Responsible Front Pages

The horrific events in Woolwich yesterday are shocking enough but I can’t help but worry about about the front pages of the British media and their choice of images. I have to say that I’ve found the Guardian’s front page the most worrying in that the picture and quote could easily be used as a rallying cry for other radicalised extremists. It would be hypocritical of me to reproduce it here.

To be clear I am not saying don’t show such pictures or shield people from real life events but I find it irresponsible to plaster a front page with a blood soaked extremist brandishing a meat cleaver whilst quoting his own words that indicate that anybody else may be next.

Front pages are on public display in places where people of all ages including the very young and impressionable can see them. Let alone available in the family home.Is it responsible that the very young should see gratuitous images of violence or even implied violence in the name of circulation wars?

I’m not saying censor these images but newspaper front pages are on public display to all who should happen to glance at a news stand. The Daily Express out of all the papers may have been the most responsible front page layout by reporting the story, only showing a small picture that shows an air ambulance arriving on the front page and keeping the gratuitous images for inside the paper itself.

It’s much the same in tragic cases of serial murders. The media give killers the very publicity they crave and it often fans the flames and appears to sometimes encourage copycat events. I’m not saying under report it. I’m not saying don’t ask the questions that need to be asked but don’t unwittingly become an extension of the very terrorism and violence you (the media) report on and end up a recruiting agent for others who may be on the verge of undertaking or thinking or undertaking the similar acts of violence.

Of course the media will say they have to compete for readers and they’re giving the public what they want. We shouldn’t always get what we want. It may not be good for us in the long run.

Others, of course may disagree.

Read All About The Bleedin’ Obvious

In other news – water found to be wet and forgetting to breathe may cause an acute inability to stay alive. Excuse me while I bang my head repeatedly against a lamp post.

Daily Express
May 17 2013

There’s No News Like Non News

 As my partner commented quoting Dr Fox’s ill advised autocue reading on Brass Eye “There’s no scientific proof for it but it is fact” .

The BBC slightly blurring the line between news and fiction when listed under the most read items of the day.

All the wrong words but definitely in the wrong order

Corrected on the link but not on the RSS feed. Interesting mix of grammar and spelling.

The Truth Is Out As Hell Temporarily Freezes Over

Hell must have frozen over, albeit temporarily as The Daily Mail has admited that ‘Winterval’ , the oft quoted replacement for Xmas supposedly beloved of many UK local authorities, is a myth. Untrue.

Sadly this admission of guilt occurs in the Mail’s Clarifications and Corrections column which is mostly found by searching specifically on their website. Previous corrections are not archived and often a link back to the original story that needed correction is not provided. The column apparently has the blessing of the Press Complaints Commission.

Despite the admission though the articles featuring this misinformation remain on the website whilst the clarification dissolves into the ether as new clarifications replace it.

Predictably a notice below the column states ‘Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons‘.

A good dissection of the Winterval myth as quoted by Britain’s news media can be found here.

Corrections And Clarifications (Mail web site)

Third party compilation archive feed of corrections and clarifications

Winterval (Wikipedia with original Birmingham poster) 

Front Pages

Let’s compare front pages: Australia  – UK - Germany - USA

The Cost Of Viewing And The Value Of Less

Image by James Cridland via Flickr

The perennial argument over the television licence fee was brought to mind again recently after a friend  was dithering over whether to pay the £145 for a TV licence. They are from the Ukraine which doesn’t have a TV licence so it seems like an extra payment too far. And that’s the main bone of contention with the TV licence in that it’s a very visible ‘tax’ (in the minds of many).

Now that are many taxes that we have no opt out over. We can’t dictate how our taxes are spent. National Insurance is paid in case we fall ill and need free medical attention even if we rarely use the service. If the government instead payed the BBC out of general taxation then maybe it would feel less like a tax we could opt out of but would give the government of the day much greater control over the withdrawl of funds. At the moment the licence fee money goes straight to the public service broadcasters and isn’t handled by government. Would such a move quell the licence fee carpers?

Another option would be to allow the opt out of the licence fee for those that genuinely do not watched the stations funded by it. I include radio stations in this arrangement. This leaves the need for a complicated way of blocking the reception of public service stations on Freeview, Freesat, satellite and cable boxes unless you can key in some kind of authorisation code gleened from your payment of the licence fee. Another solution that reduces the income to the BBC and pushes the price up for those that opt in. A divisive and petty solution?

Others have argued for a tax/levy on television sets sold. Well we don’t buy a TV set every year and if we take 2009 as an example of recent peak TV sales then around 10 million sets were sold during that year. What sort of levy would provide an equivalent sum to that currently provided by the current licence revenues? Surely that would require a considerable levy unless we merely used a token sum to help lower the current yearly fee to more politically acceptable level.

Perhaps a licence fee and government grant hybrid would be a compromise. Slash the visible fee to say £65/£70 and make up the rest from direct government support or take the controls off the profits that offshoots like BBC Worldwide can make in order to help subsidise the reduced income from the collected licence.

There is an argument for just cutting back on the digital channels. BBC Four is accused of an output similar to the old BBC2 whilst the latter has somewhat diluted its identity.

The BBC has also considered the unthinkable by suggesting they decimate their local radio presence by syndicating radio 5Live and retaining only local options for breakfast and drive slots. Maybe they could be sacrificed to local media and commercial radio who constantly complain that they can’t compete.

I’m all for reducing round the clock broadcasting. I remember the days when some hours of the day were merely filled with the testcard. Many digital stations only start at 7pm. Do we really need so much daytime programming especially if all we’re going to do is fill so much of it with so much property obsessed programming.

The Uk certainly does not have the highest TV licence fee in Europe. Germany has a higher TV licence fee than the UK but has concessions for the very poorest and and the availability of a radio only licence. Food for thought.

I’m old enough to remember the days when TV content wasn’t always available and the testcard filled the screen. Maybe its time to embrace the less is more mantra. These are times of austerity.

Related articles

• BBC delivers £2 to economy for every pound of licence fee, says Deloitte report (guardian.co.uk)
• BBC ‘may cut overnight programming’ (independent.co.uk)
• BBC2 daytime: do we really need all that murder and reality? (guardian.co.uk)