“British journalism is sloppy and morally bankrupt”
Allegedly…
I listened to Nick Davies, the author of Flat Earth News on Radio 4 a few days ago. He was defending his view that, because media outlets have moved into the ownership of huge corporations, their primary interest is in profit rather than journalism. It’s highly listenable stuff:
“The logic of journalism has been overwhelmed by logic of commercialism…”
“Journalists no longer have time or resources to do their jobs properly as active new gatherers. They’ve become passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material. This makes them enormously vulnerable to manipulation.”
Davies also claims that journalists are incorporating criminality into their work. Driven by scoops, and a lack of time and resources, they cut corners. It’s common practice, says Davies, to hire private investigators to trawl through the trash. They can source bank statements, phone bills, tax records, even health records.
Of particular note to this blog is Davies’s claim that, “The role of the PR industry has become fascinatingly powerful.” He cites research conducted by Cardiff university, which found that of 2000 stories in the quality UK press, "54% of stories were wholly or mainly constructed out of PR product." So more than half of the stories we read are largely influenced by those serving an interest.
I’m not personally a fan of PR firms. Having been an analyst for 12 years, I found that most just got in the way. And now looking at broad ecosystems of influence, I see the dispersion of influence away from traditional journalists, which means that PR is less important to firms than it used to be.
Or so I thought. If Mr Davies is right, perhaps we should all hurry back to our PR friends with peace offerings and humble pie.
Or maybe he’s reporting the further and final erosion of journalists as real influencers.
…
(There’s a good review of Flat Earth News at The Economist, for those who subscribe. For those who don’t - tssk.)
(The full Cardfiff Uni report is here)
I listened to Nick Davies, the author of Flat Earth News on Radio 4 a few days ago. He was defending his view that, because media outlets have moved into the ownership of huge corporations, their primary interest is in profit rather than journalism. It’s highly listenable stuff:
“The logic of journalism has been overwhelmed by logic of commercialism…”
“Journalists no longer have time or resources to do their jobs properly as active new gatherers. They’ve become passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material. This makes them enormously vulnerable to manipulation.”
Davies also claims that journalists are incorporating criminality into their work. Driven by scoops, and a lack of time and resources, they cut corners. It’s common practice, says Davies, to hire private investigators to trawl through the trash. They can source bank statements, phone bills, tax records, even health records.
Of particular note to this blog is Davies’s claim that, “The role of the PR industry has become fascinatingly powerful.” He cites research conducted by Cardiff university, which found that of 2000 stories in the quality UK press, "54% of stories were wholly or mainly constructed out of PR product." So more than half of the stories we read are largely influenced by those serving an interest.
I’m not personally a fan of PR firms. Having been an analyst for 12 years, I found that most just got in the way. And now looking at broad ecosystems of influence, I see the dispersion of influence away from traditional journalists, which means that PR is less important to firms than it used to be.
Or so I thought. If Mr Davies is right, perhaps we should all hurry back to our PR friends with peace offerings and humble pie.
Or maybe he’s reporting the further and final erosion of journalists as real influencers.
…
(There’s a good review of Flat Earth News at The Economist, for those who subscribe. For those who don’t - tssk.)
(The full Cardfiff Uni report is here)
Labels: journalists, PR
posted by Duncan Brown at 2:50 pm
2 Comments:
A note: if 54% of stories written are constructed from PR material, that doesn't necessarily mean that over half the stories read are constructed in said fashion. My guess is that many of those "pre-fabricated" stories are passed over very quickly, particularly by the more savvy readers of magazines/papers/etc...
Hi Neil,
I admire your optimism that readers can discern the difference between proper journalism and regurgitated PR. While, as you say, savvy readers may have the nous to do so, it's the majority of readers that are more susceptible to junk journalism.
I agree that an analysis of the stories printed versus stories read would be interesting, but gathering data would be impossibly hard.
Cheers,
Post a Comment
<< Home