding the Government feet to the fire but he has a long way to go to be forgiven for all of the awful stuff he has done in the past.
While editor of the News of the World, he was sacked by Rupert Mrdoch for publishing photographs of Earl Charles Spencer's wife leaving an addictive disorders clinic and moved to the Daily Mirror where he was warned for a breach of the Code of Conduct and using insider information when he purchased £67,000 worth of Viglen shares in his first wife's name the day before the Daily Mirror's City Slickers column tipped Viglen as a good buy, sending the shares soaring, his first wife soon becoming his former wife after his affair with a fellow journalist.
He was then sacked by the Mirror in the wake of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, authorising the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers and after discovering they were fakes, refused to apologise, stating that the abuse shown in the photographs is similar to the sort of abuse which was happening in the British Army in Iraq at the time.
He is also currently under police investigation for his role in phone hacking allegations during his time as Mirror editor and don't expect Jeremy Clarkson to appear on any of his shows anytime soon, the former Top Gear presenter has vowed to punch him on sight.
The Clarkson row started after the Mirror obtained printed paparazzi photographs of Clarkson kissing a woman who wasn't his wife and Clarkson then punched him at the 2004 Press Awards to cheers from the watching journalists.
Piers Moron as Ian Hislop calls him, may finally be doing a bit of good but that's finally after a career of being a massive, massive idiot.
While editor of the News of the World, he was sacked by Rupert Mrdoch for publishing photographs of Earl Charles Spencer's wife leaving an addictive disorders clinic and moved to the Daily Mirror where he was warned for a breach of the Code of Conduct and using insider information when he purchased £67,000 worth of Viglen shares in his first wife's name the day before the Daily Mirror's City Slickers column tipped Viglen as a good buy, sending the shares soaring, his first wife soon becoming his former wife after his affair with a fellow journalist.
He was then sacked by the Mirror in the wake of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, authorising the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers and after discovering they were fakes, refused to apologise, stating that the abuse shown in the photographs is similar to the sort of abuse which was happening in the British Army in Iraq at the time.
He is also currently under police investigation for his role in phone hacking allegations during his time as Mirror editor and don't expect Jeremy Clarkson to appear on any of his shows anytime soon, the former Top Gear presenter has vowed to punch him on sight.
The Clarkson row started after the Mirror obtained printed paparazzi photographs of Clarkson kissing a woman who wasn't his wife and Clarkson then punched him at the 2004 Press Awards to cheers from the watching journalists.
Piers Moron as Ian Hislop calls him, may finally be doing a bit of good but that's finally after a career of being a massive, massive idiot.
Wednesday, 15 April 2020
Press Journalists Facing Career Change
Journalists may be one of the Governments designated key workers so it is ironic that the biggest threat to their career choice comes at a time when there is a heightened interest in the news.
Prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, there were several ominous trends in the newspaper industry with declining sales but now they are not only facing print copies being returned unsold as customers stay at home but also a sharp decrease in advertisers as businesses and events shut down due to quarantines and significantly cut back or stop their newspaper advertising.
National newspaper sales fell over a fifth between the middle and end of March according to the Financial Times.
Many of the UK’s biggest print media groups have announced emergency measures with some local newspapers suspending issues and the Daily Mirror, Express and Star cutting pay and putting staff on leave.
The Financial Times, Guardian, Daily Mail, Metro, Evening Standard and Mail Online is asking staff to take pay cuts and some are considering becoming digital-only models, following in the footsteps of the Independent which stopped producing a physical newspaper.
Those companies who are still advertising have refused to allow their brands from appearing alongside articles about Coronavirus and as anyone who has picked up a newspaper recently can tell you, that's pretty much the only story in town at the moment.
Even Britain's top selling newspaper, the Sun, has been begging people to buy its rag again which it points out, costs less than a cup of coffee although the self-description of it 'providing a lifeline of trusted information for millions' is pushing it a bit, especially as has a £68m hole in it's accounts for it's previous hacking indiscretions.
To show solidarity with my fellow journalists i say buy a newspaper, just make it a decent one but if you get to the newsagents and the only one on the shelf is The Sun, enjoy your coffee and watch the BBC instead.
Prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, there were several ominous trends in the newspaper industry with declining sales but now they are not only facing print copies being returned unsold as customers stay at home but also a sharp decrease in advertisers as businesses and events shut down due to quarantines and significantly cut back or stop their newspaper advertising.
National newspaper sales fell over a fifth between the middle and end of March according to the Financial Times.
Many of the UK’s biggest print media groups have announced emergency measures with some local newspapers suspending issues and the Daily Mirror, Express and Star cutting pay and putting staff on leave.
The Financial Times, Guardian, Daily Mail, Metro, Evening Standard and Mail Online is asking staff to take pay cuts and some are considering becoming digital-only models, following in the footsteps of the Independent which stopped producing a physical newspaper.
Those companies who are still advertising have refused to allow their brands from appearing alongside articles about Coronavirus and as anyone who has picked up a newspaper recently can tell you, that's pretty much the only story in town at the moment.
Even Britain's top selling newspaper, the Sun, has been begging people to buy its rag again which it points out, costs less than a cup of coffee although the self-description of it 'providing a lifeline of trusted information for millions' is pushing it a bit, especially as has a £68m hole in it's accounts for it's previous hacking indiscretions.
To show solidarity with my fellow journalists i say buy a newspaper, just make it a decent one but if you get to the newsagents and the only one on the shelf is The Sun, enjoy your coffee and watch the BBC instead.
Sunday, 10 November 2019
Interviewing Politicians
Andrew Marr had a great analogy this morning for the Conservative Election pledge to hiring extra police, nurses and public servants.
'It's like you took away my rain coat ten years ago and after a decade of being cold and wet you give me back my coat and you expect me to be thankful?' he said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Savid Javid, who then went off on a tangent about Labour spending even though they haven't said what it would be yet.
Journalists get a bad press ironically, but the press and broadcast media are especially important at this time when an election campaign is ongoing and the pledges are made thick and fast.
All parties do it, promise something which turns out to be not quite as promised once it is dissected and tested and the public have to look at someone to fact check and do the investigating, and that is where the media comes in.
Another politician trick is to answer the question that they want to be asked rather than the one which they were actually asked and filibuster knowing that the interviewer only has a certain amount of time available, a sort of the more they talk the less time to be questioned on things they don't want to be questioned on tactic.
It is the job of the journalist, the good ones anyway, to ask the questions the politicians find uncomfortable and Andrew Marr is excellent at this as is Andrew Neil, John Snow, Robert Peston and Laura Kuenssberg and up until he retired, Jeremy Paxman was formidable at questioning, and making uncomfortable, politicians.
As for the press, the tabloids should not be taken too seriously as they have their colours fixed firmly to their masts and you won't find many newspapers that will take a balanced view means if you do read a newspaper during the election then the UK Newspaper line is Right Wing and Conservative leaning are The Sun, The Times, The Express, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail while in the Left's Corner is The Mirror with The Guardian and i more central-left and tend to be Liberal Democrats.
My suggestion for a balanced view is to get your political fill from the Broadcast media as they are regulated by OFCOM and have to show no bias and have to be balanced or risk huge fines and being taken off the air as happened with Fox News and RT when they were removed from British TV Platforms a few years ago.
As with most things, the golden rule is if what a politician is saying sounds too good to be true, it invariably is and trust a journalist to let you know if you look in the right places.
'It's like you took away my rain coat ten years ago and after a decade of being cold and wet you give me back my coat and you expect me to be thankful?' he said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Savid Javid, who then went off on a tangent about Labour spending even though they haven't said what it would be yet.
Journalists get a bad press ironically, but the press and broadcast media are especially important at this time when an election campaign is ongoing and the pledges are made thick and fast.
All parties do it, promise something which turns out to be not quite as promised once it is dissected and tested and the public have to look at someone to fact check and do the investigating, and that is where the media comes in.
Another politician trick is to answer the question that they want to be asked rather than the one which they were actually asked and filibuster knowing that the interviewer only has a certain amount of time available, a sort of the more they talk the less time to be questioned on things they don't want to be questioned on tactic.
It is the job of the journalist, the good ones anyway, to ask the questions the politicians find uncomfortable and Andrew Marr is excellent at this as is Andrew Neil, John Snow, Robert Peston and Laura Kuenssberg and up until he retired, Jeremy Paxman was formidable at questioning, and making uncomfortable, politicians.
As for the press, the tabloids should not be taken too seriously as they have their colours fixed firmly to their masts and you won't find many newspapers that will take a balanced view means if you do read a newspaper during the election then the UK Newspaper line is Right Wing and Conservative leaning are The Sun, The Times, The Express, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail while in the Left's Corner is The Mirror with The Guardian and i more central-left and tend to be Liberal Democrats.
My suggestion for a balanced view is to get your political fill from the Broadcast media as they are regulated by OFCOM and have to show no bias and have to be balanced or risk huge fines and being taken off the air as happened with Fox News and RT when they were removed from British TV Platforms a few years ago.
As with most things, the golden rule is if what a politician is saying sounds too good to be true, it invariably is and trust a journalist to let you know if you look in the right places.
Wednesday, 2 October 2019
Media Tightrope For Harry & Meghan
While i am no fan of the Royals, i do have some sympathy with Prince Harry and his wife regarding the press and the Daily Mail in particular.
The Daily Mail has always seemed to have it in for Meghan Markle which plays very well with the Daily Mail right wing audience, her being non-British, outspoken and not as white as the usual stock of British Royals which ticks all the boxes for hate figure for the readership.
Over the past few months we have been treated to the Mail's headlines concerning multiple embarrassing stories involving the duchess’s father, their use of private jets, the refusal to allow media coverage of the christening of their son and the cost of renovations at their home but the straw that seems to have broken the camels back is the publication of a personal letter Meghan sent to her father.
With Harry tying the treatment of his wife to that of his mother is where my sympathy starts to wane because Princess Diana, whilst complaining about press intrusion, would go out of her way to make sure that journalists just happened to be present when she 'secretly' visited a hospital or, as in that famous photo of her checking to make sure the press was outside, before making her exit from a gym.
Harry's slandering of 'parts of the media' is squarely aimed at the Tabloid Press as he took his complaint initially to the Associated Press which rules over acceptable practise for newspapers but as it is self-regulating, unlike the Broadcast media, found the Mail's actions acceptable.
I am right behind Harry and Meghan's court action against The Mail newspaper over the publishing of the handwritten letter she had sent to her father, the tabloid press is a stain on journalism and needs to be bought to heel and regulated, but it is a very taut tightrope they are treading because the media is a very sharp double edged sword and if they want the good publicity, they had better not throw too much mud too widely because when it comes to the publicity they crave, they need the media including the 'gutter press' like the Mail.
The Daily Mail has always seemed to have it in for Meghan Markle which plays very well with the Daily Mail right wing audience, her being non-British, outspoken and not as white as the usual stock of British Royals which ticks all the boxes for hate figure for the readership.
Over the past few months we have been treated to the Mail's headlines concerning multiple embarrassing stories involving the duchess’s father, their use of private jets, the refusal to allow media coverage of the christening of their son and the cost of renovations at their home but the straw that seems to have broken the camels back is the publication of a personal letter Meghan sent to her father.
With Harry tying the treatment of his wife to that of his mother is where my sympathy starts to wane because Princess Diana, whilst complaining about press intrusion, would go out of her way to make sure that journalists just happened to be present when she 'secretly' visited a hospital or, as in that famous photo of her checking to make sure the press was outside, before making her exit from a gym.
Harry's slandering of 'parts of the media' is squarely aimed at the Tabloid Press as he took his complaint initially to the Associated Press which rules over acceptable practise for newspapers but as it is self-regulating, unlike the Broadcast media, found the Mail's actions acceptable.
I am right behind Harry and Meghan's court action against The Mail newspaper over the publishing of the handwritten letter she had sent to her father, the tabloid press is a stain on journalism and needs to be bought to heel and regulated, but it is a very taut tightrope they are treading because the media is a very sharp double edged sword and if they want the good publicity, they had better not throw too much mud too widely because when it comes to the publicity they crave, they need the media including the 'gutter press' like the Mail.
Monday, 9 September 2019
Lying Politicians
It is an undeniable fact that Politicians lie, some have catastrophic consequences like Tony Blair and George W Bush with ended up with a million deaths and some are broken manifesto pledges which they never had any intention of keeping and some are a way to try and gain your vote.
American President Donald Trump is the king of liars, The Washington Post counts over 12,000 false and misleading statements from Trump since becoming president in January 2017 but we have our very own liar in Boris Johnson who has been sacked twice for flat out lying.
Channel 4's head of news, Dorothy Byrne, has defended the right of journalists to call out politicians when they tell lies and pointed her finger squarely at Boris Johnson, calling him 'a known liar'.
Byrne said: 'We need to start calling politicians out as liars when they lie. If we continue to be so polite, how will our viewers know that politicians are lying"?
The claim by Boris Johnson during the Brexit campaign that leaving the EU would free up £350 million per week which would go to the NHS was a brazen lie but it was effective in that by the time it was exposed, the lie had been repeated often enough to have gained traction, if wrongly.
As we have no mechanism to remove the Right Honourable Members of Parliament if it is later discovered that they lied or if they have their hands in the expenses till, they just get away with it and it falls to Journalists to shout the loudest, point the finger and bring the liars to account.
The Press doesn't have a great reputation, many being just as capable of lying as the politicians but broadcast journalism, in the UK anyway, is regulated tighter and held to a higher standard and stand between the politicians lies and the viewer.
Donald Trump makes much of branding media outlets who don't pander to his lies as fake news but that is because they expose his falsehoods and don't just accept them at face value.
That we just accept that Politicians spin, show selected information and flat out lie should never become the norm, it can never be right for the people in power to lie to their own citizens for their own political advantage.
In a recent interview, an MP said Parliament would be empty if politicians were punished for telling lies and maybe if a few more were punished we can start believing them, even the well known liars.
American President Donald Trump is the king of liars, The Washington Post counts over 12,000 false and misleading statements from Trump since becoming president in January 2017 but we have our very own liar in Boris Johnson who has been sacked twice for flat out lying.
Channel 4's head of news, Dorothy Byrne, has defended the right of journalists to call out politicians when they tell lies and pointed her finger squarely at Boris Johnson, calling him 'a known liar'.
Byrne said: 'We need to start calling politicians out as liars when they lie. If we continue to be so polite, how will our viewers know that politicians are lying"?
The claim by Boris Johnson during the Brexit campaign that leaving the EU would free up £350 million per week which would go to the NHS was a brazen lie but it was effective in that by the time it was exposed, the lie had been repeated often enough to have gained traction, if wrongly.
As we have no mechanism to remove the Right Honourable Members of Parliament if it is later discovered that they lied or if they have their hands in the expenses till, they just get away with it and it falls to Journalists to shout the loudest, point the finger and bring the liars to account.
The Press doesn't have a great reputation, many being just as capable of lying as the politicians but broadcast journalism, in the UK anyway, is regulated tighter and held to a higher standard and stand between the politicians lies and the viewer.
Donald Trump makes much of branding media outlets who don't pander to his lies as fake news but that is because they expose his falsehoods and don't just accept them at face value.
That we just accept that Politicians spin, show selected information and flat out lie should never become the norm, it can never be right for the people in power to lie to their own citizens for their own political advantage.
In a recent interview, an MP said Parliament would be empty if politicians were punished for telling lies and maybe if a few more were punished we can start believing them, even the well known liars.
Friday, 3 May 2019
World Press Freedom Day
Today is World Press Freedom Day and The UN is highlighting the vital role of a free press for democracy with the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres saying that: 'No democracy is complete without access to transparent and reliable information' but in the current climate that can be deadly.
In 2018, there were 95 journalists killed during the course of their work according to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) with the most deadly being Afghanistan (16 deaths), Mexico (11), Yemen (8), Syria (8), India (7), and America (5).
The IJF reason that increasing intolerance to reporting, populism, as well as corruption and crime are important factors as they contribute to an environment in which there are more journalists killed for covering their communities, cities and countries, than for reporting in armed conflict zones.
Almost 260 journalists are imprisoned worldwide for activities related to their work and the Committee to Protect Journalists, says anti-press rhetoric has become endemic in many countries, pointing in particular to the Philippines and the US where: 'Online harassment and its very real threats to journalists, especially women, has compounded the already challenging environment'
In its World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) describes the situation in the US as 'problematic' and adding 'Never before have US journalists been subjected to so many death threats'.
RSF also raise the issue of journalism in Mexico where collusion between officials and organisd crime pose a grave threat to journalist's safety.
Journalism is far more than simple fact reporting, it shines a bright light on the places where some shady people in power don't want it shining which makes it so vitally important to all of us.
In 2018, there were 95 journalists killed during the course of their work according to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) with the most deadly being Afghanistan (16 deaths), Mexico (11), Yemen (8), Syria (8), India (7), and America (5).
The IJF reason that increasing intolerance to reporting, populism, as well as corruption and crime are important factors as they contribute to an environment in which there are more journalists killed for covering their communities, cities and countries, than for reporting in armed conflict zones.
Almost 260 journalists are imprisoned worldwide for activities related to their work and the Committee to Protect Journalists, says anti-press rhetoric has become endemic in many countries, pointing in particular to the Philippines and the US where: 'Online harassment and its very real threats to journalists, especially women, has compounded the already challenging environment'
In its World Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) describes the situation in the US as 'problematic' and adding 'Never before have US journalists been subjected to so many death threats'.
RSF also raise the issue of journalism in Mexico where collusion between officials and organisd crime pose a grave threat to journalist's safety.
Journalism is far more than simple fact reporting, it shines a bright light on the places where some shady people in power don't want it shining which makes it so vitally important to all of us.
Saturday, 27 April 2019
Shooting The Messenger
Theresa May's Government is the leakiest of any Government in recent times, mainly as she has so many enemies surrounding her desperate to undermine her at every turn that they look to make her look weak at every opportunity.
It is with this in mind that the briefing at the top secret National Security meeting regarding the security implication of the Chinese firm, Huawei, running our 5G network, was leaked to the Times newpaper.
MI5 and MI6 have gone apoplectic at the leak which could only have come from inside the Governments higher echelons who in turn have blasted the newspaper for printing the leak they received.
A classic case of shooting the messenger and an attempt to deflect that someone close to Theresa May, a signatory of the The Official Secrets Act, leaked notes from a meeting which was highly sensitive and highly confidential.
The larger implications are that members of the council have now warned that they will not freely share information if they fear it will leak out which will hinder the government in their job.
No journalist worthy of the name would turn down such information if handed to them on a plate and the case could easily be made for the public interest that they know the implications of Huawei running crucial UK infrastructure.
To try and direct outrage about this leak at the press is to miss the point when the rage should be aimed at Ministers leaking top-secret meetings on national security as a way to harm the Prime Minister.
It is with this in mind that the briefing at the top secret National Security meeting regarding the security implication of the Chinese firm, Huawei, running our 5G network, was leaked to the Times newpaper.
MI5 and MI6 have gone apoplectic at the leak which could only have come from inside the Governments higher echelons who in turn have blasted the newspaper for printing the leak they received.
A classic case of shooting the messenger and an attempt to deflect that someone close to Theresa May, a signatory of the The Official Secrets Act, leaked notes from a meeting which was highly sensitive and highly confidential.
The larger implications are that members of the council have now warned that they will not freely share information if they fear it will leak out which will hinder the government in their job.
No journalist worthy of the name would turn down such information if handed to them on a plate and the case could easily be made for the public interest that they know the implications of Huawei running crucial UK infrastructure.
To try and direct outrage about this leak at the press is to miss the point when the rage should be aimed at Ministers leaking top-secret meetings on national security as a way to harm the Prime Minister.
Saturday, 30 March 2019
The Problem Of Reading Your News On Social Media
Being in everyday contact with teenagers and young adults over the past decade, something which has changed dramatically in that time is the use of Social Media, something which was relatively unheard of ten years ago.
Social media has massively complicated things and it’s not going anywhere anytime soon and while leaving to one side the deplorable damage of online harassment and cyberbullying which is a huge problem in itself, the second most frequent thing i hear is the youth of today getting their news direct from social media rather than more traditional sources.
I was always of the opinion that people in general could tell 'fake news' from 'real news' but it seems they can't and they take at face value something they read on Face book or Twitter and are all to ready to believe it rather than find out for themselves, double sourcing as we call it in journalism, before believing it.
While it's probably due to wanting to believe something if it is negative or positive against a person you like or dislike, the effects are shaping how people see the world and some less than reliable media outlets are only making things worse.
The like of Fox News and the Murdoch press are reknown for being less than truthful but viewers and readers will take at face value what they spew out because they are 'the media' and they can be trusted.
In the UK the broadcast media is regulated by OFCOM who make sure that what UK viewers see is fair and balanced and it was they who removed FOX News from TV Platforms because they failed to reach the standards of honesty required.
The problem is that if individuals spend their lives exposed only to unreliable news sources, it doesn't augur well for society and debate and our politicians don't help because as we saw with The Iraq War and the Bush and Blair duo, they lie to reach their own ends.
Now we have Donald Trump who doesn't even try to hide his lies, he just repeats them enough times to drum them home and have them believed which means that the sources of reliable and honest news which you can trust is shrinking.
You can go online to blogs, face book or twitter feeds and find authors defending the lies which they have sometimes wittingly, sometimes unwittingly, repeated and that really isn't good for any of us.
Most dishearteningly is that the likes of FOX News and the UK tabloid press continuing to pollute the pool of journalism means that even those who diligently check their information are treated with suspicion and that suits anyone who for nefarious reasons, doesn't want the real truth out there.
Social media has massively complicated things and it’s not going anywhere anytime soon and while leaving to one side the deplorable damage of online harassment and cyberbullying which is a huge problem in itself, the second most frequent thing i hear is the youth of today getting their news direct from social media rather than more traditional sources.
I was always of the opinion that people in general could tell 'fake news' from 'real news' but it seems they can't and they take at face value something they read on Face book or Twitter and are all to ready to believe it rather than find out for themselves, double sourcing as we call it in journalism, before believing it.
While it's probably due to wanting to believe something if it is negative or positive against a person you like or dislike, the effects are shaping how people see the world and some less than reliable media outlets are only making things worse.
The like of Fox News and the Murdoch press are reknown for being less than truthful but viewers and readers will take at face value what they spew out because they are 'the media' and they can be trusted.
In the UK the broadcast media is regulated by OFCOM who make sure that what UK viewers see is fair and balanced and it was they who removed FOX News from TV Platforms because they failed to reach the standards of honesty required.
The problem is that if individuals spend their lives exposed only to unreliable news sources, it doesn't augur well for society and debate and our politicians don't help because as we saw with The Iraq War and the Bush and Blair duo, they lie to reach their own ends.
Now we have Donald Trump who doesn't even try to hide his lies, he just repeats them enough times to drum them home and have them believed which means that the sources of reliable and honest news which you can trust is shrinking.
You can go online to blogs, face book or twitter feeds and find authors defending the lies which they have sometimes wittingly, sometimes unwittingly, repeated and that really isn't good for any of us.
Most dishearteningly is that the likes of FOX News and the UK tabloid press continuing to pollute the pool of journalism means that even those who diligently check their information are treated with suspicion and that suits anyone who for nefarious reasons, doesn't want the real truth out there.
Tuesday, 31 July 2018
Working Out What's Fake News
The British Government is setting up an anti-fake news unit because we’re told that fake news is everywhere these days, especially by people who you suspect are partial to a little fake news themselves.
So what exactly is fake news?
It's news that's made up or not quite real or twists the facts, think Boris Johnson and that message on the side of that big red bus or Damian Green and his 'it was my assistant' when porn was found on his computer.
A good rule of thumb is if a politician calls a story 'fake new' they are generally covering something up, Donald Trump and his mad fake news ramblings about him not affairs with porn stars while paying them $130,000 and playboy models behind his wife's back is an excellent example.
What is now labelled 'Fake News' is just what we once called bullshit and most humans have a working brain which they can use to think for themselves and it comes with a pre-installed bullshit detector so while we can easily dismiss the Royals being lizards, sometimes the term fake news is simply used by people in power to dismiss opinions that will embarrass them or they simply don’t agree with.
It won't stop some people some believing mad stuff like climate change denial or that the Earth is flat but it's a worry that we are going to be told what is and isn't fake news by politicians.
It's not that difficult to make up your own mind about a story, just look at the evidence and the source and then engage that bit of the brain that filters out the made up bits and either dismiss it as bullshit or accept that someone has been caught out doing something they don't want you to know about and are trying to cover it up by loudly shouting 'fake news' at it.
So what exactly is fake news?
It's news that's made up or not quite real or twists the facts, think Boris Johnson and that message on the side of that big red bus or Damian Green and his 'it was my assistant' when porn was found on his computer.
A good rule of thumb is if a politician calls a story 'fake new' they are generally covering something up, Donald Trump and his mad fake news ramblings about him not affairs with porn stars while paying them $130,000 and playboy models behind his wife's back is an excellent example.
What is now labelled 'Fake News' is just what we once called bullshit and most humans have a working brain which they can use to think for themselves and it comes with a pre-installed bullshit detector so while we can easily dismiss the Royals being lizards, sometimes the term fake news is simply used by people in power to dismiss opinions that will embarrass them or they simply don’t agree with.
It won't stop some people some believing mad stuff like climate change denial or that the Earth is flat but it's a worry that we are going to be told what is and isn't fake news by politicians.
It's not that difficult to make up your own mind about a story, just look at the evidence and the source and then engage that bit of the brain that filters out the made up bits and either dismiss it as bullshit or accept that someone has been caught out doing something they don't want you to know about and are trying to cover it up by loudly shouting 'fake news' at it.
Friday, 17 November 2017
Broadcast Journalists Most Trusted
Due to the more stringent rules of accuracy and due impartiality they have to work under, broadcast journalists have always considered themselves above press journalists who are self-regulating.
UK broadcasters face large fines if they stray from the The Ofcom Broadcasting Code which is why in most polls where the public are asked which news outlet they trust the most, TV news always tops the press.
The latest Ipsi Mori poll asked the public: 'Of all the news sources which ONE source are you most likely to turn to for news you trust the most?' and it was an overwhelming thumbs up once again for broadcast journalism and especially the BBC who were trusted by 57% of the public with ITV trusted by 11%, Sky News and Channel 5 News both 5% and Channel 4 News 3%.
The Press did not come out of it very well at all with the Guardian Newspaper the most trusted with 4% and the Sun the least with a miserly 0.3% of the public believing what they read in the Murdoch red top.
In the brave new World of online news, Google News is the choice for trusted news (5%), then Yahoo News (4.5%), MSN News (4.4%), Twitter (3.8%) and bringing up the rear Facebook who is trusted by 3.7% of the public for trustworthy news coverage.
So if you want to know what's going on, turn on the BBC News Channel.
UK broadcasters face large fines if they stray from the The Ofcom Broadcasting Code which is why in most polls where the public are asked which news outlet they trust the most, TV news always tops the press.
The latest Ipsi Mori poll asked the public: 'Of all the news sources which ONE source are you most likely to turn to for news you trust the most?' and it was an overwhelming thumbs up once again for broadcast journalism and especially the BBC who were trusted by 57% of the public with ITV trusted by 11%, Sky News and Channel 5 News both 5% and Channel 4 News 3%.
The Press did not come out of it very well at all with the Guardian Newspaper the most trusted with 4% and the Sun the least with a miserly 0.3% of the public believing what they read in the Murdoch red top.
In the brave new World of online news, Google News is the choice for trusted news (5%), then Yahoo News (4.5%), MSN News (4.4%), Twitter (3.8%) and bringing up the rear Facebook who is trusted by 3.7% of the public for trustworthy news coverage.
So if you want to know what's going on, turn on the BBC News Channel.
Tuesday, 1 August 2017
Princess Diana And 1,299 Others
The country is currently in the grip of Diana Mania due to it being the 20th anniversary of the Princess dying in a subway in Paris.
Undoubtedly an awful event and a matter of deep, deep sadness for Diana's family as when someone you love dies it goes without saying that the sadness is all encompassing but every day we hear about the deaths of people unrelated to us and in comparison it barely registers once the news item moves on or we turn the page and it doesn't begin to compare to the death of a loved one.
Grief is not the normal response to the death of a stranger because if it were we would all be in a permanent state of grief.
Of course we empathise with those who have lost loved ones, but that's not the same thing.
We sometimes reflect on those who touched our lives from afar but in the scheme of things 1,300 of us die in the UK daily and for each of those 1,300 deaths someone, somewhere is mourning.
As tragic as the Diana death was, or David Bowie, Nelson Mandela, Whitney Houston, George Michael or Prince, when a celebrity dies i don't understand the outpouring of grief about someones death that we never actually knew.
The last few years has seen the death of so many talented individuals and it is right that we reflect upon their lives achievements and discuss it but we do that with anyone who dies, most importantly following the death of someone close to us but as they don't get top story slot on the news or a pull-out souvenir section in the newspaper doesn't make their passing any less sadder and especially not for those of us who didn't know them.
It is fine to feel sad about Diana and for her family but there was an average of 1,299 people who lost loved ones that day also who went without mention.
Undoubtedly an awful event and a matter of deep, deep sadness for Diana's family as when someone you love dies it goes without saying that the sadness is all encompassing but every day we hear about the deaths of people unrelated to us and in comparison it barely registers once the news item moves on or we turn the page and it doesn't begin to compare to the death of a loved one.
Grief is not the normal response to the death of a stranger because if it were we would all be in a permanent state of grief.
Of course we empathise with those who have lost loved ones, but that's not the same thing.
We sometimes reflect on those who touched our lives from afar but in the scheme of things 1,300 of us die in the UK daily and for each of those 1,300 deaths someone, somewhere is mourning.
As tragic as the Diana death was, or David Bowie, Nelson Mandela, Whitney Houston, George Michael or Prince, when a celebrity dies i don't understand the outpouring of grief about someones death that we never actually knew.
The last few years has seen the death of so many talented individuals and it is right that we reflect upon their lives achievements and discuss it but we do that with anyone who dies, most importantly following the death of someone close to us but as they don't get top story slot on the news or a pull-out souvenir section in the newspaper doesn't make their passing any less sadder and especially not for those of us who didn't know them.
It is fine to feel sad about Diana and for her family but there was an average of 1,299 people who lost loved ones that day also who went without mention.
Friday, 23 June 2017
Why Bad News Sells
Why does the News only show negative things is a question i have been asked a few times and my usual response is to shrug and waffle something about bad news sells.
Until know i had no real basis but science has come to the rescue and The London School of Economics and Political Science has done the research and found that newspaper and magazine sales increase by approximately 30% when the cover is negative rather than positive.
Of course editors know this, the 'if it bleeds, it leads' mantra is commonplace but as the boffins at LSEPS explain, there is a reason why we are drawn to the negative.
The conclusion they have reached is that it all comes down to what us humans decide to pay attention to and it is evolutionary advantageous to heed negative information as the potential costs of negative information far outweigh the potential benefits of positive information therefore the brain is predisposed towards focusing on negative information.
News content is predominantly negative because humans tend to be more attentive to negative information and as long as that continues the lead stories on newspaper front pages and the lead stories on broadcast media will always be a negative one to grab the readers or viewers attention.
Thanks science, you came good yet again.
Until know i had no real basis but science has come to the rescue and The London School of Economics and Political Science has done the research and found that newspaper and magazine sales increase by approximately 30% when the cover is negative rather than positive.
Of course editors know this, the 'if it bleeds, it leads' mantra is commonplace but as the boffins at LSEPS explain, there is a reason why we are drawn to the negative.
The conclusion they have reached is that it all comes down to what us humans decide to pay attention to and it is evolutionary advantageous to heed negative information as the potential costs of negative information far outweigh the potential benefits of positive information therefore the brain is predisposed towards focusing on negative information.
News content is predominantly negative because humans tend to be more attentive to negative information and as long as that continues the lead stories on newspaper front pages and the lead stories on broadcast media will always be a negative one to grab the readers or viewers attention.
Thanks science, you came good yet again.
Saturday, 17 June 2017
Reasons To Be Cheerful
All in all things have been pretty grim recently and after watching the news for a few days you would be excused for thinking everything is going to hell in a handcart but you can either refuse to watch the news anymore and ignore all the war, death and stupid people doing stupid things or take a step back and spend a few moments pondering just the good things we have.
There isn't anything we can do about Donald Trump, Brexit, ISIS, Theresa May or Syria and the media only reports the bad things, the great things in life we have to search out for ourselves, things that make you smile or lift your heart even if only temporarily, things which in my list would be:
Picnics in the park, colourful flowers, baby animals, proper orange juice, football, swearing parrots, Guns N Roses music, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Christmas, slippers, the Moon, David Boreanz, Paris, Marx Brothers, Cheese, Devon, meteor showers, Hotel California song, Kevin Bacon, Stephen King novels, the ending of the 1812 Overture, thunder storms, smartphones, random acts of kindness, Latte, singing in the shower, Christmas Trees, Dr Who, Dave TV Channel, It's a Wonderful Life film, Birthdays, chocolate, summer rain, Arsenal, puppies and kittens, Sweden, fresh crisp bed sheets, snow, my husband, Pirates of the Caribbean films, Morgan Freeman voice overs, fluffy clouds, 1970s photographs, Monty Python, winning on a scratch card, A Christmas Carol, laughing babies, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Michael J Fox, 11/22/36 book, raspberry ripple ice cream, your song on the radio, holidays from work, cream soda and a real fire on cold winter evenings.
When you think about it there are many more things lift us up then bring us down but yes the World can be a harsh, cold and vile place and it does seem to be run by people who really couldn't give a monkeys about the rest of us but as someone almost sang once, when you're feeling sad, simply remember your favorite things and then you won't feel so bad.
There isn't anything we can do about Donald Trump, Brexit, ISIS, Theresa May or Syria and the media only reports the bad things, the great things in life we have to search out for ourselves, things that make you smile or lift your heart even if only temporarily, things which in my list would be:
Picnics in the park, colourful flowers, baby animals, proper orange juice, football, swearing parrots, Guns N Roses music, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Christmas, slippers, the Moon, David Boreanz, Paris, Marx Brothers, Cheese, Devon, meteor showers, Hotel California song, Kevin Bacon, Stephen King novels, the ending of the 1812 Overture, thunder storms, smartphones, random acts of kindness, Latte, singing in the shower, Christmas Trees, Dr Who, Dave TV Channel, It's a Wonderful Life film, Birthdays, chocolate, summer rain, Arsenal, puppies and kittens, Sweden, fresh crisp bed sheets, snow, my husband, Pirates of the Caribbean films, Morgan Freeman voice overs, fluffy clouds, 1970s photographs, Monty Python, winning on a scratch card, A Christmas Carol, laughing babies, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Michael J Fox, 11/22/36 book, raspberry ripple ice cream, your song on the radio, holidays from work, cream soda and a real fire on cold winter evenings.
When you think about it there are many more things lift us up then bring us down but yes the World can be a harsh, cold and vile place and it does seem to be run by people who really couldn't give a monkeys about the rest of us but as someone almost sang once, when you're feeling sad, simply remember your favorite things and then you won't feel so bad.
Saturday, 11 February 2017
Fake News Phenomenon Not New
Fake News seems to be in the news quite a lot recently as though it is a new phenomenon but it has been with us for as long as i have been reading and watching news and we then called it satire.
There was even a newspaper, The Sunday Sport, which was nothing but fake news with front pages such as 'WW2 bomber found on Moon' and 'NHS Pay For Rippers Sex Change'.
With the rise of the internet and social media, fake news seems to be escalating the problem as the general public seems to have developed a capacity to believe anything that’s put in front of them.
We had Brass Eye, a brilliant show which was massive in the 90s which was a parody of a news show and would dupe big name celebrities in supporting absurd, outrageous campaigns such as the anti-paedophile charity Nonce-Sense leading to the amazingly brilliant TV moment where Phil Collins solemnly looked at the camera and saying the immortal words: 'I'm talking Nonce Sense!'
Anyone with half a brain cell would know that the likes of the Sunday Sport and Brass Eye were satirical and not to be taken seriously but fake news has been around in 'proper' journalism since the printing press was invented.
The tabloid newspapers in the UK are renown for less than truthful stories, Jasper Carrot made a career on the basis that The Sun was printing absurdly inaccurate stories and despite the high profile Leveson Inquiry, still do today.
Fox News is a byword for laughably bad journalism to prove it isn't just the gutter press that indulges in the process of 'making stuff up'.
What we once called satire or parody is now presented as fake news but when the President or Prime Minister says it, it has an ulterior motive because more than anything, they don't want journalists reporting anything that may show them in a bad light so if they bandy about the 'fake news' title, then all journalism gets tarred with that brush and is diminished in the eyes of the readers and viewers.
So Presidents and Prime Ministers can come out with the most outlandish claims and wag a finger at anyone who questions them but that is exactly what journalists should be doing, questioning.
If we don't, we end up in a situation after 9/11 where George W Bush and his administration ride roughshod over the truth and the poor American media failed to fully question the absurd claims and we cartwheeled into unjustifiable wars.
The internet may have amplified it but fake news has always been with us and i refuse to believe that the public has lost the ability to recognise satire from proper news and the whole 'fake news' thing is a way for the powerful to try and shut down debate on their own absurd claims and outright lies.
There was even a newspaper, The Sunday Sport, which was nothing but fake news with front pages such as 'WW2 bomber found on Moon' and 'NHS Pay For Rippers Sex Change'.
With the rise of the internet and social media, fake news seems to be escalating the problem as the general public seems to have developed a capacity to believe anything that’s put in front of them.
We had Brass Eye, a brilliant show which was massive in the 90s which was a parody of a news show and would dupe big name celebrities in supporting absurd, outrageous campaigns such as the anti-paedophile charity Nonce-Sense leading to the amazingly brilliant TV moment where Phil Collins solemnly looked at the camera and saying the immortal words: 'I'm talking Nonce Sense!'
Anyone with half a brain cell would know that the likes of the Sunday Sport and Brass Eye were satirical and not to be taken seriously but fake news has been around in 'proper' journalism since the printing press was invented.
The tabloid newspapers in the UK are renown for less than truthful stories, Jasper Carrot made a career on the basis that The Sun was printing absurdly inaccurate stories and despite the high profile Leveson Inquiry, still do today.
Fox News is a byword for laughably bad journalism to prove it isn't just the gutter press that indulges in the process of 'making stuff up'.
What we once called satire or parody is now presented as fake news but when the President or Prime Minister says it, it has an ulterior motive because more than anything, they don't want journalists reporting anything that may show them in a bad light so if they bandy about the 'fake news' title, then all journalism gets tarred with that brush and is diminished in the eyes of the readers and viewers.
So Presidents and Prime Ministers can come out with the most outlandish claims and wag a finger at anyone who questions them but that is exactly what journalists should be doing, questioning.
If we don't, we end up in a situation after 9/11 where George W Bush and his administration ride roughshod over the truth and the poor American media failed to fully question the absurd claims and we cartwheeled into unjustifiable wars.
The internet may have amplified it but fake news has always been with us and i refuse to believe that the public has lost the ability to recognise satire from proper news and the whole 'fake news' thing is a way for the powerful to try and shut down debate on their own absurd claims and outright lies.
Sunday, 15 January 2017
BuzzFeed and Journalism
Obama was the first black President but Trump is about to make history as the nation's first orange one but the colour everyone is interested in is Golden, as in the colour of the showers that the next President has a preference for.
As if he isn't mock-worthy enough already, the four times bankrupt businessman has given further ammunition to anyone who wants it despite his protestations that the prostitute piss party in the Moscow hotel room did not happen.
Although Trump seemed to take umbrage at CNN, digital media 'BuzzFeed' were the outfit who made the decision to publish an intelligence report apparently commissioned by Trump's Republicans opponents, filled with salacious and unsubstantiated claims about the next Presidents outrageous behaviour in Russia.
The news website posted the unredacted documents with a warning that the contents were 'unverified and potentially unverifiable' but put the rest of the media in the position of either ignoring a story in the public domain which they had sat on for weeks as it was not independently verified or repeating the allegations with the previous mentioned caveats which they almost all did.
Some critics have rounded on BuzzFeed, calling it irresponsible for letting loose 'gossip and rumour' who replied that: 'Publishing this document was not an easy or simple call, and people of good will may disagree with our choice. But publishing this dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017' and repeated the warning that reason to doubt the allegations.
My reading of the situation is that both the UK and US intelligence chiefs appeared to be giving the 'rumours and gossip' some credibility so have a weight of legitimacy about them coupled with Trump's own strong rejection of reports that Russia had hacked the US election and his subsequent back-down which shows an immediate knee-jerk reaction to dismiss and belittle anything which doesn't show him in a good light until the proof is such that he has to accept it.
Throw in the racist, sexist and 'pussy grabbing' remarks and mocking of the disabled reporter along with the arguments with the parents of the dead soldier which show his moral bar isn't set very high and you could very well believe it all.
As for Buzzfeed, to publish unverified intelligence is irresponsible and a bit troubling that they see it as the way journalism works in 2017 which it isn't and should never be, a minimum of double sourcing is lesson one in any college journalism course.
To their credit the UK and US broadcasting media rejected reporting the allegations until they were in the public domain and then draped them so full of caveats that they watered them down (excuse the pun) as much as possible to leave nobody in any doubt that these allegations were unverified.
What this does seem to show is the difference between 'new media' and 'old media' who are aware that their credibility is at stake if they publish or broadcast something as meaty as this without proof to say nothing of possible slander proceedings, something that 'new media' seem indifferent to.
Whether it turns out to be true or not, the mud has been thrown and it will amusingly stick to Trump throughout his tenure and i'm happy with that as he is well worthy of all mockery coming his way but my concern is that Buzzfeed will be considered 'journalism' which it isn't because Editors of any respected news organisation know that to publish information it knows may not be true and has no supporting evidence is not how journalism works.
As if he isn't mock-worthy enough already, the four times bankrupt businessman has given further ammunition to anyone who wants it despite his protestations that the prostitute piss party in the Moscow hotel room did not happen.
Although Trump seemed to take umbrage at CNN, digital media 'BuzzFeed' were the outfit who made the decision to publish an intelligence report apparently commissioned by Trump's Republicans opponents, filled with salacious and unsubstantiated claims about the next Presidents outrageous behaviour in Russia.
The news website posted the unredacted documents with a warning that the contents were 'unverified and potentially unverifiable' but put the rest of the media in the position of either ignoring a story in the public domain which they had sat on for weeks as it was not independently verified or repeating the allegations with the previous mentioned caveats which they almost all did.
Some critics have rounded on BuzzFeed, calling it irresponsible for letting loose 'gossip and rumour' who replied that: 'Publishing this document was not an easy or simple call, and people of good will may disagree with our choice. But publishing this dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017' and repeated the warning that reason to doubt the allegations.
My reading of the situation is that both the UK and US intelligence chiefs appeared to be giving the 'rumours and gossip' some credibility so have a weight of legitimacy about them coupled with Trump's own strong rejection of reports that Russia had hacked the US election and his subsequent back-down which shows an immediate knee-jerk reaction to dismiss and belittle anything which doesn't show him in a good light until the proof is such that he has to accept it.
Throw in the racist, sexist and 'pussy grabbing' remarks and mocking of the disabled reporter along with the arguments with the parents of the dead soldier which show his moral bar isn't set very high and you could very well believe it all.
As for Buzzfeed, to publish unverified intelligence is irresponsible and a bit troubling that they see it as the way journalism works in 2017 which it isn't and should never be, a minimum of double sourcing is lesson one in any college journalism course.
To their credit the UK and US broadcasting media rejected reporting the allegations until they were in the public domain and then draped them so full of caveats that they watered them down (excuse the pun) as much as possible to leave nobody in any doubt that these allegations were unverified.
What this does seem to show is the difference between 'new media' and 'old media' who are aware that their credibility is at stake if they publish or broadcast something as meaty as this without proof to say nothing of possible slander proceedings, something that 'new media' seem indifferent to.
Whether it turns out to be true or not, the mud has been thrown and it will amusingly stick to Trump throughout his tenure and i'm happy with that as he is well worthy of all mockery coming his way but my concern is that Buzzfeed will be considered 'journalism' which it isn't because Editors of any respected news organisation know that to publish information it knows may not be true and has no supporting evidence is not how journalism works.
Tuesday, 10 January 2017
Section 40 Not The Complete Answer
Much furore over Section 40 which is the Governments plan to shackle the press after the Leveson enquiry highlighted years of prolonged harassment and gross invasions of privacy by the press.
The tippign point proved to be the actions of the tabloids over the missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler whose phone they hacked and even deleted messages on the girls phone to make room for more messages to listen to from distraught friends and family.
That it gave the family and police hope that Milly was still alive and deleting her messages, when she was later found dead, and the News of The World and Sun newspaper were found responsible, the cry went up that something had to be done to stop the press from continuing to act in such an abhorrent way.
At the time the press was self-regulating which was obviously not working so the Government have now come up with Section 40 which will see state regulation of newspapers.
Those newspapers who refuse to sign up to the regulator will be subject to face paying all the legal costs of all sides even in cases they win where they have been found not guilty of impinging on peoples privacy.
Malpractice by the press needs to be stopped but it is a fine balancing act between a press that is free to investigate and criticize and one that takes advantage of this freedom to harass and perform gross invasions of privacy.
I don't know the answer but self-regulation has not worked but the Government deciding what newspaper can and can't print is not a direction we want to be heading so maybe it should be a case of only certain newspapers, those with a record of illegal practises, being brought under state regulation with a threat of others to follow if they take the dark road travelled by the likes of the Murdoch Press who were by far the main cause of the need to act in the first place.
The tippign point proved to be the actions of the tabloids over the missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler whose phone they hacked and even deleted messages on the girls phone to make room for more messages to listen to from distraught friends and family.
That it gave the family and police hope that Milly was still alive and deleting her messages, when she was later found dead, and the News of The World and Sun newspaper were found responsible, the cry went up that something had to be done to stop the press from continuing to act in such an abhorrent way.
At the time the press was self-regulating which was obviously not working so the Government have now come up with Section 40 which will see state regulation of newspapers.
Those newspapers who refuse to sign up to the regulator will be subject to face paying all the legal costs of all sides even in cases they win where they have been found not guilty of impinging on peoples privacy.
Malpractice by the press needs to be stopped but it is a fine balancing act between a press that is free to investigate and criticize and one that takes advantage of this freedom to harass and perform gross invasions of privacy.
I don't know the answer but self-regulation has not worked but the Government deciding what newspaper can and can't print is not a direction we want to be heading so maybe it should be a case of only certain newspapers, those with a record of illegal practises, being brought under state regulation with a threat of others to follow if they take the dark road travelled by the likes of the Murdoch Press who were by far the main cause of the need to act in the first place.
Wednesday, 20 July 2016
Doing Something Better Than Doing Nothing
When some people learn what i do to pay my bar bill they make a remark about not watching the news anymore as it's too depressing or moan about journalists only concentrating on bad news.
Hard to disagree with the first point, the news can be depressing but i can shake my head at the second point, the news reflects what is happening in society and if bad things happen, then these bad things have to be reported.
Recently, it appears that the bad news has been coming thick and fast with Brexit, Orlando, Nice, Donald Trump, Shootings, Celebrity deaths, Climate Change, racism, Turkish coup, Austerity, Syria and Iraq so the feeling that things are spinning too fast for some is understandable.
The answer for some is to withdraw and stop reading newspapers and make use of the remote control when the introductory music for the news starts up.
As tempting that option may be, we can't stop the world and let anyone off as the World isn't stopping and we are stuck here turning with it.
The answer is to do the opposite of burying your head in the sand and engage with the things that we can do something about and just reluctantly accept that there are some events that we can't.
If America votes in the tangerine coloured lunatic then nothing we can do about it, same as if a nations military decided to have a go at overthrowing the Government or a religious zealot decides to please their God by killing as many people as possible.
There are some things we can try and influence by demonstrating, voting, petitioning or educating so while doing nothing and avoiding hearing or reading about awful things is always an option, doing something to try and not make them happen in the first place is a much better one.
Hard to disagree with the first point, the news can be depressing but i can shake my head at the second point, the news reflects what is happening in society and if bad things happen, then these bad things have to be reported.
Recently, it appears that the bad news has been coming thick and fast with Brexit, Orlando, Nice, Donald Trump, Shootings, Celebrity deaths, Climate Change, racism, Turkish coup, Austerity, Syria and Iraq so the feeling that things are spinning too fast for some is understandable.
The answer for some is to withdraw and stop reading newspapers and make use of the remote control when the introductory music for the news starts up.
As tempting that option may be, we can't stop the world and let anyone off as the World isn't stopping and we are stuck here turning with it.
The answer is to do the opposite of burying your head in the sand and engage with the things that we can do something about and just reluctantly accept that there are some events that we can't.
If America votes in the tangerine coloured lunatic then nothing we can do about it, same as if a nations military decided to have a go at overthrowing the Government or a religious zealot decides to please their God by killing as many people as possible.
There are some things we can try and influence by demonstrating, voting, petitioning or educating so while doing nothing and avoiding hearing or reading about awful things is always an option, doing something to try and not make them happen in the first place is a much better one.
Friday, 6 May 2016
New Day, Sad Ending
The 'New Day' newspaper printed its last copy today, nine weeks after it printed it's first.
Needing sales of 200,000 to break even, it managed to find only 40,000 readers and so the publisher
have decided the tabloid was no longer financially viable and cut it's losses and closed today.
Considering that it was aimed at 'people who do not usually read newspapers', i did find a fatal flaw in their business plan but still sad to see yet another newspaper fold.
Needing sales of 200,000 to break even, it managed to find only 40,000 readers and so the publisher
have decided the tabloid was no longer financially viable and cut it's losses and closed today.
Considering that it was aimed at 'people who do not usually read newspapers', i did find a fatal flaw in their business plan but still sad to see yet another newspaper fold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)