The ‘innuendo’ of political reporting

For those who missed it, yesterday's big item of journalism news was that the BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson had become the subject of an early day motion in which 77 MPs condemned the ‘innuendo’ that appeared in this post in the reporter's blog.

Just over a day later, Robinson's robust defence of his original comments in his follow-up post had gained a swarm of interest, and going on 500 posts from largely supportive regular readers and what must have been a significant cross-over audience from other news sources.

The UK Parliament website carries a list of the signatories, who included prominent MPs Keith Vaz and Lembit Opik.

The problem is that political journalism in particular has to rely so much on the language of comment and the formation of theories (the blog posting in question was even explicitly titled ‘Theories on the Speaker’) to convey a true sense of the thought processes underlying politics.

There's just no way round it, and I was saddened that MPs were resorting to this albeit half-hearted measure to try and curb reporting freedoms. We know, by way of comparison, that most voices dissenting against their party lines in Westminster are not going to want to be named whenever a journalist simply reports that there are dissenting voices to be found - it's something we have to accept. When journalists started reporting at the end of last year that the Labour ranks were almost certain that an early election would be called, no one felt the need to press for the sources or to condemn the journalists concerned for making vague allusions. Similarly, when rumours of the antipathy in the Blair-Brown relationship began to circulate, or when in 2003 the rumour was spread that Lord Ashcroft had hired a private detective to trail a Times journalist, there was no expectation that these claims should be investigated.

In political reporting, simply parroting the messages that the parties are putting out (which would be the only way to engage in truly ‘hard’ political coverage) is not going to reveal the real and underlying motivations behind the actions of parliamentarians. Today politicians are coached in what is ‘on message’, so they are almost never going to confess their thoughts by being caught off guard.

A journalist, political or otherwise, has to use documents and interviews as the basis for his or her work, but to stop there would be a fallacy. There has to be some attempt to supply the reasons behind policy decisions – this is what the public need to know to judge whether politicians are truly acting on their behalf. The way to avoid this process turning news into comment is to take that theoretical element and apply the principle of balance to it also: by canvassing opposing opinions on intentions too.

So this must be a fast news day

Not having watched the news since late last night while trying in vain to find a channel showing the Oscars ceremony, I was astonished this evening to turn on to to the most astonishing single day's news I've seen for a long time.

With the the uncovering of increasingly horrific details in a series of cases involving the abuse of those in care at the Haut de la Garenne children's home; Kirklees Council staff and police working in droves to search for evidence of missing girl Shannon Matthews; the discovery, which would undoubtedly have delighted RD Laing, of the serious possibility that antidepressants simply ‘do not work’ and are a fraud perpetrated by drug companies; and the rather lighter news of a first live broadcast from North Korea and an Oscar win for a universally popular British actor have left literally only a few seconds of airtime for the irrational and surely election-losing move by Hilary Clinton's campaign team who released a picture of Barack Obama in Oriental dress.

It seems likely that for once tomorrow I won't be the only one in my newsagent queuing up with an armful of papers.

Live in Pyongyang

‘Let's go live now to our correspondent in Pyongyang.’

Unless you're a citizen of North Korea you won't have heard those words before. And if you blinked and missed it, at 22:20 this evening the BBC had a report (flickery though it was) carried live from the willow city.

It was a miniature media event lasting just three minutes including a brief prerecorded package, but a joy to see.

BBC's Iraq Week begins

‘A new poll out today shows that Iraqis are increasingly insecure and pessimistic about their future’, says the lead News 24 story today. Well, who would have thought?

But still, the Beeb are to be commended for their decision to increase their coverage, when studies have shown that many viewers report ‘tuning out’ when war coverage appears on the main news broadcasts.

It was refreshing this morning to see Huw Edwards back out on the front line, and to see behind the scenes of the coverage, where video editing equipment sits in tents protected only by five second mortar warning alerts. This is one of many ways in which the Beeb is finding a new angle, and doing it in a useful way.

I realised just a few minutes ago, at 13:09 local time, Baghdad, that the interview I was watching with Baghdad citizen Usama Ridha was the only interview with ‘the man on the street’ I had seen in a long time (Months? A Year?) which wasn't in the immediate aftermath of a bombing, or some other kind of attack on one side or another.

These interviews are what the BBC calls the ‘My Iraq’ segments. Just talking to people on the ground to give a picture of what life is like rather than just what a certain bombing has resulted in (which we can guess without help) is a much-needed fresh approach from a return to more traditional journalism.

Boy, 14, sails into the record books

Those watching today's News 24 Coverage around two o'clock today were likely to be disappointed by the coverage of schoolboy sailor Michael Perham's arrival at Antigua after setting out from Gibraltar six weeks ago.

After a slew of technical problems resulting from the blurry, jumpy video stream from the reporter waiting with a crowd at the Antiguan docks to receive his guest, and further problems when Michael actually arrived (‘You're standing on the audio cable!’) it became apparent that other than uttering the word ‘fantastic’ neither Michael nor the person in the studio had any idea about what to say.

In Michael's case, his tiredness no doubt contributed to his brief replies, but the interviewers should have done better to get some single grain of detail from their subject. Perhaps if they had bothered to read his blog or asked any questions beyond the humdrum ‘how do you feel’ rephrased about ten to twenty times something would have come of it.

Michael's arrival was part of a three-way link up connecting him with a presenter in the N24 news studio and with his family home where a second interviewer and his relatives watched those fuzzy images from the BBC broadcast. Although the studio presenter did try to get the other two parties talking, nothing was really said through the technological barrier.

The only people who could string some sentences together were Michael's mother and particularly his grandmother, whose replies seemed to suggest that there had been some tests on the way. But their reponses were not followed up by the interviewer with the simple question ‘What kinds of tests has Michael had to face?’ The Beeb were perhaps unlucky that the most powerful statement, which gave the story some depth of feeling and a sense of a struggle rather than just a relaxed sailing holiday, was his mother's unrepeatable line ‘He's been through some shit.’

I would hope that in future more efforts will be made to get some element of detail other than joyous reaction, which is a necessary part of the story, but shouldn't be the story. It would also be nice if they should do something about the dreadful quality of the sub-webcam technology that is used to meet the demand for pictures in many parts of the globe, but does so very poorly, and with audio often so full of pauses the barely half a report can be heard, as was true in this case.

Fur, fish and other classic kickers: Look East

Today's lunchtime regional news was solid proof that while children and animals may have a reputation for being difficult to work with on film, their adorable physiognomies can make up the cornerstones of respectable programmes if they remain motionless, or even better, are being restrained. Also much in evidence were the programme makers' efforts to create a sense of continuity for the programme with more unspoken programme links and pointless displays of humour than you could crack open an oyster at.

First was a report on a bulldog's attack on four-year old George Brown, whose second encounter with the animal had left him scarred. The team showed him asleep as they reported on dog owner Michael Feehily and his partner Toni Badcock appearing at court. The film of their arrival was somewhat undermined by Ms Badcock waving gleefuflly into the camera as soon as she was near it.

Next we heard of a woman who had recently gone missing. She may, noted the newsreader with flexed eyebrows, have a dog with her. So it can't be all bad.

But... we then hear that even though the dog is being cared for even in absentia, it may not be too safe after all, unless it has already been vaccinated for the sinister parvovirus that is going round. Cue stock(?) footage of cute creatures with floppy ears being pinned unneccesarily to an operating table. Surely this third consecutive animal story is quite enough?

After those mostly sober opening stories, the animal theme was abused further by interviews with east coast crab and lobstercatchers concerned that they would no longer be allowed to trap enough animals under new guidelines limiting catches to older animals.

Then, in the fitting climax that a British weather item should always be, and in the established tradition of putting every obscure town on maps on local news, which towns should be marked today but ‘Codicote’, what I think was ‘Herringston’, and where else but ‘Fishley’?

Who needs human interest?