Agenda politics
| 16:55 UK time, Monday, 11 June 2007
Here's an interesting thought: "91Èȱ¬ 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 91Èȱ¬ 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 91Èȱ¬'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 91Èȱ¬'s alleged failure to examine the row over the Panorama . There was, she claims "no inquest". It's a tough claim to uphold.
91Èȱ¬'s Newswatch - broadcast on News 24 and 91Èȱ¬ One - carried out Emily Bell seems to have had in mind. The 91Èȱ¬ News website carried and 'Have Your Say' gave .
Here at the 91Èȱ¬ 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 91Èȱ¬ 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 91Èȱ¬ 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 91Èȱ¬. But of course, uncovering new information - one of the most fundamental tasks of journalism - implies "an agenda" rather than "The Agenda" ... and therefore the 91Èȱ¬ 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 91Èȱ¬ can call its own.
Which brings us back to where we started - and the question Emily Bell ducks. If "the 91Èȱ¬ is not free to pursue its own agenda", whose must it pursue?
Comments
I think it's about time Channel 4 were asked about their remit and what Big Brother, endless repeats of Friends and the cheap imports have to do with it. Big Brother pays for Dispatches is a line they use, if this is true then I ask is dispatches really worth the hours of dross that finances it?
It's a shame John Humphrys was the one to do the interview, his agressive style puts the interviewee on the defensive from the off and that's no way to get the best from anyone.
As for the 91Èȱ¬ I agree you are getting much better at giving the viewer/listener the opportunity to voice their opinions, however you still don't take a blind bit of notice of them. Newswatch and Points of View are little more than platforms those at the 91Èȱ¬ can use to tell the viewer why he/she is wrong and why auntie is right.
Compare and contrast 91Èȱ¬ coverage of the two killings today involving the police.
In one, a police officer is stabbed by a criminal. This gets 2nd billing on the home page
In the other, a woman is shot dead in a car park by a police officer. This only rates 8th.
Has it come to the stage where a civilian being killed by a police officer is not more newsworthy than a criminal killing a policeman? Surely we should expect it of the criminals? What happened to the adage about man bites dog...?
Or do the 91Èȱ¬ have an "Agenda" regarding this?
The 91Èȱ¬ does have an agenda - its own broadcast schedule. I challenge the 91Èȱ¬ to find a weeks worth of 6 or 10 s'clock new items that don't act as one big advert for a 91Èȱ¬ Current Affairs or news programme. It can't be done. There are always hundreds of more important stories in the world than those generated by the 91Èȱ¬ Current Affairs department can deliver, yet every week our news programmes become adverts. And every other month the waste of space and money that is Newswatch highlights viewer concern and the 91Èȱ¬ always ignores the issues raised. Why have Newswatch if it is always ignored? I believe the 91Èȱ¬ to be impartial on external news items but the internal Agneda always comes first at the 91Èȱ¬. I challenge the 91Èȱ¬ to prove me wrong. I can take it - can you?
"...and 'Have Your Say' gave space to viewers to display both expertise and scepticism."
Have your say does nothing of the sort. it gives viewers the chance to submit their views at 91Èȱ¬ moderators (impartial? I think not) who then reject hundreds of them offhand (depending on how busy they are at the time) and then choose the ones they agree with for publication the rest being left 'awaiting moderation' until the topic is closed.
It should be renamed 'Have our Say'
Emily Bell: '.. there was no such inquest over a Panorama on WiFi signals which was criticised for scaremongering. 91Èȱ¬ news is not free to pursue its own agenda - and should remember this next time it invites a competitor in to quiz them on public service credentials.'
To 'WiFi signals criticised for scaremongering' I would add that many noted there was no inquest over a Panorama on 911 Conspiracies despite wide criticism for its impartiality and a glaring lack of scientific and expert input.
Of course the 91Èȱ¬ has an agenda. It may not be overt, or even discussed, but its institutional group-think comes out of almost everything it does. Anti-American, Anti-Israeli, anti-big buisness, left-wing, pro-Europe, pro-multiculturalism , I could go on.
And when I hear the words "the 91Èȱ¬ has discovered" at the start of a news story it tells me that the 'news' to follow is a not very well disguised plug for a program on later that night.It's the same on the web site, I read a story and think that this 'news' is actually 6 months old, but I get to the bottom and find, surprise surprise, there is a 91Èȱ¬ program on the subject on that evening. In the words of Emily Bell "91Èȱ¬ bulletins are no longer in the business of delivering impartial news - they are marketing slots".
This is not a debate about impartiality - as Bell frames it - but about news values. Does the 91Èȱ¬ give precedence to its own investigations over other news stories? Yes. Is this more common since the relaunch of Panorama? Yes. Does this mean the 91Èȱ¬ is using news bulletins to advertise other broadcasts? Absolutely.
Of course there's no single 'Agenda', but there is a running judgement made about what is important and/or credible. Those judgements are made differently where 91Èȱ¬ stories are concerned.
If the Wifi story had appeared in the Mail it would never have got on. And the fact Ray Snoddy got a chance to moan about it doesn't change that.
You imply that Emily Bell states that it is not on for the 91Èȱ¬ to question C4's public service credentials.
Whilst she can speak for herself, I think you have completely misinterpreted what she was saying. She was wholly in favour of the 91Èȱ¬'s news programmes questioning this, it was the way it was done. The same line of questioning as was used could be put to the 91Èȱ¬, and it would be equally irrelevant - just because you have some high rating populist programmes doesn't mean that there aren't also some public service ones.
Given your misinterpretation, it is not surprising that you miss what seems to be the point of the article - which is that the 91Èȱ¬ news too often carries plugs and thinly disguised adverts for other 91Èȱ¬ programmes, including the fact that some dodgy Panorama programmes have led the 91Èȱ¬ news recently, and these are carried (at the time) in an unquestioning way.
Then, an interview with a rival channel controller is carried where the interviewer acts in a wholly inappropriate aggressive manner to the interviewee.
Incidentally - the Newswatch programme is carried at 7:45am on a Saturday on 91Èȱ¬ One. How does its audience compare with Monday night peaktime?
I couldnt agree more with phil in comment 4
For starters could the bbc stop refering to itself as a public service broadcaster.
i see very little of your output as public service, Maybe you could refer to yourselves as ukpravda.
its only in the last year or two that i have started to look at the bbc with ananalytical eye and i find it insulting for you to describe yourself as a public service broadcaster.
The bbc in no way does the british public the service it is meant to.
Inform educate and entertain
Instead of being an ever watchful eye over a state that attempts to squeeze our liberties away from us.
We get insights into the inner workings of scientotlogy, or bungs in football or other interesting but essentially weak stories.
yet ask the bbc to investigate something real.
The death of Dr. Kelly, 9/11, 7/7 gagging orders at the dunblane inquiry and i am told that they are non stories.
So thanks for the have your say section but i think it only really serves so that we the public can talk to each other, i like many i am sure have given up on the bbc coming back to its role as fourth estate and now see it as just a conduit for govt and big business information.
As for the moderators the amount of comments that i have rejected compared to those accepted must be about a 10 to 1 ratio.
I make sure i folloew the rules yet still i get that page which says my comment was rejected.
the bbc are the gatekeepers of the truth and the gates are locked and chained
So phil i agree with all you say and can think of no answer to the problem
I still can't understand Emily Bell's comment - only if Humphrys had come on and said "Now for an interview with Andy Duncan from that bunch of losers C4" would it have any justification.
Hi Kevin
Do I believe in 'The Agenda' for the 91Èȱ¬, of course - even if that agenda is to be an impartial news organisation making impartial judgements about the importance of issues which affect its audience(s).
My argument about the prioritising of 91Èȱ¬- originated news items over others - particularly where other programme promotion is involved, is that it dilutes the duty to tell your audience what matters most. It turns tour bulletins into marketing slots and makes the authority of what you have to tell us questionable.
At the moment we constantly hear at the top of bulletins 'the 91Èȱ¬ has learned....' etc even when you are not actually the organisation which has exclusively learned of some fact or event, plus a prioritisation of stories from other programmes. Sometimes this can bounce things onto the 91Èȱ¬'s news agenda which actually undermine your journalistic integrity.
For instance - was Bob Woolmer really strangled and poisoned, as a Panorama investigation said - and you, and indeed we, reported - with great prominence on 91Èȱ¬ bulletins? Or not, as is now claimed to be the case?
There is quite rightly a desire and remit within 91Èȱ¬ News to break stories - but promoting them is something which has to be done with proper consideration if you are going to retain your integrity and funding. The moment they become marketing opportunities rather than editorially considered items, you are on a fairly steep downward trajectory, where you lose your point of difference from other commercial news organisations.
As one former editor of a 91Èȱ¬ current affairs strand said to me 'there was a time when it was all but impossible to get your stuff onto the bulletins, which was enormously frustrating from a producer point of view, but probably the right thing from a viewer point of view'.
If the 91Èȱ¬ now has a remit to prioritise and promote its own stories over others irrespective of weight and merit, then it is in the public interest to be told this is the case.
best
Emily Bell
I understand Emily Bell's concern over lead news stories beginning with "According to a 91Èȱ¬ investigation" or something similar. Maybe it's just the language that jars as it smacks of a press release. But it also sounds like the 91Èȱ¬ is out to create its own news. On Radio 2 news, I've noticed it is cropping up more and more often and I tend to think, "Oh, it must be a slow news day as they're having to rely on self-generated stories."
Also if you think about it, all the stories that are broadcast by the 91Èȱ¬ are - I presume - fully researched by a team of 91Èȱ¬ reporters and therefore all stories could begin with the precursor, "The 91Èȱ¬ has found..."
I distinctly remember the Today programme marking an earlier anniversary of its existence with the pronouncement that it was indeed setting the agenda, ie what it carried in the morning, the afternoon papers would then carry, followed by the next morning's papers.
Emily,
At one level, we're not far apart; at another, fundamentally so.
My point was this - there really is no such thing as The Agenda ... unless you've discovered some calculus that can infallibly weigh a train crash in India with a change of government in Denmark, say.
I do agree that the 91Èȱ¬ has a duty to make more effort than most to discern what is significant, what has relevance, what has an importance to all our lives beyond those things in which we are immediately interested in; that's why the 91Èȱ¬ has its five journalistic values and why one of those five - the public interest - is defined in a way unique to the 91Èȱ¬.
It's also the case that the analysis and fact-based judgements that 91Èȱ¬ editors and correspondents make do, to some extent, define 'the 91Èȱ¬ agenda'.
Where I think you are flat wrong, though, is in arguing that making those judgements shouldn't extend to original journalism ... because that's what you're saying; agenda is also defined by the stories to choose to investigate which no-one else has bothered with. It's not only defined by the pipe-sucking choices you make off the wires.
And you overlook another factor. Editorial choice is nowhere near as '91Èȱ¬ default' as you suggest. For all the 24 years I edited 91Èȱ¬ programmes, I was constantly assailed by a whole host of people trying to sell stories - from without as well as within the 91Èȱ¬.
As it happens, I rejected many, many more 91Èȱ¬ stories than I ran. And unless I was convinced that the 91Èȱ¬ story really did merit the lead slot, I never led on one.
But consider this. If Panorama or Newsnight or File on Four came to me with a story, I could sit down with the reporter and go through their research line by line. I could not do that with, say, a Guardian story. Which, then, would I trust most? Which would I have most confidence in as a lead story?
You're also off the mark with your suggestion that running a 91Èȱ¬ story on a bulletin is mere promotion; the licence fee payer has already paid for the story ... so it really does make sense to make sure as many bill-payers as possible get access to it - after, as you suggest, properly weighing it against other options.
KJM
Emily's column tried to put two different points together in a way that didn't really work.
It's perfectly reasonable for John Humphries to ask Andy Duncan tough questions about Channel 4's remit in view of all that's happened lately. And you would expect John to be astough with Mark Thompson if similar questions arose about the 91Èȱ¬.
But I think she has a point about the 91Èȱ¬ over promoting Panorama on its news bulletins. This is always difficult to judge. Some Panorama stories in this series have been worthy of their place in news bulletins (i.e. the BA corruption story), some have not.
The trouble with the 91Èȱ¬'s handling of the Panorama Wifi story is that it's classic 91Èȱ¬ displacement activity. What I mean is rather than facing the programme's critics directly we allow them to have a say but only in a way that we control. Why didn't Sandy Smith post on the Editors Blog defending the programme? His response to 91Èȱ¬ staff who raised concerns in Ariel was defensive and, dare I say it, a little rude.
The links that Kevin provides to scientists rebutting the programme rather begs the question - why did Panorama do the story in the first place if the overwhelming body of scientists say there's no risk?
In my opinion, like Channel 4's anti climate change programme, Panorama's Wifi programme was simply not very good journalism. And its wasn't very good because it didn't involve enough people in the conversation.
But regardless of my opinion, the real issue here is not impartiality but tone. In spite of the progress made by the Editors Blog, the 91Èȱ¬ is still too defensive about its' journalism and still unwilling to join the conversation in the right way.
If we do something that's not very good why can't we just gently and honestly admit it? We would do ourselves no end of good if we did.
It's great to see Emily posting here.
I do tire of watching Newswatch and seeing the same complaints over and over again without any discernable actiona being taken. I heartily agree with Emily that the self promotion of Panorama programmes is getting ridiculous. One can understand an appearance on the morning Breakfast programme as this is more of a magazine show, it seems. It is when there is a five minute piece about a programme that follows the ten o'clock news that I feel slightly cheated out of a "real" news story.
The 91Èȱ¬ has recently been highlighting its foreign correspondants around the world. It seems to me that the time spent promoting the programme, that was trailed before the news and appears immediately after the news, could be better spent giving some insight into the goings on in some of the places that don't feature so heavily in headine news.
"the licence fee payer has already paid for the story ... so it really does make sense to make sure as many bill-payers as possible get access to it - after, as you suggest, properly weighing it against other options."
Two things - 91Èȱ¬ news should not ever be even considered as an advert for another program. You have just said it is and I am very shocked at that. It is up to license fee payers to decide how to use the 91Èȱ¬, not for 91Èȱ¬ news to advertise something that might be of interest. I don't see yet another murder story line in Eastenders being used to trail, say, Walking the Dead. It's stupid to think that way.
The second is with tv listings, adverts between programmes, this website ect all available to advertise programmes it smacks of laziness and arrogance to assume that what is being shown in a current affairs programme is leading the 91Èȱ¬ news output. I would rather more detailed analysis of less stories than 91Èȱ¬ Adverts.
Since I posted my original comment before I saw Kevin's response I will comment one more time.
I don't think you and Emily are disagreeing Kevin. I think what Emily is saying is "original stories by the 91Èȱ¬ should be in 91Èȱ¬ bulletins based on their merits and not just because they have been generated by the 91Èȱ¬". And you seem to agree with this.
The 91Èȱ¬ should be impartial, even about itself. It's very difficult to be impartial about yourself. A certain amount of desire to get a story before the competition is a good thing but this should not over ride impartial news judgements.
I think what Emily means by the "91Èȱ¬'s agenda" is not the 91Èȱ¬'s news agenda (where the 91Èȱ¬ should be impartial), but the organisation's agenda. Whatever the 91Èȱ¬ as an organisation may do, for example our partnerships with other organisations, should not affect our news reporting. This is difficult sometimes, but must be the 91Èȱ¬'s aspiration if we are to live up to our values of impartiality.
What she seems to be saying is that we are being tougher on Channel 4 than ourselves because they are a competitor. I think she is wrong. We aren't, but are still a bit too defensive about our own output.
Your argument about value for money only really holds water if the original story is good enough to get on the bulletin. You don't make a poor story better by repeating it somewhere else.
And since when did 91Èȱ¬ news bulletins become "promotional"? There are programme trails for promoting 91Èȱ¬ programmes. News bulletins are not paid for out of the marketing budget.
'But consider this. If Panorama or Newsnight or File on Four came to me with a story, I could sit down with the reporter and go through their research line by line.'
Mr Marsh, does this mean that Guy Smith could have come to you with his documentary '911 Conspiracies', screened on February 18, and that you could have parsed his research line by line?
You must be kicking yourself over this. You would definitely have picked up the glaring, incorrect assertion from Popular Mechanics magazine that only 'one civilian plane had been intercepted' in the year leading up to 9/11 when in fact it is a point of correction that jets were scrambled 67 times in the year leading up to 9/11.
You could also have noted that this inaccuracy was penned by one Benjamin Chertoff, relative of Bush Aministration heavyweight Michael Chertoff of US 91Èȱ¬land Security fame.
You could also have blue-lined Smith's choice of 'expert': an obscure 'X-Files' fiction narrative spinner. Then again, perhaps not.
You must be deeply frustrated that Smith did not pass his narrowly framed, cherrypicked research across your desk. At least, you could have said (politely) 'But Guy, what on earth has all of this to do with the facts?'
Instead, this shabby insult to 91Èȱ¬ viewer intelligence was screened on February 18, a blot on 91Èȱ¬ integrity. Could have, should have...
Perhaps if the 91Èȱ¬ concentrated less on the `Paris Hilton` and "Big Brother" type of garbage, and more on the serious matters expected from the 91Èȱ¬, people would not be so critical. At present, the criticism is justified.
My last comment has not made it on here so I doubt this one will. The 91Èȱ¬ Trust Impartiality Report contains this line "Impartiality is required not only in network television and radio, but equally in the nations and regions, local and community radio, and the 91Èȱ¬â€™s online services and interactive sites. It also applies to publications, publicity, marketing and programme trails." That last one is important - why does the 91Èȱ¬ not trail current affairs programmes made by other broadcasters - surely that would be impartial?