CI
I do have some issues with what Alistair Stewart says though. The first being his very first sentence.
Emily Maitlis was not offering her views. What she said was accurate, truthful, factual. She presented no viewpoint in that opening, nothing that was her opinion. That mistake does kinda undermine the rest of the article.
Nonetheless, he does make some good points.
He's spot on here. That in itself highlights one of the big problems with complaints proceedures in general. Complaints proceedures these days tend to be where active campaigns by organisations with an agenda against a show or item within that show, will be focused on. As such, you tend to get a very biased view of what people feel about a show. It almost feels somewhat antiquated these days. If there's a better way of doing this, it hasn't been found yet, but it does need to be.
Again, spot on, but this misses one key point. News & Current Affairs coverage has always evolved. Look back at shows such as Tonight and Nationwide, and you'll see current affairs being presented in a whole different manner to how it is now. News back in the 70s and 80s was a very different presentational beast to what it is now. Coverage has always evolved with the times. It needs to continue that evolution.
I said previously on this topic that I value accurate, factual and truthful reporting, way more than I do being "objective" or "impartial". Presentation of differing views is important, as long as they are genuine viewpoints, not just lies designed to confuse the issue. Ofcom in their broadcasting code don't refer to "impartiality" and "accuracy", they refer to "due impartiality" and "due accuracy". Context is important in this, and that needs to not be overlooked. Editorialising news is something I'm very much against, but it's worse when the editorialising is done by presenting a lie as being equal to the truth, or when important context to a story is completely ommited. These days often "objectivity" is nothing more than presenting a pound of official propaganda alongside an ounce of counterspin. It's so very important that reporting is factual, accurate, truth, now more than ever as organisations with their own agenda use social media and other platforms to get their own messages out there, some of which are little more than propaganda.
Quote:
Was Emily Maitlis right or wrong to offer her views on the Dominic Cummings’s row?
Emily Maitlis was not offering her views. What she said was accurate, truthful, factual. She presented no viewpoint in that opening, nothing that was her opinion. That mistake does kinda undermine the rest of the article.
Nonetheless, he does make some good points.
Quote:
Impartiality is the pounding heart of ‘L’affaire Maitlis’. Her introduction to BBC Newsnight on Tuesday caused a furore: those who believe Cummings has done wrong cheered her to rafters, flooding social media with messages of support; those sympathetic to Cummings and, perhaps, the Prime Minister he serves, cried foul – in their thousands. Many in the second camp formalised their objections in official complaints to the BBC.
He's spot on here. That in itself highlights one of the big problems with complaints proceedures in general. Complaints proceedures these days tend to be where active campaigns by organisations with an agenda against a show or item within that show, will be focused on. As such, you tend to get a very biased view of what people feel about a show. It almost feels somewhat antiquated these days. If there's a better way of doing this, it hasn't been found yet, but it does need to be.
Quote:
As current UK regulations stand – Ofcom’s rules on impartiality and the editorial guidelines of all the major and minor broadcast outlets – it would not be possible to establish such a broadcast channel in Britain, that is overtly sympathetic to a particular political party or ideology. That said, evolution doesn’t tend to happen in single instances. It is a gradual process. So, too, I fear, could be the ‘Foxification’ of Britain’s broadcast media.
Again, spot on, but this misses one key point. News & Current Affairs coverage has always evolved. Look back at shows such as Tonight and Nationwide, and you'll see current affairs being presented in a whole different manner to how it is now. News back in the 70s and 80s was a very different presentational beast to what it is now. Coverage has always evolved with the times. It needs to continue that evolution.
I said previously on this topic that I value accurate, factual and truthful reporting, way more than I do being "objective" or "impartial". Presentation of differing views is important, as long as they are genuine viewpoints, not just lies designed to confuse the issue. Ofcom in their broadcasting code don't refer to "impartiality" and "accuracy", they refer to "due impartiality" and "due accuracy". Context is important in this, and that needs to not be overlooked. Editorialising news is something I'm very much against, but it's worse when the editorialising is done by presenting a lie as being equal to the truth, or when important context to a story is completely ommited. These days often "objectivity" is nothing more than presenting a pound of official propaganda alongside an ounce of counterspin. It's so very important that reporting is factual, accurate, truth, now more than ever as organisations with their own agenda use social media and other platforms to get their own messages out there, some of which are little more than propaganda.