Is this corporate branding or an accurate description of what the paper is about? I'd like to think the latter.
Our reporters are drilled to think how the stories they report on affect the readers. Also, no story is seen as too small to matter. If you call up complaining about a broken curb on your street, we will run the story in the paper. It might be just a couple of paragraphs, but it will get in.
But while 'Your Community Champion' is, I believe, accurate and harmless for a town weekly, it does lead to an area which I must admit makes me feel uncomfortable.
The nationals all have their own identities, their own 'voice.' Just turn to the comment section in any of them. Here you will no doubt find a section where the paper 'tells it like it is.'
These editorials are supposed to be the paper's views on a few of the main stories of the day.
This makes me curl up inside. Why? Well, why should the views of the editor (or probably one of the reporters) matter?
I know plenty of journalists. As a group, they are neither more or less intelligent than anyone else. They are just people - some can't to math, some can't spell (sorry!), some are sports-mad, while others couldn't pick Rooney out of a line-up.
People who work for a paper are no different from the people working in the mobile phone place next door. They might be naturally inquisitive and calm under pressure, but is that any different from the office gossip or the hot-shot salesman?
If I feel ill I would consult a doctor, if my washing machine packed up, I'd call an engineer. I wouldn't get the page designer from across the office to fix my car. They'd be great at designing a news page but pretty useless at fitting a new fan belt.
So why on earth should we take the advice of a paper on what to think about the US election, immigration or Kate Moss?
I always thought it was a newspaper's job to report fairly on what is going on. Presenting the views of people who ARE in the know in a thought-provoking and interesting way.
But I believe these comment pieces give the game away. They reveal the prism you are reading the news through. What you are often reading is news filtered to fit what the paper thinks – or what they think the readers think.
Of course, sometimes it's not that sinister. In many cases a paper hasn't a clue what's going on and just makes up a view.
Reporting on a science or medical story often catches them out.
The MMR jab, global warming, encouraging people to think they can win the lottery while laughing at the bloke who's concerned about a big rock smashing into our planet (which one is more likely?) – these are just a few subjects in which papers find themselves in a twist.
It's not the fault of editors or reporters. These things are complicated and not a lot of people understand them, so how can they? They don't. But they're confident enough to lecture us on what we should think.
Other editors will say having a paper having its own voice is essential. Otherwise they'd be dull and wouldn't connect with readers. They have a point. The Independent was set up to offer just the 'news' and I must admit it's pretty boring!
It just makes me squirm to think we are expected to believe this stuff, or that journalists think they are experts on everything.
For instance, I know less than nothing about religion. I'm not proud of my ignorance. I've tried my hardest to learn the difference between a Bishop and a Vicar, Hindu and Sikh, Catholicism and the CofE. But I've reported on many stories about religion. I've relied on people who do know. I've called a Bishop.
Would I write an article advising on what a church should be doing? In my job, there's a chance I might have to.
No comments:
Post a Comment