Having run out of time tonight (before yet another long week at work), here's a link to give you food for thought over the coming days...
It takes you to a long lecture from shy and retiring BBC media editor Amol Rajan called The Tortoise and the Share that will take you at least an hour to read (if you're determined to try).
It's packed with interesting thoughts and probably needs a considered overview from us, but - having no time left tonight - I'll just copy and paste a few paragraphs to infuriate your fancy instead:
The demands of rapacious social media, combined with the groupthink inherent in all pack journalism, makes covering politics highly prone to what, in my view, are errors of judgement. Let me re-iterate that I'm not talking about specific individuals here, but give you a couple of examples.
First, Moggmentum. I'm sure you all know who Jacob Rees-Mogg is. Last year, especially through what has become known as silly season, there was a burgeoning industry in speculation over whether this idiosyncratic and intelligent backbencher was a future leadership contender for the Tories. I read article after article after article about how he was the grassroots' favourite, and various Tories were coming together to plot his takeover, lest Theresa May fall.
But who does such speculation benefit, other than Jacob Rees-Mogg? And is there actually any substance to the story? It is of course one of those self-perpetuating things. Once the story starts to gather, if you excuse the pun, momentum, it does have the effect of inflating Rees-Mogg's reputation, and making him seem more plausible. But do ordinary members of the public really care about personalities in politics as much as journalists do? Runners and riders stories always seem to reflect the interest of hacks and pundits rather than audiences at home.
Or take an example from America. The mad boosterism around Oprah Winfrey is their version of the same thing. After her speech at the Golden Globes there was an explosion of chat online about whether she might run for President. Does that mean it should be covered as news? Hell no! But did CNN cover it as news? Hell yes! One of their reports carried the headline: "Sources: Oprah Winfrey 'actively thinking' about running for president".
Where to begin with this? I spend weekday evenings 'actively thinking' about becoming a reggae producer, or eating Nutella straight from the jar. That doesn't mean it's going to happen. The fact that this speculation was coming nearly a year before the mid-terms of Trump's first term was no barrier to the idle speculation. And if you actually read the story, it contained sentences such as: "One source emphasised that Winfrey has not made up her mind about running"... and "For now, it's all just talk". Er, you don't say.
Where to begin with that? Well, I'll probably leave that to you.
In lieu of that, I'll just point out that Amol's four "positive" recommendations for improving UK journalism (including BBC journalism) are very 'BBC' recommendations: (1) provide 'context' (BBC-style), (2) "fight for truth" by promoting things like the BBC's Reality Check, (3) have expert statistical fact-checkers on hand to immediately debunk those things you (the BBC) think need debunking, and (4) "speak for and with the poor, rather than to or at them".
And where to begin with that?
Well, not where BBC Amol begins for starters! I'm fed up with BBC reporters and their biased 'context', alarmed at their adjudicating 'reality checks', and concerned about their debunking intentions (and the direction they are likely to heavily tend towards thanks to the BBC's biases).
And as for "speaking for and with the poor", well, that needs a lot of 'unpacking'. Can such privileged BBC people really speak for the poor without projecting their own earnest fantasies onto them?
And where to begin with that?
Well, not where BBC Amol begins for starters! I'm fed up with BBC reporters and their biased 'context', alarmed at their adjudicating 'reality checks', and concerned about their debunking intentions (and the direction they are likely to heavily tend towards thanks to the BBC's biases).
And as for "speaking for and with the poor", well, that needs a lot of 'unpacking'. Can such privileged BBC people really speak for the poor without projecting their own earnest fantasies onto them?
Please have a read for yourselves (if you have time). What do you think of the BBC media editor's take on mainstream media reporting?
Isn't this is a new BBC high-up basically singing like a blithe-spirited lark from his new BBC bosses' hymn sheet?
