Monday 31 January 2011

Media Responsibility

This morning I read on twitter that a local journalist, for whom I have the greatest respect, has written an article concerning local authority budget cuts. In particular, this article encourages "the people of Greater Manchester to stand up against unfair spending cuts" by adding to a petition to central government - by purchasing the paper and filling out a coupon on the front.

The Manchester Evening News article claims that spending cuts are unfair because some local authorities will suffer higher percentage cuts to central government funding than others (reported to be 21% for Manchester City Council, 19.6% for Salford City Council vs a UK average of 15.2%). Whether you agree with cuts, or the general thrust of the article is very much up to you. My personal view is that this is a half-truth being pushed by Labour-led councils to make the public take a more lenient view their of their irrational spending decisions (£170m on a town hall extension, Manchester, or £700,000 on moving two cranes, Salford). The facts, as I understand them, are that the government has cut many of the grants upon which some councils are very much more reliant than others, while some of the direct funding (for example, to schools) has increased. This fact, it seems, will be somewhat off-set by additional government funding to the tune of £85m that will be used to help the poorest areas. However, whether or not any of this funding will end up in Greater Manchester, or the wider North West, is unclear. Therefore, I approach the government line and claims published in the paper with hesitation in equal measure.

My greatest concern is that I do not believe that a newspaper is the place for a party-political campaign and, for the second time in two weeks, I am bitterly disappointed by the standard of reporting.

Freedom of speech (and by cursor, freedom of the press) is not a license to say or print whatever an individual or group sees fit. Copyright and libel are the two most obvious manifestations of this fact, but there is, I feel, an unwritten responsibility or standard to which the media should hold themselves. The media has an incredibly powerful influence, particularly in modern society, and as Spiderman's uncle Ben says: 'With great power comes great responsibility.'

The job of the media is not to campaign. The job of the media is to inform. It is right that outlets like the Manchester Evening News should question and probe and criticise authority - both local and national - but they must do so in a fair and balanced way. When they fail to do so they sell-out and are willingly surrendering their right to press freedom. And for what? A cynical attempt to sell more papers! It honestly disgusts me how unbalanced modern media has become and how low the standard of reporting has fallen across the media spectrum. I hasten to add that I have often felt that local reporting and the BBC is the last bastion of honest reporting, which is perhaps, why I feel so strongly about this now as it seems to me that even my local press cannot resist the tidal wave of social irresponsibility that is plaguing us at the moment.

I can't change the minds of those responsible for the likes of the Daily Mail or Fox/Sky News who have long since whored their industrial freedoms in the name of turning of a profit, but I hope that this at least might influence those on the frontline and encourage them to hold themselves to a higher standard.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Hello,

This is very brief as I'm running out the door, as always!

I just wanted to respond to this because we've always had a good relationship and I don't want to tarnish it.

Firstly, I totally respect the fact that you disagree with the article. I think it's a shame, as I stand by it, but that's your right and i'm not here to justify it. The comment piece attached to my article sets out the reasons why we've taken this line. It isn't party-political, we believe that one particular policy of the coalition is wrong, and we've set out to campaign against that.

The reason why I'm writing, if not to defend the article, is to point out that where you say: "The job of the media is not to campaign. The job of the media is to inform", I think that's wrong.

The issue of whether or not newspapers should campaign/take a stance on things has been debated by academics and philosophers since forever. Indeed, I did my dissertation on newspapers in the 1830s age of reform (geeky, I know) and even then it was being discussed. The issue of Habermas's civic sphere argument was as pertinent then as it is now. (I have all the relevant sources but my dissertation is at home in a box under the stairs so you might have to wait for me to find them. But they are an interesting read).

You're perfectly entitled to dislike the petition idea - I'm not going to get involved in that as it's an issue of editorial policy. But your argument is based on the opinion that newspaper campaigns are wrong and I'm just not sure that's true.

Anyway, I'm not willing to get into an argument about it. This will be my only intervention into the debate as I'm just not prepared to say anymore. I just wanted to make sure that you understand the reasons for the campaign and then we can agree to disagree.

Hope you are well.

Kat Middleton said...

Thanks for your comment. Although we will have to agree to disagree on this occasion, I can certainly respect your opinion. :o)