Showing posts with label Journalists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalists. Show all posts

Monday, 25 July 2011

Opine, repine, supine


When you think about buying a new car, don't they suddenly seem to be everywhere?  To me it seems to be the same with a blog idea, I have an idea for a blog and then mysteriously I see the idea in many places.  This latest idea centred around our right to express an opinion, our right to not like that opinion and to express that discontent and the need to overcome indolence and to raise a challenging opinion.

I read today on the comments field of the "Jack of Kent" blog that, like law, journalism is now not a profession it is a business. I understand this view and have much sympathy with it but I do believe that there are a set of governing principles and an expected behaviour that define any practice or profession. Perhaps the comment was more a wry statement of the extant philosophy adopted in the media rather than a de facto opinion.  

Previously I have commented on my concern over society's ability to learn how to play with it's new toys.  Johann Hari and the Independent for me are just the tip of the iceberg with journalism's failure.  Note I said "journalisms" failure, I believe JH has made mistakes from which he can learn and for which he can atone, but the failure lies in the system.  In general the news media don't seem to be leading and innovating with these radically different communication channels but perhaps that is the point.  For a while at least, blogs, podcasts, twitter etc are the antidote to institutionalised news.  Eventually though the lack of professionalism, the abundance of unsubstantiated opinion and the paucity of evidential facts will drive the users of these new tools to regulate themselves or at least find some way to evaluate the credibility of a blogger/twitter. 

These new tools do appear to give unprecedented access to the champions.  @daraobriain has just shy of 1/2 a million followers on twitter. Last Sunday at midnight, I responded to a comment by @billbailey where he expressed his opinion that The Apprentice was "a vortex of drivel" (a comment that has now been deleted from his twitter stream).  My comment was based on several opinions that I have formed independently of, but seemed at least vaguely consistent with, Bill. (1) Dara is a good guy, (2) Dara is a funny guy, (3) the apprentice is a lack lustre entertainment show that has taken a moderately interesting idea and bastardised it into something quite disgusting. These are based on (for 1) I feel that the "true" Dara is glimpsed on many of his shows but to me a splendid part of his nature was captured in one scene in Three men in a boat. There was a sequence where he was admiring a cottage, not far from me, with unadulterated pleasure. With his lilting Irish accent he exclaimed "would ya look at that house". Nice guy.  (for 2) I watch many of his comedy shows and laugh often. (for 3). I watched the first series and was entertained but felt slightly concerned that the programme was essentially a reality TV show, "I'm a pretentious wannabe, get me into here". I stopped watching and have caught some moments, especially salacious outtakes on other shows.  So this was my comment: "Bill, we know Dara has to pay the mortgage, let's hope he doesn't give too much of his soul away". Exaggerating for comic effect I thought. I don't believe anyone has a soul, if they did, Dara would have a big one, and would have to give only a tiny bit away to work on the show :-) . I also accept that he is a professional clown and must earn a living. In his shoes may be I would do the same, I don't know the full circumstances but the fact remains, if I could afford not to, I wouldn't diminish my integrity by being associated with The Apprentice. It's an opinion, formed on scant evidence - I haven't watched it for years- I accept I may be wrong. What is fascinating is that I got a response., "@Jim_McD Give my soul away? Hosting You're Fired? I'm a professional clown. Christ, some people take this shit waaaaay too seriously."  I'm not sure if the last statement was autobiographical but I certainly wasn't taking it seriously.  Good putdown, you have to admire him.  I can't help feeling though that I touched a nerve, still, the point that resonates the most is that a single twonk heckler in half a million audience got his opinion heard and responded too.  What power we wield with this new toy.

Another dialogue on twitter brought opinion into the fore recently when one of the other heros (@mitchbenn 25,000 followers) got drawn into a debate with a nobody.  Mitch was angry, articulate and right in the main.  He teetered on the brink of righteous and then made this statement, "2. But you DON'T have the right to criticise my working methods because you have no idea what they actually are.".  When someone says it tastes like poo, we all accept that this means it tastes like i imagine poo might taste - unless they said earwax, we all know what earwax tastes like, don't we?  Mitch went on to say, "You said it was sloppy and not thought through. How do you know how much care and thought goes into it? Are you there?".  Clearly, the heckler meant "it appears to have been" [that you didn't put enough work in].  He was wrong.  He expressed an opinion on scant facts.  Does he have a right to?  My view is yes.  Should Mitch have responded? well, I think yes; the visceral anger that fuelled his dialogue was intoxicating.  Mitch is a fabulous lyricist and has a wonderful way with words.  Does it matter that I don't agree with his defining point? I don't think so, I am starting to get familiar enough with these new toys to know that we get a very real response and occasionally, like real life, its not as polished as the old media.  We must all learn to relish in the experience of unadulterated (edited) human thought.  Go on, express an opinion, just don't expect anyone to agree.

Then the final piece that underscores but also threads through this soliloquy was @robinince 's  piece in The Now Show last week.  It seemed to be the essence of my own view on News Papers and all the News Media.  I haven't read a newspaper for over a year - if not longer - I found it more and more difficult to distinguish opinion from news or fact or evidence based commentary.  Robin's view; don't read a paper, read a book.  Don't be lazy absorbing other's opinions, form your own opinion based on facts. 

My view is additionally, once you have formed an opinion, don't hang on to it like the only piece of wood following a ship wreck.  Keep revising it, researching it, testing it and listening to other's views and don't fear using new communication channels to do this.  

Thursday, 30 June 2011

Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics


This much quoted phrase, with an inherent progression starting at a low point, developing to an even lower point and then ending with statistics, is (according to wikipedia) potentially un-attributed – or at the very least – avoided attribution.
On the today programme on radio 4 this morning, Francis Maude the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, was mauled by Evan Davis.  The opponent in the debate was Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, who was on the show defending the apparently indefensible strike – he sat back and let Evan do his work.   The weapon of choice for Evan you ask? Statistics.  Or more correctly reported facts.  Maude was quoting the Hutton Report, saying that pensions have been shown to eventually become unaffordable and that if we don’t act now with public sector pensions, future generations will have an unmanageable tax burden.  Evan, having asked him if he had read the report, asked a direct question about an apparent misquote, saying he had used <Ctrl>+F to search for the word!  He then went on to quote the actual numbers from the report that seemed to contradict the attributed “direct” quote.  A bloodbath of squirming and smirking followed, where I was left feeling let down by the government minister but thoroughly impressed with the quality of journalism on Radio 4 – top job guys.

Saturday, 2 April 2011

Tricksey little ......

That charming fresh faced innocence that we cherish in our children seems to be destroyed by one of two juggernauts as our lives skip along the path towards maturity.  An engulfing cloud of credulity or a tidal wave of cynicism.  "April the first" seems to polarize these sharply contrasting opposites.  One camp sardonic and disbelieving about everything they read whilst another camp mind numbingly gullible.  Me? I worked all morning and missed all the fun, thankfully.  One rather incisive read about the media's failure to instil any confidence in the integrity of journalism and hence utterly failing to trick us on April 1st is here, or is it?  you'll have to click to check.....

Sunday, 17 January 2010

Information Error

There is a distinction between data and information.  Similarly there is a distintion between information and considered judgement.




With data such as: total cost of the prison service and the number of prisoners currently incarcerated:-

We get information like: It costs £40,000 per prisoner per year to keep them in prison.

We then get opinions like: The death sentence saves money and Newspapers call for the the return of hanging.

Previously:
When someone has collected the majority of the pertinent data, if not all of the relevant data; they have agregated it and sumarised a balanced view of the available information; and then they have made evidence based judgements and drawn challengeble conclusions, then they can call themselves a journalist and they are worthy of having their report or article published.

You may not have liked someone's conclusion after they had given a subject this 'considered judgement' but at the very least you could evaluate their reasoning and formulate a plausible argument.

Recently:
The development of the pace and currency of 24hr "news" channels initially brought a concern about the emergence of erroneous stories.  For me this has diluted a little now and my frustration is more centred around making "news" stories to fill the airtime - BREAKING NEWS: it's snowing in London
- rather than making news up.

In general, these stations have a prodution team and an editorial team ensuring there is a considered approach. They don't get this right all the time and I do wonder at the value of all the pseudo-news pumping out whilst they await a real news event. However this concern is nothing compared to the very recent phenomenen of rapid transmission of data, information and ill considered opinion on a worldwide platform via social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.

I note here that I am fully aware that I am an accomplice in this global pumping out of "news" but hopefully you can see I am considering my role in this phenomenon.  I became aware of the potential for poor judgement on misinformation by us (the general public) when I recieved a very well meaning email request to forward a photo of a kidnapped boy. It turns out, with a little research, that it was an urban myth and actually a spam email chain.  Email though isn't as immediate or interconnected as social media sites.

Today:
Recently (as you know if you follow me on Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin) I've just started reading the Gruaniad on an app on my iPhone and there was an article about a Guatemalan lawyer having a post death video uploaded on to YouTube that surprisingly predicted his death.  This article was in the technology section during the week. Yes, tech is one of my favourites, as is politics.

Apparently, he was murdered and at his funeral a video was played that had him predicting his death at the hands of a corrupt regime. Worldwide public opinion swung in to action and the Guatemalan President was nearly twittered off his perch and YouTube'd into iNfamy.

The dust settles, time passes, journalism investigates (and let's face it CIA covers-up and Politico-doctors spin) and we start to see a considered opinion that is opposite to our twit-gut response.

I don't wish to comment on the Guatemalan lawyer specifically as I have only read the linked article. I am concerned though that it is indicative of a trend in global media, of humanity's desire to achieve prescience.  To be the first to know, to tell everyone that they new before, despite the need to consider facts and context prior to forming a judgement.  I'm not sure this trend can or should be halted, I just hope as a society we are able to handle this new toy.


I would liken it to giving someone a box of matches. With the right guidance, it could be a force for good. Without advice, socially accepted norms and a desire to learn, and even without any nefarious motive- it could cause a destructive inferno.

Sunday, 10 January 2010

Publication Bias


Are journalists aware that their profession's propensity for choosing a fact to support their story is part of the theory of statistics? To be fair, it's a general foible of mankind, it's just that journo's do it with such volume. So clear is it that these "so called" peer reviewed quality journals are selecting positve results to publish, you have to adjust for it in any analysis of published data.

Outside of the scientific press this regurgitating of apparent facts to support whatever axe is currently being ground is sufficiently prevalent now that it is commonly considered as absurd. "Boffins say xxxx causes cancer shocker!" or "innoculation with xxx gives your kid nasty disease yyy instead".

It's no surprise then that we now hear that "if only the government had listened to the experts before Christmas and bought more Grit, we wouldn't be in this mess".

From the Daily Mail

Edmund King, president of the AA, said he had written to ministers on November 16 to warn about inadequate salt supplies, only to be accused of ' scaremongering'. 


'I'm afraid what we predicted has come true and it is pretty scary on the roads out there and on the 
pavements where people are getting injured.


Hey, I know, why didn't we create a  European grit mountain in Surrey, then we'd have enough to make sure all the whinging daily mail readers were able to go to their Tuesday night whist drive. Oh, yeah that's it, we've got a European debt mountain to dwarf Everest!

What about all the other things people were saying before Christmas? If it hadn't have snowed and we'd spent £15 g'dzillion on grit mountains we'd have stories like "£15 g'dzillion wasted on grit, and pensioner starves" or "£15 g'dzillion wasted on grit, and immigrants still pouring in from Eastern Europe" or "£15 g'dzillion wasted on grit, and hard working tax payers don't get life-saving expensive drug".

I suggest that when it snows journalist should be forced to stop work and go and play in the snow like normal people - also it should be allowed to throw special snow balls with stones in the middle if the journalist is identifiably from the Daily Mail.

 Rant over.