I don't wish to annoy any journalists who might read this, especially any I'm related to, but I'm noticing an awful lot of unfair journalism these days. Exhibit one is brought by Homer - a Cricinfo article on the IPL's security arrangements. On reflection it is (was?) less fair than I first thought, but it's still got fairly minor problem compared with some of the stuff floating around.
Last week, I read a newspaper article which used very creative/stupid quoting, and was supplied with a headline and introduction which contradicted other content. I suspect I have a habit of discarding headlines once I acutally read a story, but I came across this article after I saw a letter in response from a reader who obviously didn't take in the "finer" details.
Last night, I happened to see a TV current affairs report. For those who might be able to guess which one I mean, I will say that I'm not trying to say anything about the case itself - I don't know anything more than reported, and wouldn't comment if I did. The issue I have a problem with is the way the targets' response was reported. It often looks bad enough when someone doesn't offer an interview, but that doesn't justify obscuring any written response that is received, by saying nothing more than that it is on the website. Will anyone not feeling sympathetic in some way bother looking for it? As I see it, journos should either give viewers an idea of hte response, or not imply that they were willing to give a fair hearing. But a written response just isn't good tv, is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment