What journalism is supposed to be (10)

Some press, over the last few years, tend to favour one side of a story over a zappy headline.

(º•.¸(¨*•.¸¸.•*¨)¸.•º) «.•°•. Scarlet .•°•.» (¸.•º(¸.•¨**¨•.¸)º•.¸)

Edited 9 Apr 09, 12:22 PM by xXx_scarlet_xXx

This isn't necessarily true. Historically, there's never been the onus for balanced reporting, at least in print.

In fact, the PCC Code - the self-regulating body that journalists tend to ethically stick to states:

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

There's been a long history of partisan press, and this will continue.

Broadcast, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. If you genuinely want both sides of the story, the only way to get that is to go out there and investigate it yourself.

I wear my heart on my sleeve and my pants on my head
http://obliterarti.wordpress.com/

When you come visiting, you -so- can has a cookie.

I like being my own worst enemy, because I know where I live and what I'm going to do next.

Speaking as a freelance photographer contracted to the Guardian, so far as I'm aware the clip was first sent to and made available on the BBC news website.

An interesting point was made on the BBC radio 4 PM program, that unless demonstration is violent, then the media isn't interested, hence the only way to get a point across is through violence. The conclusion being that media coverage is in itself responsible for violence at demonstrations. (this isn't my point before some idiot decides to take it up with me). It is a point for debate.

No one seems to like photographers these days, the police are becomming increasingly suspicious and have been known to stop & search or arrest, or follow journolists with the intent of intimidation. I've been stopped and accused of being a terrorist simply for being out in the street with a camera (middle age woman!.

If you want freedom of the press then you should contact with your MP and express your concern, this rotten government continues to pass legislation restricting freedom http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb...

You can post stories like these and gush over how wonderful it is that they can be published, but that right needs protecting, if you don't then you'll almost certainly lose it.

Don't just sit on your arse in front of the TV DO SOMETHING !

I think the media coverage of demonstrations promoting violence is a bit of a red herring, sort of one of those things that sounds sensible, but which distracts from the real causes of violent protests and so on. I think it ties into what you were saying about the police not liking to be watched when they start cracking heads. The powers that be would love the media to avoid demonstrations, thus they get less coverage and thus the police can do their dirty work. Of course the police beating the shit out of demonstrators doesn't constitute a violent demonstration if the police tell the media it was peaceful and they weren't there to check. If a truncheon falls on a protester and no journo is there to see it, does it make a sound?

The BBC didn't do very much with the story, even when they did get their hands on it, but the thing with the BBC is for all the noble intentions of individuals within it, it is the State media channel. The BBC is our Pravda and it does have a somewhat shameful history of bullshitting the public. This doesn't mean that the BBC is worthless as a news gathering institution, far from it, but it is the voice of the British government. While there are few direct institutional ties between the government and the BBC you can't really call a media body independent if the government has the capacity, as we saw before the Iraq war, to fuck said media body up with just a few days notice. It's like saying a person is free to do as they like if there is somebody following them, watching their every move and keeping a gun trained on them.

As for getting off my arse and doing something, I would love to know what I could do. I vote, I write to MPs, I speak my mind to any that'll listen, but short of getting elected myself or shooting an MP there's not really a lot left to try. Especially as posting here pretty much precludes both those options.

I like being my own worst enemy, because I know where I live and what I'm going to do next.

Hear Hear.

Once it's gone, it's hard to get it back.

------ Come to the dark side - we have cookies!

I don't vote anymore, Britain is no longer a democratic state, after the socialist made the voting process into one which "would shame a banana republic", and took away the right of dissent from local government councellors.

I disagree with the thrust of your arguement, although not your carefully selected topics which leads to my point.

Media Bias isn't about how well stories are covered wether something like this or big Brother Tat, its about which stories are "Selected" to be covered.

You may not wish to report stories about immigration etc but I'm sure those who have been on the recieving end in Blackburn area for example, Asians preying on white girls with drugs to turn to prostetution, would not appreciate your slant.

here the gaurdian is culpable as any other paper. Nice bit of propganda though as I wouldn't call your blog serious journalism.

The gaurdian got lucky, it was the one that was handed the film. I'm sure any paper would have done the same, and if they didn't it would just prove my point it about selection of story than style of journalism.

Problem with freedom of the press is that it isn't free, it's corporate. Or rather if it is free, it's not on the side of the people, whatever that is.

I like being my own worst enemy, because I know where I live and what I'm going to do next.