[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Diana, Journalists and the UK



Bruce's piece on the actions and reactions of UK journalists on the Net
following the death of Diana fits in to our discussions on at least two
fronts: 1) public<->journalist interaction and impressions 2) closed and
open discussion groups 3)we could add to that compuserv vs the Net
Also if interest is the reluctance of journalists to be quoted by Bruce.
Is the US different and how?


Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 06:28:05 +0100
From: T Bruce Tober <octobersdad@reporters.net>

The following is a piece I did for the 12 Sept issue of Press Gazette (UK):

T. Bruce Tober
480 Gillott Road
Edgbaston, Birmingham B16 9LH
England
+44-212-242-3832
900 Words

The following is copyright 1997 T Bruce Tober - All rights reserved and is
posted for the reference of the recipient only. It is not for
republication, in whole or in part without the prior permission of the
author except in commonly accepted fair use situations. 



                    The Silence of the Hacks
                        By T Bruce Tober

     "Unless they're using a Remington, drinking a bottle of Scotch and
smoking an unfiltered high octane fag, most journalists don't think
they're doing the job right," comments one UK journalist when asked "where
are all the UK's journalists? Why aren't they getting into the enormous
numbers of discussions on the Net about their future?" 

     The death of the Princess of Wales Sunday generated a veritable
firestorm of commentary (mostly anti-journalist) all over the Net,
including most of the UK hierarchy of newsgroups. Media and journalism
E-mail lists were likewise inundated with discussion of the situation. But
sorely lacking in the literally thousands of messages were more than a
handful from UK journalists. 

     There was a total of 30 or 40 messages (by Monday night) in
CompuServe's journalism forum "Fleetstreet" and there may likewise have
been similar discussions on NUJNet and the CIX journalism fora, but those,
like CompuServe, are closed shops, open only to subscribers to those
specific services, so we had no access (we accessed CompuServe on one of
their free trial offers). 

     The UK journalists who did post publicly, ie to the Usenet
newsgroups, found themselves discussing the issue with members of the
public, rather than colleagues. On the other hand, those on CompuServe
were debating amongst themselves. 

     On Usenet's open fora only a handful of UK journalists were engaged. 
Every one of them gave us complete freedom to quote them. Much of the
"debate" on Usenet newsgroups revolved around the question of whether too
much broadcast time was devoted to the events Sunday and Monday. 

     Dom McClane, Manchester-based freelance, explained, "If ITV and BBC
didn't cover it in the same way, then they'd lose ratings to the other
channel. As for BBC1 and BBC2 showing the same picture..., it's also a
case of being seen to be doing the right thing, and while there was too
much coverage, they run it constantly so no-one misses it, and they can
sell their recorded footage around the world." 

     Adding his expertise to that opinion was Peter Ceresole, London,
freelance tv producer. He noted the BBC "couldn't carry on with the
schedules regardless. ...Transmit a comedy or a show with a joke about
Dodi 'n Di in it (which would be quite normal any time before Sunday
morning) and the outrage would have, quite rightly, been on a nuclear
scale. Transmitting the same tribute/news programme on 1 and 2, for a few
hours, gave them time to vet the programmes on 2 and change their output
to positive, uncontroversial programmes.... There are lists of safe shows
for contingencies like these but constructing and shaping a schedule which
was balanced and still contained new programming... takes a finite time." 

     He believes the BBC got the balance about right. "This is the real
thing;  whatever you think about Diana, however much she was part of the
dreadful royal show, she has obviously got to people in a big way. An
organisation like the Beeb has to respond to that. I suspect that their
instincts have proved to be sounder than yours," he concluded in a message
to one of the many Usenet messages complaining that too much time was
devoted to the coverage. 

     A major issue being discussed amongst the American journos online is
the question of whether paparazzi are legitimate members of the profession
or just "rightly demonised" "vultures" as they've been variously described
and should their wares be used and so highly valued. Along the same lines,
the question of where the blame should rest, with the paparazzi or the
driver. 

     But here, even though there's been a huge amount of discussion of
these questions on Usenet amongst non-journalists, there's been almost no
comment from the journalists themselves. 

     "A professional driver would never endanger those in his care by
driving in such a manner," according to David Windle, a West Midlands
freelance. "High speed, in-city driving at night, surrounded by blinding
Blitz flashes. I'm not excusing for one moment the behaviour of the pack
of hounds chasing them, but ultimately it becomes a matter of judgement
for the driver." 

     Andy Wood, a freelance from Windsor, neatly summed up (on CompuServe)
what appears to be a consensus view of journalists. "Watching the news
unfold this morning," he said, "I've been angered by the press backlash
that appears to have started. The pro's and con's of paparazzi will no
doubt be discussed at length elsewhere, but I seriously feel that if the
public in general did not have such an infatuation for news and pictures
of Diana, then the intrinsic value of such images would not be as high." 

     In a later message, he asked, "So, are the public interested or do
they only accept what is fed to them?" 

     Most on CompuServe, however, were not so open in permitting Press
Gazette to quote them. One of the moderators of that group and several of
the other journalists refused to allow quotes unless they were shown which
ones were to be used, an intrusion most journalists (themselves included,
one suspects) would never allow their sources. Most of the others didn't
respond at all to our request to quote from their messages. 

     The only other CompuServe Fleetstreet forum member to allow
completely free quoting was Guy Clapperton, London, another freelance. He
suggested, "The press was certainly feeding a demand, but editors and
photographers have the choice of whether to feed that sort of mania or
not.  Hopefully after yesterday's events they'll start opting for 'not',
and people will help by not buying it either. But I think that's a bit of
a forlorn hope, myself." 

                               -30-


tbt - Now happily using PIPEX Dial Service, having finally given up on Demon
-- 
|Bruce Tober, octobersdad@reporters.net, Birmingham, England +44-121-242-3832|
|       Freelance PhotoJournalist - IT, Business, The Arts and lots more     |
|pgp key ID 0x9E014CE9. For CV/Resume:   http://pollux.com/authors/tober.htm |
|           For CV/Resume and Clips:    http://newsmait.com/tbt2.htm         |
|                                                                            |
|"The alarming development of aggregated wealth, which unless checked, will  |
|inevitably lead to the pauperism and hopeless degredation of the toiling    |
|masses, renders it imperative, if we desire to enjoy the blessings of life, |
|that a check should be placed upon its power and unjust accumulation. A     |
|system needs to be adopted which will secure to the laborer the fruits of   |
|his toil and can only be accomplished by the union of those who earn their  |
|bread by the sweat of their brow. ....We do not wish to rob or opress the   |
|moneyed powers, or its components. We only want to take its iron heel off   |
|our necks" Knights of Labor newspaper (circa 1884)                          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Posted to ONLINE-NEWS. Made possible by Nando.net - http://www.nando.net