The News Corp saga involving (a) the much-contested bid for control of BSkyB, (b) the sacking for reasons of sexism of key sports presenters on Sky, (c) the social canoodling of David Cameron with Rebekkah Wade and James Murdoch during the Christmas holidays, (d) the unravelling of the phone-hacking habits at the News of the World (but clearly not a monopoly practice by News Corp), and (e) the arrival in the UK of Rupert Murdoch to sort out the mess, have been too easy a target for comment in the last few weeks. Other commentators have said what needs to be said and anyone with half a brain is left to draw their own conclusions.
Andreas Whittam-Smith summarised it in his scathing critique in the Independent.
It would also be too easy to shoot arrows at the moral inconsistencies of the self-righteous Daily Mail – too much like shooting fish in a barrel. Yet one blogger has pulled it together in relation to the bizarre one-man organisation Christian Voice – which is a predictable shriek rather than a voice and not noticably Christian or representative of the Christian Church. ‘A Christian Voice’ would be a little more accurate, but this doesn’t stop the press from quoting the man behind the title, Stephen Green, or consulting him as if he represented anyone other than himself.
When will journalists and media researchers drop Christian Voice from their contacts list on the grounds hinted at in the description above?
Taking on the Murdochs is not a bsuiness for the fainthearted. Having a government in bed with James or Rupert is dangerous for more than democracy – although the current government seems to be carrying on a tradition begun earlier. Taking seriously much (but not all) press comment on religion in general or Christianity in particular is worryingly naive. It is like accepting that the fulminations of Christian Voice are either Christian or needing a voice.
There are informed exceptions (notably Ruth Gledhill and correspondents from the Guardian and Independent in particular) – although the speed (or judgement) and the need (for speedy stories) means that even they get it spectacularly wrong sometimes (in the same way I and the Church sometimes cause them great frustration). But, the reading/viewing public needs to be better educated in how to read/see what is reported and ask fundamental questions about what distinguishes informed reality from the rubbish.
Good journalism identifies the questions to be asked if reality is to be judged. It is not simply about telling a particular story to back a particular narrative in a way that closes down the questions and purports to deliver a definitive judgement.
A good society and a good democracy demand good journalism based on good research and a good understanding of the subject matter with informed comment from people who can be relied upon to actually represent the views of the community they purport to represent. Good journalism needs to be supported and encouraged – and the consumers need to learn to discriminate.
Steve Richards concludes:
This is a story about journalists losing control. The response to MPs’ losing control was the introduction of an almost comically tough external regulator. In this case I doubt if much will change. Some journalists and newspaper empires are more powerful than puny elected representatives.
Nick Baines's Blog 
January 29, 2011 at 5:55 pm
He is right. The media control is in their own hands, therefore, they are their own, judge, jury and excusers.
The fact that politicians rely on the media to get their message across, dependent upon their position on the political spectrum is an indication of a lack of independence form the government of the day.
Will it ever change, ever the optimist, I hope so, otherwise we will go further down the route of being ruled by the media – the tail wagging the dog.
January 29, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Part of the problem Nick, is ignorance: ignorance on the part of journalists about who speaks for the Christians and ignorance on the part of Christians on what journalists are there to do.
In my days as Head of Postgrad Journalism, the level of ignorance shown by young adults about almost every level of society was worrying. Most had no idea who their local MP was, often didn’t know what local authority area they lived in (unless they were getting a grant) and assumed every ordained person was a Vicar.
At the same time, Church people assumed that the role of journalists was to unquestioningly “spread the Gospel” and the idea that religion would be considered as anything other than A Good Thing was beyond their comprehension.
So the clashes between these views, when they occurred, were interesting, especially because news story often report little more than about five per cent of the known facts of an issue for space reasons or because the protagonists are not available before the deadline.
It means that group like Christian Voice, who seem to be always available for comment, are the default “rent a quote” in reporters’ contacts books while denominational media desks – who may have to check their comment with a senior officer – have a built-in delay to their response.
And of course, as we know, immediacy is the god of this 24-hour news age and the inherited Church has yet to find a way to cope with that pressure to speak quickly.
Perhaps it shouldn’t. But then the result will be that the extreme views are paraded as what the Church thinks while the Joint Public Issues Team’s thoughtful statement is too late to included.
January 30, 2011 at 7:06 pm
In other words Gareth -” A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on”
January 30, 2011 at 8:46 pm
As ever Nick, I find myself agreeing with your critique of the media and then looking at myself (as a Christian and a journalist).
Looking forward to seeing you on Sunday, when hopefully we’ll be able to offer some helpful commentary on whatever’s in the headlines.
God bless,
Andy
January 31, 2011 at 11:18 am
We seem to have moved to a position where journalists have usurped power from politicians. They impose standards on the politicians that they completely ignore themselves and a morality of which the world of journalism is compeletely uninformed. Which makes it all the more worrying that the Murdoch family have so much control over the media and are trying to gain even more. They must be stopped if freedom of speech amnd integrity of news and braodcasting is to be restored.
January 31, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Thank you for the comments on “Christian Voice”. As a Christian (in your new diocese), I despair of the polarised debate in the media, which suggests that there are only two points of view – that of Richard Dawkins etc or the narrow fundamentalism represented by Christian Voice. Looking forward to welcoming you to Bradford – having read the blog since your appointment, I think you are the man for the job!
June 19, 2011 at 4:45 pm
[…] him, but at least I don’t stop getting stuck in with the media on their terms. So, what I am returning to here is a discussion we have had before about expectations of the […]