The old charge of residual misognyny is trotted out (one reason for the withdrawal of a petititon to protest her actions -- although subsequent investigation, of unknown provenance, found not a single misogynistic comment). Kuenssberg has had to have a bodyguard to attend the Labour Conference it seems --although no-one has said what the threat actually is.
There is the old 'if both sides hate us we must be right' schtick:
Laura has hit a nerve with her reporting, quite rightly, because she has every right to hold everyone to account.”[said a friend -- but in whose name?] ...Kuenssberg’s impartiality is constantly questioned, though she is accused of being both left-biased and pro-Tory [I have never seen an accusation of pro-left views -- but I have a limited reading of the news myself]
Then a hint about the methods modern journalists use (by another political correspondent also accused of bias -- and who was once a Tory candidate, I believe):
"if she says something, it’s not because it’s a hunch, it’s because she knows it’s true because she’s talked to people"
'True because she's talked to people'! How thorough! What an easy issue, truth is!
Another friend adds : "[she is] not one of those pain-in-the-arse type people you think are too much.”
Not one of those pesky experts then, who might not fit in with the mediocracy or cause dissent among the smart set (who have always hated experts) . The mediocracy have absolved her from criticism, of course, despite an unpleasant finding by the BBC Trust that she hasd 'misinformed 'people. That issue is highly illuminating in showing how journos can indeed avoid personal bias but still misreport (as below). The BBC seized on the first point to absolve Kuenssberg but ignored the second.
The Graun profile is rounded off with tributes to her hard work, competitiveness, desire to be right, but also her humorous side. A hard-working honest pro like us -- move along .
Years ago and far away, a group of troublemakers at the Birmigham Centre for Cultural Studies argued that personal qualities and personal adherence to journalist values is not the issue. The issue is the ideological context in which these values are set -- the unconscious and self-evident notion of a valid grounding consensus about politics, for example that 'balance' is maintained between 'reasonable' positions only. That is only 'common-sense'. Other terminology points to the 'habitus' journos share, as members of an elite -- their beliefs are unconsciously held (so accusations of bias are genuinely resented) , and capable of infinite extensions to new cases (their journalistic expertise and their unguarded comments).
As we have seen increasingly stridently, anyone who does not share that consensus can be mocked and bullied.The consensus is spelled out for the rest of it in horribly patronising summaries (a Kuenssberg speciality). Conversely, the journos claim to be speaking for the consensual 'silent majority' (a Newsnight speciality). The whole thing is a delightful 'mirror-structure' as a notorious French marxist once said.
Compare this to a set of readers' points about 'bias'. I would use different terminology of course, but they raise some relevant points.
The BBC should properly weigh up the rights of marginal voices like Lord Lawson to mislead its audiences about the risks they face against the rights of its audiences to receive accurate information about those risks.
...does political coverage really offer diversity?...A journalist’s life experiences offer foundations for their querying minds. A balanced media should be representative of all parts of our society.
the real problem is that across the board, mainstream and alternative, we have almost completely lost the idea of journalism as the first draft of history.
... I recall, a TV interview [Nick Robinson] had with David Cameron shortly after Cameron became PM. Cameron rolled out the Tory mantra that Gordon Brown’s Labour government had caused the global financial crisis. The camera panned to Robinson who merely nodded at this claim and made no attempt to question or dispute it. This falsity was repeated more recently by Andrew Marr in respect of his stated view that a Labour government couldn’t be trusted to manage the national economy ...Corbyn corrected Marr, pointing out that the global financial crisis was the direct consequence of irresponsible speculation of the US mortgage market by several US financial bodies, which collapsed as a result, and not the Labour government of the time. Marr, visibly irritated at being corrected in this way, responded with: “It doesn’t matter who caused the global financial crisis.” A remarkable response from someone claiming to be both a journalist and a historian.
The BBC’s importance in explaining complex subjects is constrained by the time allocated to the main news at 6pm and 10pm. Difficult subjects get snippets without time to provide context. Political and business reporters show little understanding of economics so are unable to explain that, for example, the monthly figures they have just enthused over have a wider context that is less positive ... Where are we to get a proper explanation of serious subjects on the BBC?
No comments:
Post a Comment