Flynny Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 I have just finished reading this book. It's genuinely brilliant. It's not ranty, meticulously put together, reasonably fair and balanced (it attacks media campaigns from, say, Greenpeace and The Mail - both of which are equally well explained) and has left me not looking at news the same way again. I feel completely cut adrift after having read it, it fact. If he's even half right, which I fear he is, then there's very little news I/we can trust at all. The section that talks about the media looking for accuracy rather than truth, and putting quotes from both sides in every story however weak one might be (as well as the proliferation of comment) is something I think explains the coalescence of parties and opinion around the political centre. Buy it, read it.
Guest Bilo Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 Sounds like a good read Flynny. May have to pay a visit to Waterstone's.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 I've just ordered it too, and a copy of Ben Goldacre's Bad Science while I was at it. Aren't we trusting?
Bluefoxtim Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 I've just ordered it too, and a copy of Ben Goldacre's Bad Science while I was at it. Aren't we trusting? Bought that for my brother's birthday.
stez Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 i will look for that book. i felt the same way about new programmes, as you do, after i watched 'the day today' and news programmes now are, basically, the day today.
Lillehamring Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 It's genuinely brilliant. It's not ranty, meticulously put together, reasonably fair and balanced (it attacks media campaigns from, say, Greenpeace and The Mail - both of which are equally well explained) and has left me not looking at news the same way again. I feel completely cut adrift after having read it, it fact. If he's even half right, which I fear he is, then there's very little news I/we can trust at all.The section that talks about the media looking for accuracy rather than truth, and putting quotes from both sides in every story however weak one might be (as well as the proliferation of comment) is something I think explains the coalescence of parties and opinion around the political centre. Buy it, read it. don't think i need a book to make me feel like that! i'm sure it's an interesting read - but i suspect, from my point of view, it would be a case of preaching to the converted
Thracian Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 I have just finished reading this book. It's genuinely brilliant. It's not ranty, meticulously put together, reasonably fair and balanced (it attacks media campaigns from, say, Greenpeace and The Mail - both of which are equally well explained) and has left me not looking at news the same way again. I feel completely cut adrift after having read it, it fact. If he's even half right, which I fear he is, then there's very little news I/we can trust at all. The section that talks about the media looking for accuracy rather than truth, and putting quotes from both sides in every story however weak one might be (as well as the proliferation of comment) is something I think explains the coalescence of parties and opinion around the political centre. Buy it, read it. Sounds interesting. News reporting is supposed to be impartial - hence the supposedly equal opportunity for people to be quoted in defence of their views - but a skilled hack can still subtley impose his own or his newspapers. Broadcasters too can offer every side a say but convey their bias in the way they react to a comment, cut a person short, allow a little more time to a favoured spaker or let the fvoure opinion be the one that's voiced last. Manipulation of minds through the media is constant. Look how the media have totally ignored the BNP until recently, hoping that their views would not be heard at all, but when this has proved impossible the focus has always been on their racist repatriation policy with little or no reference to other aspects of policy such as jobs or education. At the Leicester Mercury it was - at least under the previous regimes (they have a new editor now) - tabboo to publicise the BNP at all other than when it was legally obliged as in giving the list of candidates for a particular election. Whether that policy has or will change now I don't know but it totally against the spirit of democracy however offensive or inflamatory such comment might be to some. You either have democracy or you don't - and I don't put myself forward as any great defender of the democratic system we have. But it is utter hypocrisy to say we have free speech and democracy and then to stifle certain voices. Some may disagree with those who would seek to have the world take the Islamic pathway but that is no reason, in a supposedly democratic society, to deny them a platform from which to make their case. It is not even as if politicians, writers or broadcasters who oppose or counter free speech don't have their own political agendas or flaws in their expertise and understanding. They do, as we all do although most of us don't have so much influence. Even as a long-time journalist I could never understand the logic of a lot of the views my colleagues came out with by way of political and moral comment. Hypocrisy was never far away when you knew the writer as a private person together with their personal circumstances. Accuracy has always been a requirement of journalism - it helps to prevent expensive legal action apart from anything else - but trying to analyse comment to get at truth is not even necessarily good for a newspaper. In Leicester, for instance, the Mercury would never wish to make analysis which resulted in angering or losing a good portion of its audience and, equally important, its advertising. I remember being asked to write a feature on hare coursing once. The editor was clearly shocked by my slant but he liked the way it was put together and accepted that he'd asked for a point of view even if it wasn't the one he anticipated. Credit to him in that he had the bottle to use the feature when there was a groundswell of pressure to outlaw the sport. But he still covered his back by sending another journalist out to present an alternate view - the one which far more reflected the views of City people which formed the backbone of their readership.
Flynny Posted 11 June 2009 Author Posted 11 June 2009 So it's basically Newswipe for adults? I wrote for the sport section of the university newspaper last year. I was talking about Newswipe with the editor of the section who's just finished his Politics degree and takes a massive interest in journalism. He was pretty damning about Newswipe, reckoned Brooker was well-intentioned but didn't really know what he was talking about. He then mentioned this book and said it was one of the best he'd ever read, and far superior. I read up on it and bought it - it is pretty similar and has the benefit of an insiders perspective. I liked Newswipe but the contributors bits were definitely the best bits about it. You might remember Nick Davies featuring on Newswipe - the bit about the Natwest Three? Skip to 4:30.It's covered in the book. Buy it and we can have a Foxestalk book club discussion in a few days time. Thracian - I'd absolutely love to hear what you thought of it if you ever did have a read, both as a former journalist who'd remember 'the old days' which Davies recalls as a little rose-tinted, and because there's a chapter on the massive distortion of immigration statistics.
Finnegan Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 Oh yes, like I was saying the other day (I can't remember who to? It might have been Fez? Possibly not) the segments by 'experts' were by far and away the best in it. Peter Oborne's contributions were excellent. I always saw Brooker as there for entertainment more than information, really. I generally watched it as a comedy show more than a genuine political or social commentary.
Flynny Posted 11 June 2009 Author Posted 11 June 2009 Oh yes, like I was saying the other day (I can't remember who to? It might have been Fez? Possibly not) the segments by 'experts' were by far and away the best in it. Peter Oborne's contributions were excellent.I always saw Brooker as there for entertainment more than information, really. I generally watched it as a comedy show more than a genuine political or social commentary. In fairness the genuine criticism was mostly of the presentation rather than than the content, which is what Davies concentrates on mostly. The bit about the German shooting with the overdubbed expert as they did things they'd been advised not to was powerful.
Finnegan Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 Yes, I've got that on my favourites on youtube. I'm sure I was showing it to Fez? It could well have been someone else but I'm not sure. There you go. One of the best bits of TV I've seen in years.
Thracian Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 I wrote for the sport section of the university newspaper last year. I was talking about Newswipe with the editor of the section who's just finished his Politics degree and takes a massive interest in journalism. He was pretty damning about Newswipe, reckoned Brooker was well-intentioned but didn't really know what he was talking about. He then mentioned this book and said it was one of the best he'd ever read, and far superior. I read up on it and bought it - it is pretty similar and has the benefit of an insiders perspective. I liked Newswipe but the contributors bits were definitely the best bits about it. You might remember Nick Davies featuring on Newswipe - the bit about the Natwest Three? Skip to 4:30.It's covered in the book. Buy it and we can have a Foxestalk book club discussion in a few days time. Thracian - I'd absolutely love to hear what you thought of it if you ever did have a read, both as a former journalist who'd remember 'the old days' which Davies recalls as a little rose-tinted, and because there's a chapter on the massive distortion of immigration statistics. I'll nip into Waterstones tomorrow if I get a chance.
Thracian Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 I'm poor. I'll just borrow Flynny's copy. No wonder capitalism's struggling!
Steven Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 Dr Park Dietz is my hero for today. To go on TV and tell it like it is takes some gonads. Like most experts he will be completely ignored because politicians and the media always know better.
Zingari Posted 11 June 2009 Posted 11 June 2009 cheers for recommendation just ordered a copy from amazon , along with Bad Science by Ben Goldacre and got the two of them for less than a tenner with free postage good old amazon
Flynny Posted 11 June 2009 Author Posted 11 June 2009 I'll nip into Waterstones tomorrow if I get a chance. Hooray! I'm poor. I'll just borrow Flynny's copy. I'd give it you on Saturday but: 1. My grandad's having it off me on Saturday. 2. My ankle's too fooked to play still so I probably won't even show my face since it means I can get back to Bristol earlier and get drunk/get laid/masturbate in privacy/sit listening to people's mixes.
Ultra Posted 13 June 2009 Posted 13 June 2009 I've read this book. It's a devastating indictment of the modern media, and Uncle Rupert in particular.
Edmund Posted 13 June 2009 Posted 13 June 2009 That's brilliant, how have I not seen this program before.
Flynny Posted 13 June 2009 Author Posted 13 June 2009 I've read this book. It's a devastating indictment of the modern media, and Uncle Rupert in particular. Did you think so? It wasn't flattering but he seems to think that interfering owners is far less a problem than commonly believed.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.