The four essays are found here: 1, 2, 3, 4
The first thing that really struck out to me was this quote from Sylvester Bolam, a former editor of the Mirror, defining sensationalism: "Sensationalism doesn't mean the distortion of the truth. It means the vivid and dramatic presentation of events so as to give them a forceful impact on the mind of the reader."
We briefly touched on sensationalism this morning, so this definition tied the loose end from that discussion nicely. I agree with the definition and sensationalism is certainly a large element of the media, however I think Bolam has left out one very crucial fact, which is that this 'forceful impact on the mind of the reader' can most definitely distort the truth. If a news piece is presented with a massive space-eating headline, multiple pictures and a lengthy article, the reader will be led to believe that this is an important matter. There wouldn't have to be anything factually incorrect, but presenting something in such a way that it creates mass-moral panic (e.g., reporting on a paedophilia ring in such a way that it implies paedophilia is a larger problem than it is in reality*) would most certainly distort the truth, by making the problem seem more than it is.
Another quote that sticks out to me:
"That paper too has changed. The "poster", single-issue, front pages have become its trademark, the daily statement that, in the words of its editor, make it a "viewspaper". When it works, as in the paper's consistent opposition to the war in Iraq, it is convincing. When it involves clingfilm-wrapped celeriac it tends to provoke mirth."
I only find this interesting, because one of last week's Independent front pages really made me stop and think, "What the hell are you reporting?" It was Saturday and I walked into WHSmith. The news of the printer bomb was on the front page of ever paper. My eyes glazed over the same-y papers, and then I saw The Independent. Its 'poster' today was of a rare frog in some forest or jungle, and its headline news was about something or other happening in nature preservation. It really made me stop - why would they report about that when the printer bomb is all anyone's interested in at the moment? I opened it to check - the news of the bomb was on Page 4.
So yeah. I don't think my little anecdote has much of a point to it, except to say "Yes, I agree with you there."
Overall though, I found it very interesting and, as he goes on to say, the Death of Print Press is over exaggerated. Still, it's a pity that the essays are 3 years old and ignore online media. I'd be interested to read what Cole has to say about the new model for The Times Online and News of the World.
Well done, and interesting take on Cole's introduction to newspapers. Your tendency to look for evidence for what you've read is very encouraging. And you're absolutely right to highlight that Cole's articles missed out on some important recent developments. Two good sources of information about the current media landscape are the Media Guardian on a Monday and the Media Show on BBC Radio 4 (on iPlayer).
ReplyDelete