The Media Society Blog

Bragg: Nurture young talent

2010-06-05T08:09:00.000-07:00

By Jake Kanter

Melvyn Bragg was honoured for his contribution to broadcasting last night and called on the industry to nurture young talent.

The BBC Radio 4 In Our Time host was presented with the annual Media Society Award at a ceremony in London and received glowing tributes from high profile industry figures.

The award celebrated Bragg’s “unique and distinguished” career and past recipients include Sir David Frost, David Dimbleby and Sir Michael Parkinson.

Broadcasters, writers and artists lined up to commend Bragg for his work on In Our Time and his 32 years as host of The South Bank Show, which was axed by ITV last year.

Outgoing Radio 4 controller, Mark Damazer said In Our Time is “one programme that best expresses what a public service can achieve” and was a “masthead for the entire station”.

Former culture secretary Chris Smith said Bragg had “enriched lives with intelligence, integrity and a wonderful passion for culture”.

Bragg accepted the award with modesty, deciding to return the tributes he received and herald a new generation of broadcasters.

“There is no fall off of energy and talent coming into the [broadcast] industry,” he said. “We have a responsibility to pass it [our skills and understanding] on.”

Melvyn Bragg Annual Award Dinner

2010-06-05T07:38:00.000-07:00

Who won the TV Election?

2010-05-18T14:34:00.000-07:00

Lawyers and Journalists - bedfellows or enemies?

2010-03-23T05:37:00.001-07:00

Lawyers and Journos - bedfellows or enemies? from Ryan Mahan on Vimeo.

Britain's New Media Election - Narcissistic Tosh or Big Step Forward?

2010-03-04T01:19:00.000-08:00

As reported elsewhere on Journalism.co.uk, last night City University London hosted the ‘Will 2010 be the first new media election?’ event, supported by the Media Society and the Media Trust.

Listen to Evan Davis talking to Journalism.co.uk at this link: the BBC Radio 4 Today journalist posed, rather than answered the ‘how much influence will social media hold’ question, but said both new and media forms have their merits. “What might be quite interesting is the way they interact: the way old media results get amplified through the new media and the way the old media events are interpreted through new media.” Both these events will have more resonance together than they would on their own, he said.

Listen to Google’s director of communications and public affairs (Europe, Middle East and Africa ) DJ Collins talking to Journalism.co.uk at this link: “The great thing about the internet is that it’s not national, it’s not local, it’s everywhere. Ordinary people can interact in way they couldn’t before, with traditional media.” Collins agreed with the BBC’s Nick Robinson that “strong” viewpoints were aired online, but said “you’ve got to trust people to make their own minds up” about the quality of blogs and comments.
Watch the video here.

Will Self on TMS Award Honouree Melvyn Bragg

2010-02-19T09:59:00.000-08:00

"While other pupils have come and gone, he remains; and when it was announced last year that, after 30 years, Bragg’s principal vehicle, The South Bank Show, would be ceasing transmission, there was – among those I spoke with – a feeling that this was the end of an era: the barbarians were at the gate. Moreover, we would miss Melvyn’s perkily browned features – like those of a handsome walnut – as the camera cut away from this or that artistic nabob, to show him bobbing and grinning assent (shots that are known in the industry as ‘noddies’)."

Read the complete article in the London Review of Books.

Max Clifford Speaking...

2010-02-19T04:30:00.001-08:00

Finally, is it any wonder that the News of the World apparently sought advantage in a phonehack of Max Clifford's mobile. The man just can't leave the thing alone. They were bound to find out something. Appearing as part of a high-powered panel on a platform at Westminster University this week, Max alone was hindered from making a focused contribution by the fact that his mobile kept going off and that he kept answering it. Ring! Ring! "Hello Mischon de Reya … I am at Westminster City College [sic]. Can I call you back later?" Aside to the audience: "They pay my salary so I have to answer." Ring! Ring! "Hello. I'm in a live debate." To the audience: "I adore anybody who pays me a fortune." I'm here for free, whereas all these people pay me, he told them, and then… Ring! Ring! "The fame game is a drug," he explained. "You spend your life sucking up to egomaniacs." Ring! Ring! Poor Max.

John Mair

The Feral Beast of Media Excess?

2010-02-16T02:00:00.000-08:00

LSE Report on the state of English libel law

TMS in the Daily Mail Diary

2010-02-09T07:44:00.000-08:00

He helped propel Margaret Thatcher into Downing Street - and keep her there through three elections - so PR guru Tim Bell is in a unique position to judge the fitness for office of Tory leader David Cameron and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne.

While valuing his friendship with the pair, Lord Bell does not pull his punches. 'David believes in meritocracy,' he says, 'but he hasn't yet got the ruthless streak that will make him want to cause pain and be a great Prime Minister - George has.'

Speaking to The Media Society, Bell also had some advice for the duo over policy: 'Stop trimming.'

John Mair

Read more

Tim Bell Commonwealth Club Stills

2010-02-03T15:37:00.001-08:00

Tecchie Ethics and Other Conspiracies

2010-01-19T05:36:00.000-08:00

There is a lot of talk about Corporate Social Responsibility these days. Beyond the obvious warm and fuzzy feeling we get when a Megacorp’s actions closely align with our own individual values, companies are ever more enshrined as both individuals in law and communities of individuals in theory. They therefore need to appear as both responsible neighbours and upright citizens. The threat being that if consumers grow fed up with a corporation’s unsavoury profit-seeking, they will take their choices elsewhere. At the forefront of the CSR movement sits the internet’s various corporate citizens. With the advent of Google’s “you can make money without being evil” edict (apart of a larger ten-point socio-economic manifesto) and the increasing technophile dominance of the World Economic Forum at Davos, every mention of the internet, social networking, new media or Web 2.0 comes neatly wrapped in the language of “tecchie ethics”.

So one could imagine the furore which has met Google’s recent threats to censure China’s, and by implication, its own, censorship practices. Various pundits, from Human Rights Watch to Harvard Academics, have interpreted Google’s threat to leave as a clarion call to arms in the fight for free information. After all, every totalitarian regime, from Cuba to Iran, has one thing in common: strong surveillance apparati.

Guardian Technology Editor Charles Arthur’s take on Google’s late-arriving ethical stance is typical of the virtual Free Info! movement. For Arthur, any company that makes information available to everyone aids in rooting out “corruption, lies, and misinformation” and helps “bring down tyrants.” “The medium”, according to Joe Trippi, “also demands authenticity.” It is no wonder some describe pro-internet forces as evangelists and their house, the internet, a broad church.

Others like Evgeny Morozov, who gave a recent talk at POLIS Journalism and Society, prefer their Kool Aid watered down. According to Morozov, “Internet activism so often fails to convert online activity into any meaningful action in the real world.” The battle rages.

If you pull the thread…

True to their name, evangelists, on either side, believe in the primacy of one god. The ‘Google Affair’ to them is just another novel example of his work. What they may be missing is the evolutionary geo-political retelling of an older world-historical saga.

It’s characters are familiar. China, however augmented, plays the role of the rising roguish state. The US cast as itself. Google, the globalised business.

Within the narrative are several recurring themes. For one, the rogue state is indirectly accused of cyber terrorism – making the case not simply a discrepancy between a state and an international corporation but something of import for the entire world. There is also much talk about walls, transposed here from Berlin to China, and how no country should be so paternally protectionist. Attendant to the issue of walls, is the people behind them. Like in Eastern Europe, past human rights abuses and freedom of speech infringements are taken as equivalent.

The US, in turn, is forced to respond in the name of freedom – in this case, freedom of the internet. The company, Google, and the state, US, are now aligned.

On the other side, the phraseology of privacy, morality, and sovereignty is China’s catchword defence for real human rights abuses.

The Gulf of Tonkin awaits.

And Other Conspiracies

For some, neither account suffices.

Google is a business after all. Why then would it abandon a potentially huge market in the name of ideals? Don’t they have a responsibility, first and foremost, to their investors?

It could be that Google is simply playing the CSR trump card. Lest we forget that beyond a bunch of big talk, nothing has actually happened. With consumer memories notoriously short, Google could be wagering that it can both look good and act bad without anyone really noticing. Others remain sceptical about the timing of the proposed move. Surely if Google had reservations about doing business in China, it would never have entered in the first place.

That having been said, devising a complex PR strategy only goes so far in explaining why a company would presumably flail the interests of its investors. Unless, that is, the intent is to improve business prospects long-term. Maybe what is really at stake are those pesky little things called borders. It seems the internet is a bit like the old world and Google, the East India Company. In that rather nightmarish scenario, like in the past, borders, controls, sanctions (resistance of any kind) are irresolutely bad for business.

Which brings us back to the internet social contract. The fact that the web can act as a springboard for such real world discussions is an undeniably good thing. What isn’t so good is believing that either it(as a medium) or Google(as a company) have supernatural qualities. After all, if it were a real man, it would stay and fight.

Excuse me, it’s pronounced ‘Faux’ News

Speaking of feel good stories, especially if you subscribe to the Onion, Fox News has enlisted Sarah Palin as its newest family value, value-free political commentator. One guesses nothing says ‘screw you liberal media’ more than a little I- don’t-think-that’s-what-Karl-Popper-meant- by-transparent, presidential candidacy launching punditry. One also guesses that Pat Robertson was unavailable.

To beat a dead, buried and rotten horse, isn’t it about time Fox News dropped the whole fair and balanced shtick? It seems broadcast media could learn a thing or two from their cyber cousins.

If you would like to contribute to the debate on new media, corporate ethics, geopolitics, piecemeal conspiracies or if you’re a smart University student looking to have your say, please send stories, ideas, etc. to our News Editor.

Justin Webb Loves America

2009-11-06T06:13:00.000-08:00

Let him count the

Sissons and Harvey to Dine on the Beeb

2009-09-03T06:33:00.000-07:00

Isn't it a perilous thing, this messing with the BBC? As soon as the boot goes in from Murdoch – James the younger – up pops Peston, ranting, swearing, fighting for Auntie, as he did during that contretemps in Edinburgh last week. All of which has been carefully noted by the bods who have hired veteran newsreader Peter Sissons to review his time at the Beeb for the Media Society in London on 30 September. Since leaving, Sissons – who was castigated for wearing an insufficiently sombre tie while announcing the Queen Mother's death (burgundy, not black. I mean, really!) – has attacked the BBC for falling standards, ageism, surrender to political correctness, cowardice … the charge list is endless. And he only retired in June. Helping him share the happy memories will be Andrew Harvey, another newly departed BBC person, whose tenure at the internal magazine Ariel saw it shift from Pravda-style cheer sheet to voice of the disgruntled. Even loyal Pesto might struggle to shut them both up. Still, if anyone can, it's him.

JOHN MAIR

Steve Richards at the Groucho

2009-07-09T14:50:00.002-07:00

The Big Broadcasting Debate

2009-06-10T07:56:00.001-07:00

Hacks and Flacks Panellists Deem Divorce Impossible

2009-05-21T09:00:00.000-07:00

Truth-telling can be a severely painful enterprise. Especially for those who weave their webs in the spidery world of journalism and public relations.

Easily mistaken as a duel to determine who can say the least using the most adjectives, Monday’s twin-hosted CIPR / Media Society Hacks vs. Flacks panel debate at the Foreign Press Association was a clash full of painful truths.

Those expecting a polite reconciliation between two not too dissimilar cousins were instead treated to an unrestrained domestic squabble more evocative of a Friz Freleng West Virginia backcountry.

Chair Sue MacGregor, formerly of Radio 4’s Today Programme, charged the panel of hacks – ex-BBC arts correspondent Rosie Millard, founding media editor of the Independent Maggie Brown, and former editor of the Daily Mirror / present blogging maestro Roy Greenslade – and flacks – Peter Luff MP, CIPR President Kevin Taylor, and PR supplier to the Boris Johnson mayoral campaign Jo Tanner - with a simple question: is a marriage between hacks and flacks possible?

To encourage audience participation, the PR leaning crowd, thanks to the organising efforts of the CIPR's Cherry Chapell, were first treated to an on the spot referendum.

“Who,” MacGregor asked, “do you trust more?”

With the result leaning in their favour, the flacks, industry slang for PR people, began the more accommodating side. Any reasonable journalist was welcome into their marital bed, they reasoned, as long as they took off their dirty shoes and played by house rules.

Peter Luff MP, the most combative of the three, was so conciliatory that he would even “marry the good ones,” an exception that proved all too true.

“I even married a journalist,” he finished.

The hacks started the aggressors. Within seconds Rosie Millard of the Sunday Times Review fanned the teeming flames of discontent. The fundamental disagreement revolved around the question of truth.

“They absolutely destroy any attempt for the journalist to get at the truth of the situation,” Millard remonstrated.

Not only do flacks construct Boris Johnson-sized impediments to the bottom line, she suggested, they further complicate the journalist’s role as public protector, turning the search for truth into a perpetual staging of Angel’s and Demon’s.

Facing increased protestations, the flacks brandished their most deflective PR techniques, remaining Obama cool while the hacks flailed about in indignation. Such was their power in their various Alec Guinness does Derren Brown disguises that every wave of the hand and deferent nod seemed to lull the crowd into abeyance.

Their measured approach did not last long.

“A journalist tell the truth?” Luff guffawed, “what journalist ever got sacked for getting something wrong? A good PR let’s the essential truth speak.” After all, both sides represented aggregations of separate but equal interests. While journalists claimed to represent that most amorphous of clients, the public, PRs spoke for real organizations. And for every citizen deceived by corporate fraud or political malfeasance, there is a well-run company wronged by bad press.

“There is no moral equivalence,” Greenslade bristled in response, “the journalist’s mission is to tell the truth. We take enormous personal risks in our attempt to tell the greater truth for the benefit of society.”

“This is the number of journalists killed in the past year,” he continued pointing to a triple digit number scrawled on a piece of paper.

“This,” he finished holding a blank page, “is the number of PR killed in their reporting of the narrower truth.”

With no resolution in sight, it was left to audience member, Phil Harding, a former editor and executive at the BBC, to reveal the most sober of the evening’s truths.

There would be no wedding bells, idyllic love, or unyielding fidelity, he argued. This relationship is destined to be a marriage of traditional circumstance. With the PR companies playing the role of the powerful husband, it was left to the journalists to figure out how to exert as much influence and independence as possible within the strictures of the present arrangement.

Faced with the prospects of such an implacable marriage, a more appropriate question may have been,

Is a divorce possible?

Ryan Mahan

Hacks and Flacks: can there ever be a marriage?

2009-05-21T04:22:00.000-07:00

Hacks and Flacks Podcast