Journalists
I admit I treat all writing by journalists - and all presentations by TV and radio journalists - with suspicion and I foolishly assume that everybody else does too.
Tonight I got into a heated discussion with someone I don't know who has 'friended' me on Facebook all the way from California. I like California. I also like Californians. Not always the most down-to-earth people in the world in my experience but very helpful and kind on a personal level.
The subject under discussion was UK politics. At one point he told me off for lecturing him. I had to say I wasn't lecturing - I was correcting him because he had written some stuff that was frankly bollocks. (No, I didn't write that word. He's Californian. I doubt if he would recognise it).
He had been telling me that UK politics is "centre left". I was a bit surprised that an American should claim that and asked how he knew. He said he considered himself well read. I asked what he read. He said he watched news programmes on TV and read the Times online. I asked if he'd come across the Independent or the Guardian. He hadn't.
I asked if he knew that UKIP had pushed the Conservative Party to the right over the past 15 years. I wondered what he knew about brexit Did he know the Labour Party in England and Wales had a new leader? Brexit was foreign to him but yes, he knew about Starmer and he thought he was really a replica of Tony Blair. I said (sarcastically) really, I didn't know that - Starmer's hardly in the job - but he didn't get the sarcasm.
Was he part of the independence movement in California? Certainly not. I told him a bit about the wish for independence in Scotland and recently in Wales. He said he was all for that.
Finally, I asked if he realised that no Brit on his timeline would ever dream of telling an American about US politics and suggested a bit of humility by Americans would not go amiss. He wasn't happy. I wanted him to unfriend me but he won't, despite my 'lecturing'.
But I'm still wondering: what the hell had he been reading? And what was his world view generally? I found out a bit more later, when he started a celebration of the life of Muammar Gadaffi. But I'm not getting into that now.
I don't subscribe to the idea that journalists lie. But when I read anything from a newspaper or hear anything from a TV journalist I automatically wonder:
- did this message come from your editor?
- what did he tell you to say?
- how have you changed what he wanted you to say?
- are you distorting the truth?
- what are you missing out?
(That really matters when you're dealing with SkyNews and the BBC).
We ascribe too much importance to newspapers and TV news programmes. And we don't criticise them enough.
Newspapers are dying on their arse. In Scotland, it looks as if both the Scotsman and the Herald are on their last legs, despite Scottish Government financial aid (which they repay by attacking the Scottish Government). The Scotsman because it's irrelevant and the Herald because it has turned into a one-trick pony, only selling copies to people who, like its journalists, hate the idea of independence - because that's all they ever write about.
I read the National. It's not great but I support it because (1) I want the last remaining newsagent's where I live to stay open, and (2) I am loyal to the cause of independence, even if the National sometimes isn't.
But who in Scotland reads the S*n, the Mail, the Express, the Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times, the i and (scuse me while I laugh) the Telegraph? I see little old ladies (I'm old but I'm not little or a lady) buying the Star and the Mirror and I wonder: what for? On the train, I've occasionally picked up the Metro because it was there but I wouldn't pay for it. These papers are all going down the plughole and frankly, good riddance. They contribute nothing to the gaiety of life. And there are too many of them.
I don't watch BBC news on any of its channels because I won't pay to be lied to.
I've complained this week about ITN News telling the public about "Scotland's biggest ballet school" (Ballet West) which is a private school that has absolutely no connection with Scotland or Scottish education but just happens to have fetched up in an isolated location at Taynuilt - and is now being investigated by Police Scotland for crimes of a sexual nature against young girls.
And I complained a month ago about a C4 News reporter staging a segment about how children were suffering because they weren't in school in the town where Nicola Sturgeon grew up and making it look and sound like a hellhole.
(In fairness to that journalist I've watched every report he's done since and they are squeaky clean).
There's a kind of spiral here: newspapers report what's happening on the telly. The TV news programmes report what's being written in the newspapers. But watching the media is our job. The public's. The best expression of disapproval is just to stop watching and stop buying.
Tonight I got into a heated discussion with someone I don't know who has 'friended' me on Facebook all the way from California. I like California. I also like Californians. Not always the most down-to-earth people in the world in my experience but very helpful and kind on a personal level.
The subject under discussion was UK politics. At one point he told me off for lecturing him. I had to say I wasn't lecturing - I was correcting him because he had written some stuff that was frankly bollocks. (No, I didn't write that word. He's Californian. I doubt if he would recognise it).
He had been telling me that UK politics is "centre left". I was a bit surprised that an American should claim that and asked how he knew. He said he considered himself well read. I asked what he read. He said he watched news programmes on TV and read the Times online. I asked if he'd come across the Independent or the Guardian. He hadn't.
I asked if he knew that UKIP had pushed the Conservative Party to the right over the past 15 years. I wondered what he knew about brexit Did he know the Labour Party in England and Wales had a new leader? Brexit was foreign to him but yes, he knew about Starmer and he thought he was really a replica of Tony Blair. I said (sarcastically) really, I didn't know that - Starmer's hardly in the job - but he didn't get the sarcasm.
Was he part of the independence movement in California? Certainly not. I told him a bit about the wish for independence in Scotland and recently in Wales. He said he was all for that.
Finally, I asked if he realised that no Brit on his timeline would ever dream of telling an American about US politics and suggested a bit of humility by Americans would not go amiss. He wasn't happy. I wanted him to unfriend me but he won't, despite my 'lecturing'.
But I'm still wondering: what the hell had he been reading? And what was his world view generally? I found out a bit more later, when he started a celebration of the life of Muammar Gadaffi. But I'm not getting into that now.
I don't subscribe to the idea that journalists lie. But when I read anything from a newspaper or hear anything from a TV journalist I automatically wonder:
- did this message come from your editor?
- what did he tell you to say?
- how have you changed what he wanted you to say?
- are you distorting the truth?
- what are you missing out?
(That really matters when you're dealing with SkyNews and the BBC).
We ascribe too much importance to newspapers and TV news programmes. And we don't criticise them enough.
Newspapers are dying on their arse. In Scotland, it looks as if both the Scotsman and the Herald are on their last legs, despite Scottish Government financial aid (which they repay by attacking the Scottish Government). The Scotsman because it's irrelevant and the Herald because it has turned into a one-trick pony, only selling copies to people who, like its journalists, hate the idea of independence - because that's all they ever write about.
I read the National. It's not great but I support it because (1) I want the last remaining newsagent's where I live to stay open, and (2) I am loyal to the cause of independence, even if the National sometimes isn't.
But who in Scotland reads the S*n, the Mail, the Express, the Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times, the i and (scuse me while I laugh) the Telegraph? I see little old ladies (I'm old but I'm not little or a lady) buying the Star and the Mirror and I wonder: what for? On the train, I've occasionally picked up the Metro because it was there but I wouldn't pay for it. These papers are all going down the plughole and frankly, good riddance. They contribute nothing to the gaiety of life. And there are too many of them.
I don't watch BBC news on any of its channels because I won't pay to be lied to.
I've complained this week about ITN News telling the public about "Scotland's biggest ballet school" (Ballet West) which is a private school that has absolutely no connection with Scotland or Scottish education but just happens to have fetched up in an isolated location at Taynuilt - and is now being investigated by Police Scotland for crimes of a sexual nature against young girls.
And I complained a month ago about a C4 News reporter staging a segment about how children were suffering because they weren't in school in the town where Nicola Sturgeon grew up and making it look and sound like a hellhole.
(In fairness to that journalist I've watched every report he's done since and they are squeaky clean).
There's a kind of spiral here: newspapers report what's happening on the telly. The TV news programmes report what's being written in the newspapers. But watching the media is our job. The public's. The best expression of disapproval is just to stop watching and stop buying.
Comments
Post a Comment