“Print journalists should just do print.”
Who said that? Phillip Knightley. The room practically exploded. Is this man serious?
Knightley’s guest lecture tonight (at the University of Lincoln) was a clear reminder of the old-fashioned dinosaurs that still lurk in today’s journalism. His lecture, which should have been titled ‘The Good Old Days’, analysed the decaying quality of journalism in the UK — a fair point — but badly put.
He insisted that coverage from Burma would have been better produced by foreign correspondents, and not, as it has panned out,
citizen journalists. It would provide better coverage, he said.
Here are your options: Boring, long distance shots of conflict with a voice over and then a quiet piece to camera, or, footage from within the conflict, capturing every emotion of the protests in harrowing — but neccessary — detail.
I know which I’d prefer.
In Jon Snow’s autobiography (which comes highly recommended), he tells of how some journalists in foreign countries would simply stay at the hotel and wait for news to come in on the wire. Then, when they know the story, they’d head out to film their piece to camera before calling it a night. This seems to be happening in Burma now. I’m not blaming these journalists, as it’s a very dangerous place, but for an experienced journalist like Philip Knightley to come out with such a ludicrous statement has really baffled me.
Sadly, I’m sure Knightley is one of a huge number of journalists that share the same view. They’re stuck in the past. He criticised computer-aided-reporting as being a poor way of working. No way. What better way of gathering the opinions of thousands than through the internet? Get out and talk to people, by all means, but remember what your goals are.
Knightley seemed to long for the good old days of newspaper journalism. Where people read the newspaper and enjoy its writers. He cited India as a good example of how newspapers can take off — the popularity of papers over there is massive.
Knightley seems to think a shift in journalism styles will bring readers flooding back. What he doesn’t realise is that people DON’T CARE. They don’t care if a reporter is brilliant. All readers want is the best source for news. Which, I’m afraid to say Mr Knightley, is the internet.
Dave,
He has obviously been reading Andrew Keen’s book.
Burma is a great example of how citz journalism works.It has been difficult for Western journalists to enter the country and has been for decades.The last atrocities in the late 80’s resulted in thousands of deaths,vaguely reported and the junta stayed in power.Now with the advent of the internet and mobile phones,the news has got out that much quicker.The result?Uneccessary deaths probably avoided and the world is more aware of the problem……
And perhaps…just perhaps democracy might prevail
Glad I didn’t go, would have done my head in!
Good points Dave. If Knightly thinks that “print journalist” as a specific profession will even exist in 10 years, he’s living in cloud cuckoo land. Reporters from local weeklies, big city regionals to the nationals are all doing video, print, web, audio, etc… so get used to it.
Case in point – Press Association doesn’t appoint wire journalists anymore, just multi-media journalist. And they’re the guys writing most newspapers anyway,
Dave, so a man who helped break stories such as as the Kim Philby spy scandal, the Profumo sex scandal and the effects of thalidomide on babies comes to your university and talks about how he’d like to see a continuation of ‘quality journalism,’ good on him I say – but that could come from all sorts of means now, couldn’t it? I don’t think that makes him a dinosaur, he could teach all of us a lot, much more than Barney, that’s for sure.
No I don’t think trusting what a load of faceless people you have never met who get in touch through the internet will ever be a substitute for getting out and talking to people.
What exactly do you mean by:
Get out and talk to people, by all means, but remember what your goals are.
Of course people care if reporters are brilliant.
It’s not clear from your piece what else Knightley said except for ‘print journalists should just do print.’ I can see why that would cause uproar, but I’m really not sure that he should be criticised so harshly for having an opinion based on years of experience at the top of a profession you are aspiring to enter.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments.
Linda, I’m not disputing Knightley’s track record. It’s incredible. What I do dispute, however, is the hypocritical manner in which he presented his thoughts. “Become better journalists” was his message, yet he was against the use of technology to achieve this.
Ask yourself: What are the most poignant pieces of journalism in the past 12 months? Who produced them? When you think of the coverage of the July 7th bombs, what footage sticks out in your mind? I bet it’s the one with people in the tunnel, shot with a mobile phone…
For me, the hanging of Saddam Hussein is proof enough that conventional journalists just can’t do their job without the help of Joe Bloggs (Joe Blogs?). If we didn’t have that grainy footage of Saddam’s hanging, would we really understand the extent of how barbaric it was? The ‘official’ footage of Saddam’s hanging was so censored it was like making stone into sponge. How frightening, I thought, that none of the news organisations pressed for more footage/sound from the official source. They KNEW it existed.
I disagree with the notion that people care about reporters being brilliant. In my opinion, people care about REPORTS being brilliant — not reporters. Big difference I’d say. Knightley recalled that back in the day newspaper journalists were sometimes as famous as the people/events they were writing about. Knightley clearly longed for such days to return. Good riddance to them, I say. When journalists become more important than the story, then mistakes have been made. I cringe everytime I see “Lunchtime News with Kay Burley” on Sky News. Who gives two hoots if it’s Kay Burley?
Nigel, I couldn’t agree more. Knowledge is power etc. Put knowledge in the hands of the people and the only thing that can come from that is good. Even if it takes a while.
Patrick — that’s interesting about PA. Makes sense though. One of Knightley’s gripes (if I may call it that) was that print journalists are now being asked to fanny about with video cameras when conducting interviews. I don’t see that as a problem — unless, of course, you’re not confident in using them, which I feel may be the problem that is rooted deep within many working (and student) journalists.
I’m a bit sad to hear about this talk, but not surprised. Phillip Knightley helped me a lot with my journalism thesis when I was at City Uni: just a phone call and a few words face to face now most certainly forgotten, but something I’m still grateful for. Thing is, many of those who helped me getting started as a journalist live in a different age so to speak, one or two didn’t even know how to use a computer. That does not mean they don’t have many valuable things to teach us though, the core skills of a journalist are not technology dependent. Yes, many of the older guard live in a different world. It’s difficult, sometimes impossible, to explain the wonders of the Internet age, the Interactive age, Web 2.0 or whatever you choose to call it to them. It’s requires a fundamental mindshift. For my own part, I try to pick the best from each world…
“For my own part, I try to pick the best from each world…”
Yup, that’s the best approach.
What are the most poignant pieces of journalism in the past 12 months? Who produced them? When you think of the coverage of the July 7th bombs, what footage sticks out in your mind? I bet it’s the one with people in the tunnel, shot with a mobile phone…
See, I wouldn’t have said that was journalism, Dave. It’s a photograph shot by a witness. Journalism was incorporating that into a broader, more independent piece of reportage.
The most memorable journalism of recent times for me was the New York Times reporting into 9/11. Forget all the amateur footage, the NYT showed how solid reporting – going out, talking to people, checking facts, pulling up official documents, getting recordings of phone calls – could make a huge story accessible, moving and informative for the mass audience.
Regardless of the medium, great reporting is great reporting. And much of what passes for citizen “journalism” has zero reporting content, in my opinion. Not something I, as a professional journalist, aspire to in the slightest.