And the Award for best Political Journalist goes to…

I’ve written about journalism, reporting and the state of the news media before. A friend’s comments on Facebook in the light of the recent shootings in Northumbria that resulted in the murder of Chris Brown, and the serious injuries of Samantha Stobbart and police officer David Rathband by Raoul Moat, who committed suicide on 10 July 2010, has inspired this blog. My friend posted a link to the Independent’s Johann Hari 8 July 2010 article about what we know about violent death – suicide, mass murder, shooting sprees – and media reporting on it. To very crudely summarise the research he cited, mostly from Dr Park Dietz, reporting on these incidents in a way that glamorises and sensationalises them leads to more such violent acts. When restraint is exercised, there is a demonstrable decline in such acts. The reason why is fairly simple: the person might already be heading towards some sort of self-destructive act, but lacks a script involving killing other people, too. When the media provide the script with someone they identify as like them, is it any wonder they take the opportunity to act?

It’s the sensationalising that is the key to this. Part of the reason why I try to actively avoid the TV news media in the UK was the BBC’s reaction to the Virginia Tech shootings in the USA. The BBC have journalists in the USA who had covered it more than adequately. There was no reason to send a crew out there to cover “it” 24/7, but they did. There was nothing to cover. The dreadful event was over in less than one day; probably over in less time than it took for the crew to scramble over to an airport and get a plane to Virginia. They did exactly what the American Psychological Association said not to do in the aftermath of that awful event.

The shootings in Cumbria last month demonstrated that the UK media did not learn from the US examples, or the Chinese examples, or the Scandinavian examples…

In answer to my friend’s question, I posted that the UK media has chosen “blood” in order for higher ratings and higher readership.

It’s not that they should avoid reporting such events, but they should be aware of their effects when they report the way they do. To quote Hari, “In general: play down the coverage. Don’t give the killer what he wanted.” It’s not like there isn’t credible guidance out there. But their reaction is like they want more blood to generate more stories for them to cover…

I’m also reminded of another friend’s comments about why she never wanted to be a journalist or work in news television. Yet, she got a job in that field a few years ago when she was living in London. She told me of the glee “journalists” had when they got a clip of particular cruelty and gruesomeness. Even though they would never be able to show it, it meant to them kudos, ratings, the scent of blood for the possibility of an award. The climatologist Stephen Schneider described what drives the English-speaking media as “titillation, not complexity” when he was interviewed by Philip Adams on LNL on 29 June 2010.

Fortunately, not all news media is like that.

I watch MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show on download via iTunes. It’s free, so people don’t have any excuse to not give the show a go. Just a couple of weeks ago she did two shows from Afghanistan, with a load more on the website. At the end of day two she pointed out the role journalists are playing in that war, and stated how aware she is of her own role as a journalist. When she’s broadcasting from the USA she fairly often criticises the US media for not doing their jobs properly, for getting stuck on “beltway wisdom” in spite of the facts, and for not doing basic checks of facts. She’ll admit when she makes mistakes, and wears her liberal (noting the US definition of that word) bias on her sleeve. She’s constantly talking about how she’d like the right-wing people she talks about to come on her show so she can interview them. And that is interview them, not just tear them to shreds or talk over them. I’ve seen her interview one or two who have been genuine enough to turn up, and she tries to get them to get their views across and she does challenge them, but she treats them with respect.

Not that this is a blog capable of giving awards, and no doubt there are others out there doing what journalists ought, but some of the media pundits out there who I respect are:

Rachel Maddow – she might be a usually studio-bound journalist, but she is a refreshingly honest journalist not afraid to admit when she’s wrong. It helps she’s very easy on the eye, but she’s great because she lives and breathes the politics of the USA but is also aware of the greater world out there. I follow her on Twitter.

Johann Hari – a columnist for the UK’s Independent newspaper who has written some crackingly good articles of late. I’ve just started following him on Twitter.

Robert Fisk – a long-time correspondent who works in the middle east. He had worked for the Times, but shifted to the Independent after Murdoch took over the Times. In his journalistic life time he’s had some amazing scoops and been in some amazing places during some amazing times. Blissfully, he’s collected some of his writings into a few books.

Philip Adams – a commentator from Australia who presents the ABC’s Late Night Live on Radio National, which is downloadable for free. I’ve always respected his ability to get people to talk, and he’s not afraid of asking some very difficult questions. The topics covered are wide-ranging, and I love the updates of Australian politics by Laura Tingle and Christian Kerr, US politics by Bruce Shapiro (interestingly counterpointing the observations by Rachel Maddow) and British politics by Greens member Bea Campbell.

The Economist – brilliant newspaper. The paper version maintains extremely high standards as far as writing is concerned, but yet, it’s far from fuddlesome. George Orwell recommended their writers’ guide, and Orwell, frankly, despite his quirks and perhaps inconsistent politics, would win my award for journalism.

I don’t always agree with the things each of these write or present. That’s really not the point. I don’t even always agree with their broad politics. What makes me respect them is their honesty, their intelligence and their ability to get to the heart of a story. They are also self-aware and, as far as I’m aware, respectful of their subjects.

They are people I happily call political journalists. People who are continuing a long and fascinating tradition of research and comment.