The Guardian
Sorry to have been a bit quiet lately - had a few
issues to sort out.
So, The Guardian is threatening to switch its alliegance from Labour to the Lib Dems for the next election. And although it came out in an interview I think we can say 'threatening' because editor Alan Rusbridger is not a naive man and he knows the weight of his words.
It's interesting to note how important the support of one newspaper or the other can be in a political campaign. The Guardian is, ironically, not one of those with a lot of influence in my view. I love the paper but I think we're all aware that its readership is likely to be liberal with a small 'l' already, and quite independent enough to make its own mind up whatever the paper said.
Where The Guardian has made a mistake, in my view, was not this week in the UK election issue but last week when it urged readers to write to residents of Clark County about their incoming President.
Much has been written about this already. My own view is that something needed to be done, but this probably wasn't it. The American people need to understand (and most of them probably do) that their President becomes a de facto Western World President immediately he's elected. If he declares war on Iraq, to use the obvious example, the rest of the world doesn't sit back and watch - it makes a decision as to whether or not it should join in. American voters need to be aware that they are responsible not merely for electing the custodian of their country but of the world.
But an initially light-hearted campaign targeting voters at their home addresses? Not sure how that squares with the Graun's usual libertarian values, and equally not comfortable with the data protection implications (of course it'll be perfectly legal, nobody in the press is that stupid). The backlash seems to have abated somewhat, but my bet is that The Guardian will live to regret this little adventure.
So, The Guardian is threatening to switch its alliegance from Labour to the Lib Dems for the next election. And although it came out in an interview I think we can say 'threatening' because editor Alan Rusbridger is not a naive man and he knows the weight of his words.
It's interesting to note how important the support of one newspaper or the other can be in a political campaign. The Guardian is, ironically, not one of those with a lot of influence in my view. I love the paper but I think we're all aware that its readership is likely to be liberal with a small 'l' already, and quite independent enough to make its own mind up whatever the paper said.
Where The Guardian has made a mistake, in my view, was not this week in the UK election issue but last week when it urged readers to write to residents of Clark County about their incoming President.
Much has been written about this already. My own view is that something needed to be done, but this probably wasn't it. The American people need to understand (and most of them probably do) that their President becomes a de facto Western World President immediately he's elected. If he declares war on Iraq, to use the obvious example, the rest of the world doesn't sit back and watch - it makes a decision as to whether or not it should join in. American voters need to be aware that they are responsible not merely for electing the custodian of their country but of the world.
But an initially light-hearted campaign targeting voters at their home addresses? Not sure how that squares with the Graun's usual libertarian values, and equally not comfortable with the data protection implications (of course it'll be perfectly legal, nobody in the press is that stupid). The backlash seems to have abated somewhat, but my bet is that The Guardian will live to regret this little adventure.
|
Women
18/10/04 12:29 Media
issues Permalink
I suppose it was inevitable that someone would come
forward and blame a particular group for the glut of
omakeover and reality TV shows that have blighted the
schedules for so long. Former BBC director general
Alasdair Milne
blames female commissioning
staff,
apparently.
Personally I think he's wrong. I blame two things. First I blame the fact that there have always been trends in TV; in the sixties there were wall to wall spy shows, in the seventies there were loads of cop shows, the eighties brought us Dallas and the glossy soaps and now we have reality TV. These things have their day and move on. Second I blame the viewers. If these programmes are watched and enjoyed, who can blame the BBC and others for thinking we the public want more..?
Personally I think he's wrong. I blame two things. First I blame the fact that there have always been trends in TV; in the sixties there were wall to wall spy shows, in the seventies there were loads of cop shows, the eighties brought us Dallas and the glossy soaps and now we have reality TV. These things have their day and move on. Second I blame the viewers. If these programmes are watched and enjoyed, who can blame the BBC and others for thinking we the public want more..?
BBC News
07/10/04 12:28 Media
issues Permalink
Top stories
06/10/04 12:27 Media
issues Permalink
Music to the ears...
05/10/04 12:26 Media
issues Permalink
Is anyone else totally unsurprised by this? Music
retailers are finally realising why CD sales are
falling - it's because you can pick up plenty of free
music for a fraction of the usual price by
buying a magazine.
I can't help but wonder why people want to stop at CDs, though. I've picked up books from magazines, I've had a free sports bag, all sorts of stuff It's enough to make you think the publishers had no confidence in their writers to attract the readers in...
I can't help but wonder why people want to stop at CDs, though. I've picked up books from magazines, I've had a free sports bag, all sorts of stuff It's enough to make you think the publishers had no confidence in their writers to attract the readers in...
Dirty Den
Interesting to see in today's Press Gazette that
Leslie Grantham has failed to persuade the Press
Complaints Commission that his webcam antics had led
to him seeking medical help. He didn't mind the
initial reports - actually that may not be true but
he didn't attempt to take action. His problem was
with the fact that they'd reported that he was
seeking help.
The PCC said the matter was laid bare (sorry) by the initial report, over which he wasn't taking action, so it was fair game. I'd agree with that - but am puzzled that he was OK with the entirely negative reports whereas once they confirmed that this might be a more serious issue and that he was taking sensible action, which puts him in a much better light to my mind, he started complaining.
Personally I wish him all the best - but still hope to see a bit less of stars' private foibles exposed in the future when they don't affect their ability to do their jobs.
The PCC said the matter was laid bare (sorry) by the initial report, over which he wasn't taking action, so it was fair game. I'd agree with that - but am puzzled that he was OK with the entirely negative reports whereas once they confirmed that this might be a more serious issue and that he was taking sensible action, which puts him in a much better light to my mind, he started complaining.
Personally I wish him all the best - but still hope to see a bit less of stars' private foibles exposed in the future when they don't affect their ability to do their jobs.