BBC College of Journalism Blog - A vigorous and robust discussion about journalism from every perspective.

<< previous blog | recent blogs | next blog >>

Media power, media responsibility
Kevin Marsh |
Sunday 11 July 2010, 21:45

The suicide of Raoul Moat was, among other things, a media event.

Inevitably so, perhaps. But what kind of event? And did we - the news media - get it right?

Writing in the Observer, Barbara Ellen, amidst a dissertation on "the almost-nuclear frustration of the failed male", asks one sensible question:

"Is this where we are now as human beings, in Britain, in the year 2010?

Homicidal sprees as another form of spectator sport?

Just another button on the remote control, perhaps labelled 'Homi-tainment', with a helpful skull and crossbones motif?"

Later, Moat's brother, Angus, said of his sibling:

"He was a mentally ill man under a lot of stress who cracked, and it was just the final straw.

His actions, although I appreciate were absolutely horrendous, and although I wish he hadn't gone ahead and done what he did, were a cry of anguish.

It was a cry of pain. The media have been bigging him up as a kind of Rambo-type character. It's crazy."

Let's talk about the role of the media. Here - or on Twitter at #cojodisco.

Post categories:
Editorial

<< previous blog | recent blogs | next blog >>

Comments

1. At 10:45pm on 11 Jul 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:
Since I only watched the BBC's coverage which seemed excellent and restrained - I can hardly comment.

So I will anyway.

If there's someone out there on the run who has already shot three people I want to know:

- where is he?

- have the police caught him yet?

Wanting to know this does not make me a voyeur. It makes me a concerned citizen.

Complain about this comment
2. At 10:49pm on 11 Jul 2010, U14548556 wrote:
nick reynolds are you kidding ?? bbc news 24 coverage was shocking...read the posts on the bbc's own messageboards people are disgusted
sad you think that the coverage was "excellent and restrained" glad you dont work for the bbc !!!

Complain about this comment
3. At 10:58pm on 11 Jul 2010, Jon Jacob wrote:
Was cross-network coverage of the Moat suicide warranted up to 24 hours afterwards? I genuinely remain unconvinced - but am prepared to be persuaded.

Complain about this comment
4. At 09:34am on 12 Jul 2010, U14548556 wrote:
"Dramatic footage showing the stand-off between armed police and gunman Raoul Moat has been obtained by the BBC."

"excellent and restrained" lovely

Complain about this comment
5. At 10:33am on 12 Jul 2010, Smilie Minogue wrote:
The suicide of Raoul Moat was, among other things, a media event.

Inevitably so, perhaps. But what kind of event? And did we - the news media - get it right?

This "BBC News Hunt for gunman" thread on the Points of View board, will give you a fair idea as to whether you got it right, Kevin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951566?thread=7611238

Complain about this comment
6. At 11:00am on 12 Jul 2010, U14548556 wrote:
"excellent and restrained" ??

from the pov messageboard

"Message 17 - posted by witch-of-oz (U13843614) **, Just Now

John Soppal should hang his head in shame.....re the coverage on 9th July in Rothbury re Raoul Moat. He struck up a conversation with Paula whose Mum was trapped in her house during the police situation, putting the microphone right up to the handset of Paula's mobile then promptly asked to speak to her Mum directly on the mobile. Paula was distressed, I think everyone could see that and John Soppal took advantage of the situation.

Quoted from this message

Spot on Audrey. I purposely didn't watch any of the wall-to-wall coverage of this story BUT I did see that particular incident and thought it absolutely appalling.

Isn't there such a thing as the Press Complaints Council as complaining to the BBC seems to have no impact whatsoever."

Complain about this comment
7. At 11:26am on 12 Jul 2010, U14548556 wrote:
kevin will you be responding to the comments here and on the messageboards ?/

Complain about this comment
8. At 12:19pm on 12 Jul 2010, JohnR wrote:
Brooker's Newswipe included a piece about coverage of spree killers. An especially pertinent section starts at about 1.40:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
I am pretty sure that, once again, the coverage of this particular man fitted with everything a broadcaster should *not* do if they want to avoid further homicidal sprees in the future.

Complain about this comment
9. At 1:13pm on 12 Jul 2010, Giz wrote:
The coverage of this "event" was disgraceful. I turned on the BBC news channel and saw a lady in a distressed state, worried about her mother, being harrassed, and manipulated by various reporters. Hearsay was being reported as fact, and members of the public were being asked questions they had no authority to answer.

I switched off and watched something else. During the advert breaks I flicked back to see whether there was any news (and by news I mean actual hard and fast factual news), there was not.

The whole coverage was a lesson in how not to cover a serious news story. I do wonder whether some at the BBC are rather let down that it came to an end in the middle of the night, rather than at peek viewing time.

Complain about this comment
10. At 2:16pm on 12 Jul 2010, Bax-of-Delights wrote:
Kevin:
This was your opening statement:
"The suicide of Raoul Moat was, among other things, a media event."

Er...is that because the BBC and the other media decided that it should become one? And how do you define "a media event?" The chance for the OB lorries to descend on a village and disgorge their packs of journalist hyenas, ready and willing to scour and terrorise the villagers with damn fool questions? The behaviour of the BBC - especially John Sopel - was disgraceful and nothing I have heard or read since deters me from the opinion that the standards that used to be part of the BBC ethical stance have been ripped up for the sake of "news." Or,as you put it, a media event.

Complain about this comment
11. At 2:50pm on 12 Jul 2010, JohnR wrote:
Some of the language in comments above has gotten a touch hyperbolic. Such exaggerated 'why-oh-why' criticisms are as indebted to a Manichean moral universe as the braying of tabloid reporters - and are just as unhelpful.
Certainly the BBC appears to have been as in thrall to the 24 Hour news cycle as other broadcasters were in response to this event. But as a broadcaster they were not as bad as some - even though some individual journalists may have asked inappropriate or crass questions, or door stepped their reports to an unacceptable degree.
The BBC's willingness to examine its outputs, to ask what they did incorrectly and, on this basis, suggest what they could do to improve their reporting in the future, is laudable. The BBC is still the best journalistic institution in Britain - and not necessarily because it produces the best reporting, but because it is honest (sometimes a little too honest) about its failings and reflects critically on its role to British civil society.

Complain about this comment
12. At 3:52pm on 13 Jul 2010, John wrote:
I do often have to praise the BBC for its informative and entertaining coverage, but this time, as a trainee journalist myself, I feel mistakes have been made.

I am not sure if it is the 24 hour news medium, but you really need to review what is considered "Breaking News" - and personally, eye witness accounts are interesting, but we rather hear the story when it is finished. Eyewitness accounts can inform and add colour to a piece, but to give them some strange authority is poor journalism.

Jon Sopel has often been a very good journalist, but I also believe putting the phone to a microphone was silly. It made a mockery out of journalism.

The Raoul Moat case was certainly one of the biggest events of the century, but the wasteful use of journalists to cover the story almost 24/7 at one point on News 24, is not in the public interest. You could put a "Moat Ticker" at the bottom of the screen with the latest developments, whilst also containing other important news reports of the day.

Overall, the BBC isn't the only one to be blamed here. The police clearly play a role. In some cases, it can be said that the media reflects people, i.e. garbage in garbage out. But, I do feel the BBC has to move away from spending hours and hours in a teletubby fashion on one story, however significant.

Complain about this comment
13. At 09:53am on 14 Jul 2010, jamesingham wrote:
I would be very interested to hear what the BBC thought of John Sopel's interaction with Paula. I was on shift at the channel that night and the consensus was that we knew what was happening would be deemed offensive and tasteless by many viewers, yet in the situation it did provide dramatic viewing.

This was a fast moving end to the days of coverage and Jon was reacting quickly and using his initiative at the scene to try to get viewers more information on what was going on past the police cordon. But did he cross the line by persuading Paula to let him and us listen in on her call to her mother.

Perhaps hearing from someone who was concerned for her safety as a result of the police activity was worth reporting but I can understand how some people would be offended.

Was the channel right to continue with the phone call and further conversations as a means of getting more information and compelling viewing, or should it have told Jon to back off because of concerns?

Often the BBC is more cautious than competitors but in this case was not. Was that right or wrong?

Complain about this comment