That is certainly one way of putting it. Another is that, first, the Trump stuff is much less important than the BBC’s issues in other areas and that it seems modestly significant that Goodall devotes almost no space at all in his lengthy Substack piece to any of those issues. Secondly, at no point does Goodall bother considering whether some or any of the criticisms made by Prescott and Grossman have any validity at all.
That, however, seems a necessary starting point.
News judgement is often a nuanced and complex business. News “values”, on the other hand, should be comparatively straightforward. This is where it is entirely reasonable to convict the BBC’s coverage of the sex & gender wars. For here the corporation largely – though with notable exceptions, especially Hannah Barnes on Newsnight – picked a side and chose the one that required BBC journalists to sacrifice their judgement. Ideology trumped basic news values. They said it was dry when in fact it wasn’t obviously dry at all.
For once again, among the most important of those values is this eternal question: Is This True?
There is blood in the water and the sharks are circling. This story is going to run and run and run 😀
Journalism used to be about reporting facts and any opinions were clearly contained within editorials.
There has been a Great Slide and most ‘news’ is now opinion and entertainment. I don’t think anyone is necessarily blameworthy for this (including us, the public), it’s just the consequence of business seeking profit by selling what people want.
The problem with the BBC is that it still imagines that it is old style journalism… but a long history of scandals, culminating in the most recent ones, has shown that the BBC is now opinion and entertainment too.
The special licensing arrangements are no longer justifiable.
The question is not, ‘Will a person who believes This be motivated to do evil?’ The question is, ‘Is This True?’
The question is not, ‘Will a society filled with people who believe This be able to last?’ The question is, ‘Is This True?’
The question is not, ‘Will I be able to determine whether or not This is True in time to do anything about it?’ The question is, ‘Is This True?’
The question is not, ‘Will most people who believe This live fulfilling, productive lives?’ The question is, ‘Is This True?’
The question is not, ‘Is this as close to True as I can explain to people who haven’t had years of experience in the field?’ The question is, ‘Is This True?’
I admit, it’s a distraction from the thesis of the original post, but it’s a philosophical point that’s been nagging at me. In fact, as far as the original post is concerned, the only reason that last point wouldn’t be a better question for journalists to ask themselves is that they probably don’t have enough experience in the subject to tell the difference themselves.
On further reflection, that’s not the ‘only’ reason. It’d still be an improvement if the hypothetical journalists in question could explicitly tell their audience that the model they outline is only an approximation.
It’s my fault for being in a hurry to post a comment. I realized it taking my dog for the morning walk, and spent the return trip kicking myself. Which makes it even harder to walk a dog.