The world is a stage. The stage is a world of infotainment.

The Budget.... probably the most simplistic noun you could think of for an agenda which will no doubt affect the life of every Briton, every day, for the next financial year.

Surrounding me in the newsroom are perhaps a dozen busy little workers trying to craft political spin into layman's terms for the swarms of BBC Radio Falmouth listeners. Essentially, we are making a day of dumbing down non-domiciles, capital gains taxes, annual percentage rates, negative equities, bear markets, bull markets and blue chips.

Personally, the highlight was our Live Budget Hour with Paul LeStrange. Quote:

"In Prostate Awareness Week, it seems Chancellor Alistair Darling is finally showing some balls".

However unintentional, it reminded me of something I read the other day about radio and television becoming cruder, crueller and less sophisticated than ever before.

While I, personally, have come to disagree with this type of sentiment, I find some truth in the dialogue running between the media and its commentators.

Let's take one of the original mass communication theorists. He's an old friend of mine from my undergrad days of media studies and communication theories... the mere murmur of "the medium is the message" or "the global village" bring back my sweet, sweet academic affair with Canadian scholar Marshall McLuhan.

It's misleading to suppose there's any basic difference between education & entertainment.This distinction merely relieves people of the responsibility of looking into the matter.

Marshall McLuhan, 1957.

In that sense, I begin to appreciate just how innovative some ‘softer’ forms of journalism are. Take, for example, the often blurry lines between documentaries and reality television.

A good reality television show can teach me vast amounts of information I never even knew I was absorbing - Bruce Parry's Tribe has taught me everything I know about the people who lurk in the jungles of PNG. Plus, it's amazing just how much I can garner from The Amazing Race about international geography and culture (who would have known the traditional way to drink vodka was off the tip of a sword?...or that eating a bowl of still-moving octopus tentacles is THAT bad an idea...).

So when I watch Panorama-style investigations presented in a method-journalism way (eg. our journalist ate only 4 lychees a day for 6 months to see just how hard it is to drop to a size zero) I can't help but give my attention the same way I do with reality television shows. If the show really hits the mark it was searching for, it rarely occurs to me the amount of concrete information there is interspersed within the drama (however quick the critics may be to slap a ‘dumb’ label on it)

It's infotainment, and for me it works. I don't see it as sacrificing journalistic integrity, just an innovative, highly attuned and obviously effective application of a transmission model.

Yes. I am the receiver. Ready Steady Cook is the message. My rumbling stomach is the decoder. And my re-heated tv dinner is the noise.

Thank you for delineating my prime time viewing, Shannon & Weaver (1948).

Quick comparison of BBC and Commercial

Following on from one of my recent posts where I accused commercial broadcasting of being the "cause of dumb", I have taken a look at the different style between BBC and Commercial.

Throughout its long history, the BBC’s version of public service broadcasting has been regulated by government restrictions. Under the BBC’s constitution, the government can set, distribute and limit the proportion of the licence fee that the BBC receives. It also has the power to discontinue the BBC. History often refers to the BBC as the first great working example of the ‘public service model’ in broadcasting.

Commercial style, however, is obviously different. The term ‘commercial’ suggests that the stations don’t serve the public at all, merely their advertisers and sponsors. But it is these commercial broadcasters who believe they are the only service really serving the public and not the politicians, this is because their survival depends on changes in audience demand. Commercial simply means run for profit making purposes, usually through the sale of air time to advertisers. Commercial broadcasters are often criticised for not being objective, and for bowing to pressure from its sponsors or owners (as shown in the television series, Drop the Dead Donkey).

They wrote the rule book...

07-02-08

Ofcom publishes guidelines for local content on radio

Ofcom today published new guidelines for the provision of local content on analogue (FM and AM) commercial radio. Ofcom’s approach simplifies regulation for the commercial radio sector while protecting local content for listeners.

For the duration of my undergrad degree I constantly thought about media regulation - for better or for worse. I could footnote from memory about a dozen Australian media regulation text books and am on anagram basis with the ACMA (ok... it's the Australian Communications and Media Authority).

But one thing I hadn't considered was the impact local content quotas have had on how dumb the news is - both at home and in my adopted home. I tread with caution here: in making any deduction on the scope of quota influence, I will indirectly pass judgement on the level of intellect in local news and the production values of regional radio and television stations.

But it is an important consideration. As the above article states, Ofcom has just last month moved to reduce the amount of local content required for commercial radio stations to keep their licences.

The new guidance states that:

FM local radio stations should broadcast at least ten hours of locally-made programmes each weekday during daytime (including breakfast) and at least four hours at weekends; and

AM stations should provide at least four hours of locally-made programming every day of the week. Stations based in the nations (Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland) will be required to provide a further six weekday hours of programming from their home nation.

This means that NO station will be required to produce more local content then they presently are. In fact, it will see a distinct drop in local content for many licence holders and signifies further deregulation of radio output.

As it stands, licensees are currently required to produce between 13 and 24 hours of local content a day – a stipulation which must be adhered to for broadcasters to retain their licences.

There are a few knock-on effects of this at the regional news desk. News output constitutes a significant portion of local content (hourly bulletins, analysis programs, etc).

The full Ofcom report (available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2008/02/nr_20080206, with a useful analysis of Ofcom rules by The Guardian’s Caitlin Fitzsimmons available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/22/radio1) suggests that one of the main factors for reducing the quotas was that commercial stations were unable to keep up with the BBC.

No doubt a result of the beeb’s brimming bank balance, it was thought that with so many journalists and resources at their fingertips, in all corners of Britain, even the biggest commercial networks were unable to compete.

But the value of local news remains. Cheryl and Steve want to know what is happening in their backyard.

Yet, with reduced quotas, I wonder if we will see an increase in the amount of syndicated news lifted from agencies and wires such as IRN. In terms of cost-cutting in regional newsrooms, it must surely be cheaper to take wire content than to employ local journalists to cover local stories…and considering the state of regional newsrooms, and the high proportion of entertainment news on the IRN wires, this can hardly bode well for the fight against dumb news.

Put out the light, and then put out the light

I woke today to find the news agenda had been turned upside down - quite literally. Instead of the morning bulletins forging ahead with word of a turbo-charged NHS bug, the day's political prelude or more binge drinkers, the top story for Monday the 10th of March was the weather.

I know weather is, for all intents and purposes, the only reason why many listeners tune into radio or television...but leading the bulletin? Surely this had gone too far.

However, they ARE calling it the most powerful storm to hit Britain in a number of years.

And that's probably why I'm seeking refuge in the blogger-sanctuary of the media centre. I've been here for 10 hours already - but no amount of prime time television or home cooked dinners could tempt me into braving the evening's rain and gale.

That said, there IS a point to this blog. And it DOES relate to dumb news.

With all this talk of extreme weather and climate change, I spoke to my climatologist flatmate about how serious the problem actually is - little did I know she would launch into an attack on dumb news.

As it turns out, the geographical world is distressed that the general public is not taking global warming as seriously as they should - and attributes this lack of knowledge to climate change coverage in the media.

On an expedition to the Met Office in Exeter last week, she described the alterations made between the documents and statistics the meteorological scientists hand the press office and what the press office deliver to their on-air presenters.

For example, "global mean temperature anomalies" became "global average temperatures". A rather technical argument on the difference between means, medians and averages ensued (far too taxing for my GCSE maths-level brain).

Also, the Met press office took liberally to rounding up decimal points... apparently there's quite a difference between a 0.3 degrees warming increase and a half a degree increase.

Not only does this information float over my head, but I'm not particularly worried about it. This called for a more in-depth discussion with my flatmate about the benefits to journalists of being skilled enough with climatology terminology to distinguish scientific truths. After all, if the journalist isn't concerned, how on earth are they going to get the right level of distress across to viewers?

So, shouldn't the most listened-to news of the day be the one prioritised in terms of accuracy? Surely, if it's a case of the public not understanding meteorological terminology, the media should make a point of turning climate change jargon into vernacular.

I feel quite strongly that in terms of global warming - which is undoubtedly one of the most pertinent issues in both our current society and our future reality - there are sectors of news we just cannot afford to dumb down.

For all the times I’ve been harassed for leaving my thermostat on during the day or been given a nasty stare for not contributing at all to the recycling in my flat - I think I’m pretty fortunate that the global-warming wake-up call came from so close to home. After all, the issue is close to all of us.

That said... generations may have to pass before I give up on my naive belief that, by leaving my Christmas lights up all-year-round, my life will be exponentially more festive.

Do we know less by watching more....

Why is it that with twenty four hour news channels – I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that I am actually less informed than before their birth?

Every time a celebrity is seen in some new designer gear or one decides to outrun the police on a Californian highway it is deemed worthy of a four pundit debate coupled with round the clock coverage.

Does anyone else reach for the paracetemol after watching one of these channels?

The second you switch to them you are confronted with hyperactive presenters that are crammed into one corner of the screen, while the rest is filled with stock quotes, weather forecasts, news headlines and entertainment gossip.

If you can manage to concentrate on the story and not on the myriad of text flying past your eyes as you watch a twenty four news channel, then try and not become disillusioned when you come to the conclusion that it often inaccurate, insufficient and depending on the station you are watching – alarmist.

For instance Sky News had extensive coverage of the storms to hit the UK this March.

Viewers were being warned how dangerous it will be, while a guest from the Denver Coastguard on Sky News told a tale of danger to those at sea and shrugged off any danger to those of us on the mainland.

Poignantly Sky cut to archive pictures of people in supermarket carparks struggling to get into their cars, which was quite amusing as the storm has not yet hit and the guest at hand was not suggesting this would be the case when it does.

I do wonder why twenty four news channels feel the need to "sex-up" and dumb down their content.

Obviously one explanation can be the fact that they must fill the airtime they have allocated. Personally I have little to no interest in watching them pick apart an absurdly and questionably newsworthy topic in a vain attempt to “fill”, I would much rather just watch an actual news broadscast of thirty minutes in length.

Instead I find myself often confused, bewildered and traumatised by the events on my TV screen.

Blurring of lines...

While recently waking up to BBC Radio 4 instead of my usual choice of Chris Moyle’s and Radio 1 I was struck by one thing.

The similarity of bulletins that are used on BBC breakfast and radio 4 bulletins. I had been particularly lazy this day as I listened to radio 4 from my bedside table and watched the breakfast news while gently propping myself up in bed at the ungodly hour of 7am.

I understand that as media organisations adapt their is an increasing pressure for journalists within them to be able to multi-task.

As part of the efficiency drive I can see why this would be the case. What I do not understand is why the public should be the ones to suffer.

It is I think fair to argue that radio 4 do have a different target audience than BBC Breakfast. Yet the bulletins were so similar I could not but help myself to actually get out of bed and check the BBC website. To my astonishment both sets of news readers may as well of been reading from the website, as I began to pre-empt words before they spoke them.

While the efficiency drive brings together BBC Radio 4, News 24 and BBC World to an extent does anyone else get the feeling that this is fast becoming a lowest common denominator service? The only outcome of which is a deterioration in variety and styles which means the public - i.e. license fee payer suffers.

On the Breakfast news I was able to watch what could easily be passed off as entertainment news, it was in fact Hilary Clinton celebrating her latest win. Presented from a couch in laid back style I couldn’t believe my eyes. Neither could I believe what followed....a short interview with Clinton from the night before that was broadcast on the comedy channel in the states, where the former first lady gave an interview before what was arguably the most important night in her political career.

The host of that show on the comedy channel made a comment that stuck in my mind. " As a host I am delighted you have chosen to speak to me tonight, as a member of the public I am frightened. "

Why this has stuck in my mind and not the other storys than ran that day is quite worrying. For instance I have no idea how many delegate votes were up for grabs, votes that Clinton did win. I do remember that she appeared on this show and what the host said.

The same clip appeared on many BBC bulletins throughout the day.

I was quite surprised to see the BBC dumb down the news this much. The piece which was introduced from the couch had a slight comedic element to it. However maybe it achieved its aim - to be a memorable piece of television journalism. On the other hand it can easily be viewed as trivialising television news.

If this efficiency drive from the BBC means the merging of certain resources and material which eventually leads to a deterioration of a news service, then I am against it. It is similar to Murdoch and the merging of the Sun and Times newsrooms.

That to me speaks of arrogance towards an audience, which I as an audience member most certainly do not appreciate.

Then again I have reverted back to my old ways of waking up to Moyles and digesting my early news in quick blasts scattered with the comedic value of the breakfast show that has grown to become a stable part of my weekday mornings.

Iraq; An appropiate example?

After watching "No End in sight" an American left wing documentary on the war in Iraq one thing became blatantly clear in my mind - how the news manipulated the public psyche in regard to the war.

For instance both Sky News and Fox seemed to treat the build-up to the invasion as a type of entertainment miniseries.

We had the various presentations to the UN, Blair telling the public that Iraq could launch WMD's which could cause great devastation to the UK.

Then we had the troops assembling, George Bush's warning that Saddam had 48 hours to leave Iraq or else the coalition would invade at a date and time of their choosing.

Imagine this as a mini-series, it's nearly akin to a subtitle darting across the screen with to be continued highlighted in bold.

Of course we then had the actual invasion, with news reporters posted at the frontlines, eagerly reporting the current progress of the coalition forces - in reality we always knew the coalition was going to be victorious as Iraq had been crippled by UN sanctions for years.

Who can forget the Iraqi Minister for Information? A politician who was constantly belittled by certain parts of the media. A man who became a point of jest for millions when discussing the war due to his constant denials of any coalition advancement.

As this miniseries continued it may have been pertinent for it to end with Saddams statue being torn down. Surely gripping viewing, provided to us by the main protagonists of the series.....Fox and Sky - which coincidentally are both owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The result of the miniseries - George Bush received approval ratings of 98%.

But what about the consequences of such a series?

What about showing the pain suffering and mutilation that inevitably comes with war? Were those pictures deemed too gruesome? Would they begin to blur the original context of the plot, considering we had to keep an eye on the main protagonists and their eventual victory?

I feel the initial reporting of the Iraq war was nothing short of a media spectacle, hollywoodesque in style and production.

Ashamedly I admit to sitting down with a few friends to eagerly watch the live pictures as Baghdad was bombed for the first time from the air. But was this appropriate to be broadcast as news? If so, why were pictures of the aftermath of the bombings not seen as equally appropriate?

The reporting of this war by certain news organisations I feel brought us to a new level in the coverage of war. I also feel it was dumbed down in order to fascinate the viewers and to bring them to the frontline with reporters, to give them an eagle eye view of the bombings and not to forget as one reporter did - to use old archive material and pass it off as current material of a warship launching missiles.

I only wonder what is next from the production company....err....I mean news corporation.

Celeb News - The cause of dumb?

I've just been lucky enough to catch an "episode" of ITV 2's Entertainment News and I must say I feel up to date in the world of news. I have just been informed (again!) that people, i.e. celebrities, who take drugs are "bad role models" for children. But the best bit of gossip was that Daniel Craig has apparently asked his girlfriend to marry him! AND it doesn't stop there! According to our colleagues at ITV 2, the engagement ring is a Cartier. Well....gosh....erm...I'm speechless.

Now compare this to the BBC's latest story on the referendum. I think I am close to discovering the secret to dumb news - and it's pointing towards commercial channels. Think about the advertising needed to keep them running and the need to keem audiences interested in between adverts. If you give them simple, dumbed down news then the Big Brother generation will be less likely to change channel and therefore keep sponsors happy.

It's not a complete theory I know but I'm working on it.

Recap

Recently, I’ve been thinking about dumbing down and what I’ve learnt over the last few months. Well, it’s not looking good I’m afraid. When we started I was expecting to do some research and personally discover how and why news/audiences have dumbed down and whether there was a correlation between the two. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen. Whilst I learnt new theories and came up with a few of my own, I am yet to find THE reason. But then maybe there’s a good reason for this.

Maybe dumbing down doesn’t exist. Maybe we have evolved into something new, a people that don’t need long informative bulletins because we can receive short news stories wherever we are. Online, on our mobiles, radio’s 90 second bulletins, etc etc. Or we could just blame the government for failing us in our education. It’s certainly easier but I’m not sure it’s the answer.
We could blame our parents for not encouraging us enough to take a more active interest in news and current affairs. But then again, maybe not.

You see where I’m coming from? Why has Generation X apparently forced broadcasters to change the way they feed us news?

I’ll get back to you when I know. In the mean time, I'm off to watch the latest American Big Brother on E4.