Comments on: Is this ‘unique’ or are the media keeping people dumb?

By: dave harte

dave harte — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:06:00 +0000

The relevant sections from Citizenship Studies (http://is.gd/RRFP):
“The study of citizenship should include: how information is used in public debate and policy formation, including information from the media and from pressure and interest groups.”

“The curriculum should provide opportunities for students to use and interpret different media and ICT both as sources of information and as a means of communicating ideas.”

It's debates like this about discourse, truth, impartiality etc. that schoolkids are probably studying as we speak.

By: dunc

dunc — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:27:30 +0000

I think it's covered as part of Citizenship KS 3 & 4 - http://is.gd/RRFP

By: Andy Mabbett

Andy Mabbett — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:13:30 +0000

Perhaps newspapers use “unique” like they use “exclusive”? As for dictionaries, the OED (online) gives, for the former, “Of which there is only one; one and no other; single, sole, solitary… That is or forms the only one of its kind; having no like or equal…”

When I was at school, we were taught to read between the lines, over thr medias use of such terms. Does that happen today? Or have such considerations been swept aside by the National Curriculum?

By: Jon Bounds

Jon Bounds — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:57:05 +0000

Yes I'm being pedantic, but you could say “the Birmingham Mail, a newspaper about Aston Villa” — would that be right?

I was trying to make a more general point about how the conventions of msm (however technologically they publish) — things like writing that people have “said” stuff, whether it's copied from a press release, a blog, or watched on the TV (or feeling the need to explain everything from scratch every time an issue comes us) are actually making the facts more difficult to see.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:50:43 +0000

Pete writes about stuff including Birmingham on his blog, so no inaccuracy there. Also, ditto the slightly pedantic point about the word unique (although unusual might be a better word). Actually, I can't see anything particularly misleading in the article, especially with regards to the substantive issues. It looks to me like one of those situations where those closest to an issue are left quibbling over nuances, and that can happen with any story, whether it's published online or off.

I think the more interesting points are that 1) the issue had already been addressed by the time the Mail ran the story but they ran it anyway and 2) the role of Pete's blog – the issue was dealt with because someone contacted the Rep directly, not because they read it on some website. What role did the Pete's publication play?

By: Jon Bounds

Jon Bounds — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:21:39 +0000

No, I wouldn't say conspiracy, more a by-product of practises that have continued long after whatever reason there was for starting them. So much media – in print and elsewhere – is hung up on structures that are actually counter to understanding.

By: marcus brody

marcus brody — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:08:16 +0000

Thanks for the link, I've had a quick gander. looks like some interesting reading when I have proper time to digest it.
It comes down to trust and all media whether online or old fashioned print have to build that trust with an audience.
The media, all media have a responsibility to be balanced and accurate or at least spell out their goals.
If they want to be a comic rather than serious newspaper (I think of the daily star here) then they should say so in order for all readers to be in the know.
If it is being suggested that the media are in some way complicit in a conspiracy to keep people ignorant then I don't buy it.
We just have to find a source we feel we can have some trust in but that doesn't stop us from seeking more than one source to back it up (sorry, my history studies coming out there).
i'll be interested to see where others take this discussion.

By: Jon Bounds

Jon Bounds — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:53:59 +0000

Oh and of course Pete's comments are no more vaild than anyone else's – better explaining where the story emerged (and so why Pete was quoted) would have made the clumsy bit trying to justify why his comments were sought easier to understand.

By: Jon Bounds

Jon Bounds — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:46:32 +0000

I'm just worried that there are time when I don't know what's wrong — and journalistic attempts to keep everything ultra simple do cause inaccuracies.

I could only comment, about this one because I did know the facts — much as Ben Goldacre does over on http://www.badscience.net/.

What else to we accept that simply isn't true?

By: marcus brody

marcus brody — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:41:18 +0000

Jon, I don't suggest pete was an injured party but merely used the form of words to show his comments are no more valid than any other member of the public who may have been 'outraged' by the Rep's use of the novel approach.
As for the use of the word unique, a quick look at an online dictionary suggets the informal definition is "Unusual; extraordinary". I'd say this novel way of advertising fits that, therefore the usage of the word not wrong.
If the line about Pete's blog not necessarily being about birmingham is wrong, it still see it a bit much to them lambast the whole article as dumb. hardly proportionate
As there is no copyright on news, where the particular journalist got the story from is neither here nor there.
So Pete, as far as we can see, was the first to write about it. Did he give permission for his quote to be used? If so then I can see no complaint. Other than that the rest looks like it has been gathered and written independently.
I wouldn't complain about the story too much as it helped me, and presumeably others, find you guys online. If, however, it's all about a self-agrandising back-slapping between fellow bloggers then I'll bid farewell like I have with so many other blogs.