Relevance - Freedom of the Press & Broadcast News
Tony Blair made a speech today, reflecting on the state of the media. At one point, he described it as a "feral beast." Obviously this implies that, at times, it is out of control and needs taming. There is loads of stuff on this all over the web, especially on the BBC website. You could look at any number of places to find commmentary on it, including the BBC's political correspondent's (Nick Robinson) blog - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2007/06/feral_media_my.html
If you'd rather listen to a debate about it, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/drive.shtml and select "Listen Again Tue" for today's programme (this will only be available until Friday or so). Then skip forward to 2:30:30 to get to start of a report on the speech. They interview a prominent Labour MP, Gerald Kaufman, and the editor of the Independent newspaper, Simon Kelner. It's a perfect opportunity to get a sense of two sides to a debate (it gets a bit feisty) and of how politicians feel the urge to control the press - especially when it is unkind to them.
You can also read the whole of Blair's speech at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6744581.stm - he says interesting things about Broadcast News as well.
The more you can refer to speeches like this in your answers the better chance you have of succeeding - it shows that you are truly engaged with the live debates and not just rehashing the notes given out in class.
6 comments:
It's Brogan. It's too much to take in. I've read, listened and gone on blogs about this speech and everyone seems to be making the same point in some shape of form. It's hard to distinguish what's really relevant.
Is this speech really important to use in our exams? Also when we use quotes from the wide array of people who have commented on this speech do we have to say who it is from or what newspaper etc because names are impossible to remember.
This is off the point but when i'm talking about news values do i have to say that Galtung and Ruge characterised what they were and when?
I know you said apply what academic research we got to our thesis but it sounds ridiculous and looks like i've just put whatever i've found together and it doesn't relate to it!!! Mica's having critical research meltdown too.
You haven't put on the labour MP libel case. Might be helpful as most people are doing freedom of the press and actaully look at your blog now.
Sense the stress!
First of all, apologies for not respnding earlier but I haven't been online before now. I think what is really relevant are two things. 1) Blair's assertion that the media is at times a "feral beast". This is a hugely emotive image and does imply a real need for tighter control. He's pretty vague about what that tighter control should be but he does hint that some kind of media wide regulator will be needed, now that the internet has blurred the edges between Press and Broadcast. This is a key part of the speech - "The regulatory framework at some point will need revision. The PCC is for traditional newspaper publishing.
OFCOM regulate broadcasting, except for the BBC, which largely has its own system of regulation. But under the new European regulations all television streamed over the internet may be covered by OFCOM.
As the technology blurs the distinction between papers and television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have different systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can be differentiated in the old way.
How this is done is an open question and, of course, the distinction between balance required of broadcasters but not of papers remains valid. But at some point the system is going to change and the importance of accuracy will not diminish, whilst the freedom to comment remains."
2) The other big thing in this speech is his assertion that "impact" is what determines what is reported and how it is reported. Because of the media explosion of the last ten years (internet, digital TV) it is increasingly hard to get and hold onto an audience, therefore newspapers and broadcasters feel compelled to choose stories that will create and impact in the media marketplace. In a way, you could say this is the big new "news value" in town. I'm going to answer your other questions in a separate comment so you don't glaze over
When you leave quotations on this sort of thing, all you need do is contextualise the comment and write something like, "referring to the Tony Blair's recent speech on the state of the media, the Labour MP, Gerald Kaufman commented that......." Don't try to remember all the quotations just select two or three that you think are really illustrative of different sides of the debate and who said them. You don't even need full quotations, just paraphrase what was said.
Re News Values - better to mention Galtung and Ruge than not. If you mention that they came up with them in the 60's then it gives you scope to discuss the extent to which they may have changed - see Tony Blair on the importance of "impact" today.
Critical Research - don't be so worried about it. I swear to you it doesn't sound ridiculous. If you are examining how realistic the representation of sex is on soap operas then it is perfectly natural, and expected, that you should examine the wider question of realism in soaps in general. All research needs a context and the earlier studies on realism in soap operas is your context. It won't make it look like you couldn't find any on your particular topic, if anything it will make your research appear all the more original.
Mica - meltdown is not operable online!
I'm wracking my brain and can't remember what the Labour MP libel case is that you refer to. When did I mention this?
No need to stress, I was singing the praises of your class last night. You all can think for yourselves and that's the most important skill to have for both of these papers. You'll be (more than) fine!
Just to let you know the general reaction from the exam today was not great. Some people mentioning no names did the wrong questions and others didn't see all the questions so couldn't do the ones they preferred. It was slightly creepy that there was a prime minister question for freedom of the press.
you might have to take back the singing ur praises comment after you see the results!
It's not relevant know but if found the labour MP winning his libel case against the mail on sunday on the media guardian site.
You can breath a sigh of relief that we won't be asking you lots of questions on this blog anymore.
Hey!
Its Sky,
I wish i could tell you exactly how the exam went, but i cant quite remember. I answered a question on the Press Complaints Commission and began remembering all the cases you told us long ago, and managed to detail the danish case and bring it in to compare with the british media.
2 more exams to go!
I think we are all coming in on wednesday at about 11.45 for critical research overview...
Maybe ill see you then :)
Hey Mr Meade. T'is Mica.
I thought you might like to know how the exam went. In simple terms, it was tragic. The Freedom of the Press question was alright as the question was decidely vague, but the genre one was horrible. Like Brogan said, you may need to take back your words of praise.
So of course, we all need to do amazingly in our Critical Research paper, and I think that from our reactions to that particular section of Media, we're a bit worried about that.
Oh, and sir, meltdowns aren't operable full stop.
Post a Comment