Sky's Lewis Goodall, soon to join Newsnight, has recently tweeted this:
Our old friend, the Number 10 source, is unfortunately right. It has been a bad election for the broadcasters because we don’t work together. If we change and do so for the next election, it’ll be better for us and (more importantly) our viewers: the voters. Let’s set up a debate/interview commission (as Sky has been calling for all year) and offer a programme of programmes across the networks with which leaders and parties can negotiate and accept or decline as a package. Strength in numbers.
Blog favourite Mark Lees replied:
I don't care whether broadcasters "work together" I just want broadcasters to present all sides of the debate in a fair way. In fact, less collaboration between broadcasters may help to avoid groupthink and media bubbles.I agree with Mark.
Strangely, I too don't agree with Lewis Goodall...Goodall is asking us to trust the broadcasters. That after a week when Channel 4 sent out a Fake News tweet alleging the PM had referred to "people of colour" when he clearly said "people of talent". Lewis Goodall leapt on that and indicated he had been viewing it over and over, and was so shocked...he was so eager to think the PM had said "people of colour". Eventually Channel 4 admitted their gross error and libel and took it down. Goodall offered no apology but accepted the correction.
ReplyDeleteSo can we really trust them? I don't think so. Instead, I made this suggestion on an earlier thread:
"I came to the conclusion that the Prime Minister should offer to be interviewed by all potential serious interviewers at length (say an hour each) but on his own terms. He should begin by choosing friendly and constructive interviewers. He should demand that the interviews take place at a place and time of his choosing eg an office at No 10, not a TV studio. He should have advisors on hand to pick up on any of these statistical traps set for him.
He could have a rule about time allocated to interviewer and interviewee - maybe 15-45 and that could be monitored in real time during the interview. Once the interviewer exceeds 15 mins in the hour, that would be the end of the interview. Such an approach would cut down on unnecessary interruptions.
This way I think he could redress the balance and yet ensure the PM was subject to proper scrutiny by the media. I don't think the media would turn down the opportunity to interview the PM on these terms."