?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

That was the news. Happy now?

Recently, the thing I've been getting most ranty about is bad journalism. It's always annoyed me, and I've always been aware of a certain amount of the spin and hyperbole and selective editing and outright lying that goes on, but either it's getting worse or I'm noticing it more. Sometimes it's the big stuff, sometimes it's the little stuff. For instance, on Tuesday the BBC had an article entitled What do you get if you divide science by God?, which started:

A prize-winning quantum physicist says a spiritual reality is veiled from us, and science offers a glimpse behind that veil.

Now, it's not really trying to mislead - it went on to explain two lines later that the prize that the scientist in question had won was the Templeton Prize, which is an essentially an enormous cash prize for shoehorning religion into science. (It's specifically designed to pay out more than the Nobel, because Templeton thought the Nobel ignored spirituality.) The problem here is that "prize-winning scientist" strongly implies that the prize was for, you know, SCIENCE, and gives more weight to this scientist's opinion than if he'd just been dubbed "a scientist" who believes that there's a spiritual reality that's veiled from us.

You can of course find far, far worse examples of journalism than that every day, even on the BBC site, but that one niggled at me because it was so pointless, and because I still - for some reason - expect better from the Beeb.

Charlie Brooker's new series Newswipe, which started last night, is being promoted as a sort of "catch up with some of the news if you haven't been paying attention" show, but it's mostly a savage indictment of modern journalism. The first show tried to explain what Charlie had learned about the credit crunch from the news channels and shows (not much that's in any way meaningful or comprehensible); touched on media spin and how PR agencies can set the news agenda and point of view, with reference to the "Natwest Three"; and finished up with a scathing look at the coverage of the German school shooting, and how the kind of coverage it got may actually be causing more of these incidents:



The whole thing is well worth watching - as well as being intelligent and incisive, it's very funny, as always. (If you've never encountered Brooker before: there will be sweariness and probably offensiveness.) It's available on iPlayer here, or on YouTube if you're not in the UK.

There is a crisis in journalism, for a variety of reasons (general cost-cutting, sacking of journalists, researchers and editors, the need for 24-hour TV and internet rolling news to be produced, the slow death of print media in general and regional reporting specifically, PR agency blurb being used as stories, proprieters influencing editorial direction, a toothless PCC) which all feed into each other. The internet in general and, I think, blogs in particular are going to be crucial in the next ten years or so, while we're in a transition period of how the "news" works. Someone has to be out there checking facts, calling out inaccuracies, and challenging bias. People like Ben Goldacre and Mailwatch are leading the charge. The internet also lets the people involved in stories have their own say and do things like the BHA's line-by-line rebuttal of an inaccurate newspaper article. It makes it much easier for people who are angry about news stories to band together and do something about it, as was shown in the last week or two by the campaign against the Scottish Sunday Express's obscene article about the Dunblane survivors, which resulted in an unconvincing but high-profile apology and an upcoming investigation by the PCC. And I think we're going to have to use all these tactics and more if we want to have a chance of countering the waves of misleading, alarmist propaganda that the majority of our news outlets seem to produce, to some degree or other, these days.

* Title, of course, from The Day Today, which we used to think was satire.

Comments

pentane
Mar. 27th, 2009 03:38 pm (UTC)
Interesting... I believe that understanding QM does lead to belief in some kind of spirituality.
_generica_
Mar. 28th, 2009 10:16 am (UTC)
My understanding of QM further solidified my atheism. And while I do believe that spirituality exists, I find most religious belief incomprehensible. Of course, religion != spirituality. :o)
pickwick
Mar. 28th, 2009 06:32 pm (UTC)
Heh, I have no idea, I don't understand QM! I haven't head that quantum scientists are more spiritual than other scientists, though, except maybe in a vague "open to the unknown" way.

Profile

bad wolf
pickwick
Notes from extinction

Latest Month

November 2010
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com