Is the media's fairness fair?

Some of you may have noticed that New York was not destroyed by hurricane Irene.

Some of you may not even know about what has been happening on the East Coast of the USA, so here is a brief catch up. There was a hurricane, its name was Irene. It went up the East coast of the USA. It reached New York and did very little damage, even though they were prepared for something a lot worse. Locals said it was 'just like any other tropical storm'.

Since then the New York city government has been ridiculed somewhat for over preparing.

Yeah I know! Over-preparing!?! What? Is that like being too rich, or too knowledgeable, ie things that aren't really bad at all because they are easily rectified and more often than not useful, not detrimental?

Sure if the mayor of New York had made everyone get into nuclear bomb shelters and didn't let them out for two days, I can imagine it would be time to kick off. But what happened was that high risk areas were evacuated, and then when the storm passed they left. How is this bad?

It bothers me that people in positions of responsibility these days can't win. Prepare too little, everything that happens is your fault, prepare too much, you get ridiculed for making too much of something, get it just right, well thats your job anyway, what congratulations do you need?

Occasionally, someone may actually say 'well done', but generally the life of a politician I think is one of a gratitude vacuum. Is this a good thing? I'm thinking not.

I guess the reason why newspapers rarely say good things about politicians is because they don't want to be seen as bias. But isn't it more bias never to report good stories than reporting them?

Maybe I just don't pick up on the stories that are positive but it just seems there is a growing attitude of dissatisfaction. This isn't helped by the further two points that the media seems to love.

1) Always give a blanced view point.

OK, OK, I know what you're thinking, surely you're in favour of a blanced view point? Well sure, in theory it sounds fine, but in reality it is impossible. Sure, when one thinks of creationism and evolution you can understand why both view points need to be represented.. But if you apply the idea to everything you end up having extreme view points broadcast or printed that don't really make sense. No matter what any political party does, no matter what any leader or citizen does, there is always going to be some sort of association somewhere that disagrees. Which means when Jeremy Clarkson makes a joke about truck drivers killing prostitutes, the media go to a hualiage company for comments. And when the hauliage company respond in a perfectly reasonable way (which was basically 'it was a joke, we're not offended, it isn't meant to be taken seriously') the media strain themselves further to find some organisation that will give them the pointless fury they desire (the English Collective of Prostitutes,) whoever they may be.

This means that there is always some negative view point and that in some cases they are clearly opinions that are off the wall. But the point is one man's off the wall, crazy view point, it anothers fair point, so no one can really decide for everyone else what a reasonable or wacky opinion is. And so every idots view gets heard. This then leads on to the next point; which is,

2) Nothing goes far enough

More money for pensioners? Not enough. More money for fighting knife crime? Not enough. More police on the street? No enough. Less regulation/more regulation for banks? Not enough/too much. Whatever someone does there is almost always a group willing to say that it doesn't go far enough.

Well, that might be their opinion, and I'm sure it is. But think of the world we're making for ourselves. We're making a world where nothing is ever good enough (which to an extent is true) but also where no improvement or victory or success is really apprciated. That isn't good.

So I'm going to do the reverse. I'm going to take a few minutes to scan the web and congratuate those in office on some of the things that they've done in the past few weeks.

1) Congratulations to the New York Major for helping keep people were safe through hurricane Irene.
2)Well done to the coalition government for getting the 'free schools' work done, so that this Autumn 24 free schools will open their doors
3) Congratulations to all the fighters who have managed to take Tripoli in Libya, and to all the NATO forces who have helped with the fighting (I hope and pray that the transition council make wise decisions that lead to a prosperous and free country)
4) Big welcome too, to the government initiative to force Universities to publish data on their courses regarding the employment rates of people on that course and their post degree salaries.
(so now you'll be able to see whether there is any point in doing a degree of a certain kind in a certain university).

The (BBC) Empire fights back

Ironically, the one thing that has dominated the media recently... is the media.

Thanks to News of the World hacking peoples phones News International now has a giant "kick me" sign on its back and the BBC and other media outlets are determined to make the absolute most of the opportunity to do so.

I don't think the BBC could make a more wanton display of delight as it give 24 hour news coverage to the phone-hacking scandal.

But at least there was one commentator on BBC news who had the strength to say that it was looking like a media "cat fight" and that if they didn't start covering some of the other issues properly they would lose credibility.

He's not joking. I'm no friend of Murdoch, but the fact that the European Monetary Union has almost fallen out of the sky and there is a famine in Somalia (apparently?) would surely suggest that it is time to have other news stories on the front page (metaphorically and literally).

But while this whole episode is kicking off I have a completely different concern with the media. One of the few stories that did manage to filter through the "kick him when he's down marathon" was the story of a nurse who might have killed some of her patients.

What concerned me was how this was reported. When the media wasn't trying to stir up a lynch mob to take one Murdock or another to the gallows, they were explaining what they knew about this nurse who was being questioned by the police.

In summary what they knew about her was this:

nothing.


In a display of rather mind numbingly shoddy journalism someone had accessed her facebook page and taken down a few quotes.

That's right; facebook. The thing to which we could all gain access if we wanted. The system where by if you want, you can say your married to your best friend for laughs and where people can read about your favourite TV programmes.

Chances are if people thought this sort of thing was relevant they could have tapped the suspects name in and found the page themselves. I assume that the privacy settings were not very high since the journalists could view it and unless they hacked her account... which in this environment even the most delinquent, walnut brained mammal would know it avoid.

But on to the real issue; what did they find? Well two things, first she describes herself as 'happy-go-lucky' and second that 'she had complained about work in her status updates'.

This is where things get really ridiculous. The tone of voice and the intonation of the reporters when describing these facts made them sound like they were both relevant and sinister.

What shocking use of the media to demonise someone. Sure, they might be guilty, but equally they could be innocent. I have no idea, the media, they have no idea either, who knows at this point. The police may not even know. What annoys me is that instead of someone being innocent until proven guilty in the media, they are innocent until proven able to sell papers... or making 'interesting' news reports.

Is that really fair? That person has to continue living in society long after those news reports are yesterday's bin fodder. Those of their acquaintances who don't know them properly, even if acquitted, are they not going to remember what the news said about them? Of course, if they waited until the person was proven innocent or guilty it wouldn't be half as bad. I'm still not sure it would be ideal, but at least they were not risking a potentially innocent persons life in society.

But taking the issue of liability aside for a moment, what does the information provided actually tell us about the suspect? They describe themselves as happy-go-lucky. The inference of course is 'a nurse that is happy-go-lucky? How reckless! How terrifying, how can they sleep at night'. But of course, this is her facebook page, not he resume. She isn't describing herself as a nurse, any more than when someone states that they are 'single' on facebook it means they are seeking to date workmates or patients.

That sort of logic would suggest that somehow if you knew someone who was an undertaker, and on their facebook page they said they loved practical jokes, people would automatically assume that they put whoopee cushions under the seat of the deceased's wife when they are carrying out funerals. It is just the deliberate misuse of context.

The second statement, she has complained about work in her status updates. How dare she? That absolute soulless piece of... oh, no wait, everyone who has every used facebook status updates has put something like that as their status up-date.

I've just taken a look at the list of updates uploaded by my friends on my facebook page, no less than four can be easily interpreted as complaining about work, including the post at the very top.
Another two could be 'interpreted' to suggest that one of my friends has a serious drinking problem and another that they self harm... of course, that is all a load of rubbish, because they are joking, but if you're a press reporter who is willing to note someone has 'complained about work' then who knows what you will do.

I myself would rant about work on a regular basis, except for the fact that at least two of my work colleagues are on my facebook page. Does that mean I am going to commit violent crime? Not a chance. But I'm sure if read in a suitably malicious and sinister way the press could interpret anyone's updates are indicting. Why? Because that isn't the context in which they are intended.

I'm hoping that the public can see through such ridiculous and dangerous behaviour. But I'm not putting my money on it.

Recently we've found out that the media is willing to break the rules to get the story. This shows that they are willing not just to infringe the privacy of the grieving, but further to demonise those who may be innocent. I don't know which in the long term is worse, even though I know which one is getting the coverage.

I guess it comes down to the old adage of who watches the watchers. The government check the police, the media check the government and ............. no one is watching the media. The government can't do it as they are too busy trying to cosy up to the media. This much can be seen with the ex-editor of the News of the World becoming the communications chief for Downing Street... and thus we're left with a situation where the media scrutinises the behaviour of everyone... except themselves.

Maybe then it is a good thing that the BBC is giving such coverage to the mistakes of the Murdoch media empire. Maybe the various media outlets are ideal for holding each other to account. Maybe plurality of the press is working to keep each other in balance.

In that case, I wish they'd do it with a little more objectivity and with the professionalism of the massive corporation they are, rather than coming across as a five year old with a bitter vendetta, and a complete lack of perspective.