03-11-2019, 10:24 AM
1
Relentless journalism
We're all well acquainted with reporters analysing matters to the nth degree, interviewing each other, interviewing pundits, citing polls a plenty, and trying to second guess the actual outcome of the GE.Why bother? How much (if indeed any) of this 24/7 wittering has any effect whatsoever on the actual outcome? Does it affect the way that anyone votes, and if it does, then should it?
All that needs to be reported is the claims/promises/policies of parties and candidates, and NOT "if there is a 1.8% swing to the left in the vote in Tobermory, then there is a 17.3128% chance of there being a Tory majority in East Anglia".
Extrapolation is a dangerous thing!
03-11-2019, 12:49 PM
6
Re: Relentless journalism
Originally Posted by Longdogs
->
It's not just in politics either, sport is another subject that is discussed relentlessly before the actual result. Why not just wait, then discuss what actually happened.
Totally agree, dongle.
They discuss it before, during, and for a week afterwards too!
03-11-2019, 01:22 PM
7
Re: Relentless journalism
Originally Posted by Longdogs
->
It's not just in politics either, sport is another subject that is discussed relentlessly before the actual result. Why not just wait, then discuss what actually happened.
03-11-2019, 01:31 PM
8
Re: Relentless journalism
I think the standard of much of journalism is appalling, one example a journalist will ask a leading question in a number of ways and push till they get a response .Then later reporting will make it seem the person being interviewed volunteer the information (which has the journalists spin on it) and it might actually become the lead in news bulletins.
Some journalists are manufacturing news rather than just reporting it and this can be misleading and dangerous giving a false perception to the public.
03-11-2019, 03:50 PM
9
Re: Relentless journalism
Thank you for your replies so far.One thing that is of concern is the possible impact that their mental perambulations (never thought I'd ever be able to get that into a sentence
) affects naive waving voters
In the ideal world, they would simply report and not analyse potential hypotheticals beyond their pay grade. To do so is to to enter the political fray themselves rather than just observe it.
For me, polls should not be carried out at all for any kind of public perusal, yet alone analysed. They obfuscate (I'm in a "big word" mood today
) the argument since they attach importance to an irrelevance.
03-11-2019, 04:08 PM
10
Re: Relentless journalism
Most of it is just a load of pointless froth, created to give journalists and news broadcasters something to do in between reporting real news.They even have night time “news programmes” which consist of nothing more than telling you what is in tomorrow’s newspapers.
Then, of course, they sometimes end by telling you other items from “tomorrow’s news” - do they have a crystal ball?
One of the things I’ve noticed in recent years is how often broadcasters tell you the Prime Minister or some other Minister is due to make an important speech tomorrow, then they proceed to tell you what the PM is going say in that speech ... rather defeats the object of making the speech if the contents have already been broadcast ... why not wait until the speech has made, then report it as news after it has happened?
Most of it is just a load of padding that the news media make a living from.
Do you remember the days when news wasn’t reported until it had already happened and, if there was no news, they didn’t make some up?
Oh for the days when the BBC News once announced
“There is no news” and played a piece of music to take up the 15 minute evening news slot programme time.
(Not that I was alive when that happened, of course!)
|
|
