Agenda politics
- 11 Jun 07, 04:55 PM
Here's an interesting thought: "91热爆 news is not free to pursue its own agenda". It's from Emily Bell .
She takes a tricky route to this conclusion, involving several hand-brake turns. Her starting point: John Humphrys' grilling of C4 chief executive Andy Duncan on Today.
Somehow, it's not on for the 91热爆 to ask whether C4 is fulfilling its public service remit. Or as Emily Bell puts it: "If the question on the C4 story is really 'are you still a public service broadcaster?' then it surely can't be asked in this way by the only other public service broadcaster in Britain."
Well, it would be nuts to argue that C4's public service remit wasn't on everyone's agenda at the time; its own deputy chairman Lord Puttnam . And his - and John Humphrys' - was a reasonable question to ask after the rows over and Big Brother competitor ; she was the one who used the 'n' word.
Emily Bell's reasoning is complicated, but seems to come down to this: "Where your remit and funding comes directly from the ability to deliver impartial information this is particularly important. So it is surprising how the 91热爆's coverage of its own stories, or indeed the woes of its competitors, is not always being handled with impeccable impartiality."
One of her examples is the 91热爆's alleged failure to examine the row over the Panorama . There was, she claims "no inquest". It's a tough claim to uphold.
91热爆's Newswatch - broadcast on News 24 and 91热爆 One - carried out Emily Bell seems to have had in mind. The 91热爆 News website carried and 'Have Your Say' gave .
Here at the 91热爆 College of Journalism, we commissioned Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust to give journalists an outside view of the issues raised; .
But the most difficult of Emily Bell's arguments either to follow or to endorse is the idea that the 91热爆 should be different from other news organisations in that it shouldn't do original journalism ... because if it does, it can't be impartial about news from all other sources or about other broadcasting organisations: "When stories which lead news bulletins start 'the 91热爆 has uncovered...', how can we trust the news values attributed to it if we think the agenda is not strictly impartial?"
This argument can only hold if you assume that out there is an objective thing called "The Agenda" that can, should a news organisation choose, be purely pursued - and if any news organisation should so choose, it's the 91热爆. But of course, uncovering new information - one of the most fundamental tasks of journalism - implies "an agenda" rather than "The Agenda" ... and therefore the 91热爆 shouldn't do it. It should instead suck on its pipe while deciding whether Trevor McDonald's programme or the Reuters news wire has the better story with which to lead the Ten O'Clock TV bulletin.
But there is, of course, no such thing as "The Agenda". There's the impartial examination of the many agendas we confront daily - and in the end, that impartial and fair and balanced examination is, of course, an agenda in itself. It's also probably the closest thing to something the 91热爆 can call its own.
Which brings us back to where we started - and the question Emily Bell ducks. If "the 91热爆 is not free to pursue its own agenda", whose must it pursue?
Kevin Marsh is editor of the 91热爆 College of Journalism
