Skip to main content

The media's distorting lens

I wonder how many times when one of us gets a story on the radio or television about a subject we know about, we go "that is not very accurate". I paraphrase here.

For me, I find it happens more and more often and in stranger ways.

The noise of the media was drowning out information anyway, but here is an example for you.

The BBC thinks that a story about a film about a Norwegian film about gay penguins is more important than

1) Russia, under new tyranny, is killing far more than just prominent journalists
2) North Korea will detonate a second nuclear bomb- according to local sources
3) Several more countries are pulling troops out of Iraq
4) The Queen is having a successful tour in the Baltics, and condemns Russian brutality
5) Segolene Royal is more likely than ever to be the first woman President of France
6) "Borat"- a fictional character gets an invitation to Kazakhstan.

OK, OK. Gay penguins it is... You silly twisted boys.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The public is doing the distorting, the media just reflects what the public is interested in. Frankly, everything on your list I was aware of already. But gay penguins, now that's news. Guess which story would get more inbound links on the BBC News website?

It's up to politicians and campaigners - yes and bloggers) to raise public awareness and interest in the things you list. It's not the media's job to dictate what the public should be interested in.
Cicero said…
I agree that "those that have the appreciation should make the discernment"- and make some noise.

However the media is not a neutral instrument, merely relecting "our readers" (or viewers or listeners).

The media most often has an independent agenda for "what is news"- whether Mr. Murdoch's or somebody elses. That agenda does not have the best interests of the readers at heart but a whole range of other factors that shape it.

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and ...

The Will of the People

Many of the most criminal political minds of the past generations have claimed to be an expression of the "will of the people"... The will of the people, that is, as interpreted by themselves. Most authoritarian rulers: Napoleon III, Mussolini, Hitler, have called referendums in order to claim some spurious popular support for the actions they had already determined upon. The problem with the June 2016 European Union was that the question was actually insufficiently clear. To leave the EU was actually a vast set of choices, not one specific choice. Danial Hannan, once of faces of Vote Leave was quite clear that leaving the EU did NOT mean leaving the Single Market:    “There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave.” He declared: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” The problem was that this relatively moderate position was almost immediately ...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...