The G20 protests. Does the media only cover violence?
One of our listeners thinks the media takes an iffy view of how to cover demonstrations.
Maybe you're someone who's been protesting all your life, and got little coverage. Or maybe you used to protest and don't bother now. Or perhaps you've seen protests as a police officer, or a journalist.
We'd like to hear from you. Please click here.
Listen to PM
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Whew, what a relief, a bit of violence at the G20 protest. Let's see if the BBC over-covers it.
Complain about this comment
4 years for unprovoked murder of the ugliest kind !? What are they thinking ?
It is an appalling outrage.
Complain about this comment
It seems that if the BBC approve of the cause the protest is reported, regardless of the numbers involved.
Perhaps it would be an idea to get an editor to explain the methodology used to pick which protests to report.
Complain about this comment
"The G20 protests. Does the media only cover violence?"..Having just watched the 6 PM BBC News, I think the BBC gives a pretty well balanced point of view.
Complain about this comment
May I suggest 'Paddy' the arrogant banker studies History, because to my knowledge....ruthless Capitalism in its current form is only a few hundred years old....static civilization in Little Britain is less than 7000 years old...epochs come and go as will this one...and there is no certainty that there will always be rich and poor...especially after the West is forced to ditch religion...probably sometime in this century...on my reckoning...what ever the great Aristotle may have said over 2000 years ago...about slaves and masters....
Brian V Peck
Complain about this comment
No, but it enjoys the violent ones more. The news reports I watched seemed positively gleeful when a couple of windows were brutally slain.
Complain about this comment
I was thinking just this question as I was driving home tonight, listening to PM.
I think Radio 4 has been far more balanced than other media, although it was a shame that PM opened with the sound of smashing windows as an example of the "voices" from the street protests.
I enjoyed Ray Furlong's report and it was nice to hear a protester, briefly, expressing some real political opinions rather than the usual, monotonous whinging about Police tactics.
Reading the SKY news and ITN websites tonight, their coverage was dominated by the brief acts of violence caused by a tiny minority of protesters.
I briefly watched BBC News 24 during the day and they did seem to linger on the flashpoint around the Bank of England and RBS, with a reporter who seemed intent on getting himself pushed around in the crowd as much as possible! At least it was entertaining, maybe that was the point and if it was, is that a good thing?
I do believe that there is an unhealthy fixation with the violent minority in demonstrations, just as the media seem to concentrate on those that scream the loudest in society. I'm glad that the above question has been asked as we need a less sensational media.
Best wishes,
Otter
Complain about this comment
The problem with all protests is the silly over emphasis they receive in the media. The louder and more violent the more attention they get.
Think back to the Live Animal Export mass demos where 6000 people attracted huge media attention for threatening lorry drivers. This was talked about as a huge popular movement. More people than that go to watch Gillingham Football Club on a good day
The reality is just one person in every 10,000 cared enough to go and protest. It would help keep a sense of proportion if the numbers demonstrating were put into this type of context.
Complain about this comment
The basic trouble with the media is that it is a giant Ponzi scheme system.
First they stir up a great fuss about something.
Everyone is outraged, distressed, seeking enlightenment.
Then the bubble of interest is deflated as the sober judgement of hte public merges. Everything gets into perspective.
Just as we, the public, are getting round to bringing the media, who inflated the story for the usual reasons of self interest, to account......
...the media come up with the next 'story'....
...and here comes the Ponzi bit....
...they use the current bubble of interest in this new 'story' they've created to buy out (drown) the concern we felt at the way they treated the previous 'story'
And so on.
As a result of that sort of Ponzi treatment of all stories we, the public, can't tell which stories really warrant our attention, which raise problems that really have very simple solutions and which .. .etc. .etc.
We can't tell what's what!
The odd thing is that these stories have power not because individuals believe them to be of great moment but because individuals believe everyone else thinks they are of great moment. (Replace 'believe them to be' with 'fear they may be' for another layer of the problem)
Three upshots
1. The media never have an interest in exposing the last hype they all participated in. Whistleblowers can hope at best to become professors of journalism lecturing unheard and writing unread books.
2. The right 'stories' become political weapons, effective because every political entity (party, politician) fears everyone else is on the media's side not theirs.
3. The pattern of 'story' after story' boom bubble, burst, new bubble... is exactly the pattern of capitalist so-called development.
Whether in matters of public truth or public wealth generation and distribution these patterns will continue as long as .......
Complain about this comment
On the other and, a tragedy happens and Eddie goes all solemn. A second later, the weather report arrives and he goes all happy again. What an actor.
Complain about this comment
There was surprisingly little attention in the media for the astonishing amount of litter (mainly Starbucks, Coca Cola etc) created by the planet-saving anti-globalist anti-consumerist anti-capitalist protestors. Giving the three-line riot police a pan and brush may be a useful suggestion for future protests.
Complain about this comment
There's no doubt that a spot of bother inccreases a demonstration's chances of media coverage. There's no doubt either that it'll tend to be used against the protesters, even where activities like "kettling" fuel the trouble. Or that the media will tend to halve the number protesting while the organisers double it (I always take the geometric mean). It's been the way since the 80s, and I doubt it'll change. The point is to take the coverage with a pinch of salt and seek alternative viewpoints. But then that goes for everything.
Complain about this comment
Curioser and Curioser... (bUT perhaps, not surprising...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8004222.stm
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS