Showing posts with label OBJECTIVITY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OBJECTIVITY. Show all posts

17.4.09

Looks can kill cred

What did Jeremy Bowen do wrong?

Having by told of the terrible situation that resulted in one of Mr. Bowen's colleagues dying at the hands of the IDF, and in less than ideal circumstances for any of the protagonists, his views are quite understandable on a personal level.

However, professionally-speaking, when checking out CVs for objective suitability, I am pretty sure Aunty may opt for a near Somalian relative of a recently deceased Capt. Omar Sparrow to be hired to head up the editorial of the Washington bureau. Or the Guardian to get Damien Green on board for a balanced view of political blogging.

As 'Call me Lord' M has pointed out, looks can kill cred.

Spectator - The Facade Cracks

6.4.09

An unlikley source of sense?

Crowe's frank assessment of the press

Worth a listen.

Mr. Marr not too keen to look at the role of broadcast media, and maybe those in state versions married to print 'journalists' who as couples enjoy cosy relationships with those upon whom they are supposed to report... um.... objectively.

20.10.08

I take on superman. And issue with his portrait painter.

On cartoonists' political leanings...

Well, you wouldn't want to give the Labour PM a good kicking for political reasons I guess, especially if you are 'left of centre'.

Here's me thinking satire was aimed at all bubbles that need pricking, but now I understand that dogma over-rides professional pride.

DC should of course get some stick, too, and deserves all he does, if well-targeted and funny. As it is here.

But glad you are not 'saying' GB is a a superhero, because that is what most of the Westminster Useful Idiot Village still is trying to claim (and somewhat at odds with those outside the bubble IMHO), so I wonder what you have drawn him as then?

I guess at least he is not flying but running. Frankly a crumpled mess at the phonebooth threshold would have seemed more appropriate.

Must just be my personal leanings showing through, as a taxpayer saddled with more debt and the promise of a ton of tax pain. Mind you, I also think that image would have been funnier, and more accurate, too.

Addendum (as he kindly replied):

I appreciate the reply; few originating posters do. And considering the 'head above parapet nature' of the situation that is often understandable if not very noble. I think you must have known what the reaction to the above may have been.

Speech is free. Or, in this case, a cartoon as well.

However, I think many (certainly myself) are getting a little tired with blatant personal or corporate agenda creeping in at every turn with so-called objective news media.

Hey, you can say what you like and the Telegraph can publish what it likes, as at least I can opt not to buy the paper or cease to provide the fuel of a click through. The choice is still there.

Though perhaps more honest than most, I guess I was just disappointed at what seemed a clear statement that whatever else your political affiliations meant that you would be giving our current Prime Minster a clear, or at least easy, ride, politically.

I also see this with some columnists' coverage of the US election, which have gone beyond partisan to parody.

Humour is a subtle, but effective tool. But then I look at such as this, from the BBC's Nick Robinson, which I do hope was meant to be tongue in cheek (but after his less than special outings in such as 'Have I Got News For You' who can tell?):

'...What's more, Gordon Brown, fresh from taking the plaudits for saving the world's financial system, is busy laying a new trap for the Tories. He's pledging to carry on spending and borrowing in the downturn...'

It might play well to the gallery of the Westminster Useful Village Idiots, but as one at the sharp end of what I consider (non-party politically) one of history's most woeful party/leader combos it is not that funny or a 'game' for the delight of the chatterati, with overt support seeded in at any turn reflecting poorly on professional standards.

Whether it's funny or not will always be subjective. But as to whether it is honest is another matter.

I now know where you stand, no matter what. and will in future have to view any future efforts in this light. For a political commentator that, I regret to say, reduces the value of output in my eyes considerably.

16.10.08

I, Objective?


McCain Steals Baby! Rocks Stones!

Tip for Newsnight: with this standard of reporting... commentary... whatever it is... you might like to consider a new theme intro to use to reflect the editorial slant being taken. I dunno... how about 'Paint it Black'?

You are supposed to be an objective UK news programme. I'd suggest the personal belief/aspiration blog output of your employees also attempts to reflect this.

Mind you, the best we could expect these days would probably be 'Brown Sugar'.

ps: I hope all (and there seem to be a lot) the BBC employees in the US enjoy the party... while it lasts

Picture Caption Addendum: See what £3.5B of Charter-controlled, Trust-managed objectivity gets you. This is on a story about UK green targets on Oct. 17 2008. Look at the date. And they have been told about it (by me) for the last 3 days.

2.10.08

Those who can, do. Those who can't get hired to report/comment on the other half

Will Sarah Palin or Joe Biden screw up tonight?

It seems rather surprising to me that, in a nation of a few hundred million, half of whom (as here) are in the media commentariat, 'they' couldn't crank up a moderator who had a slim chance of being seen as balanced and objective.

ps: What a sorry testimony to the state of, well, everything really, is that one the highest offices in one of the most significant countries on the planet is, or at least deemed to be about who of two candidates 'screws up the least'. I sit here deeply reassured as to the future of my kids.

14.9.08

When the going get's tough, the wimps cry Auntie

LAY OFF LABOUR

Shame there is not more 'on-record' attribution, but hardly surprising.

However, assuming it to be true, I did manage a slight smile at this... as a defence:

'...maybe he did not express himself very well and some people got the wrong end of the stick.’

For a professional communicator of objective stories for a national news broadcaster, I am coming to see how they justify those big bucks at senior level.

Maybe an 'away-day' with a 'consultant' to help improve on those skills? On us, of course.