It’s a catchphrase that Bruce Forsyth would envy, but he’s got it spot on.
Jonathan Charles, a BBC foreign correspondent, was tonight the latest in a successful series of guest lectures at the University of Lincoln. His talk was entitled: “Journalism is dead: Long live journalism!”
Throughout his talk, Charles showed us some of his finest moments. And what fantastic moments they are. As you may remember, Charles was given the task of reporting one of the most heart-wrenching accounts of terrorism in recent memory, the Beslan school hostage crisis.
His report was breathtaking. Magical journalism. He intertwined fierce actuality with considered voiceovers. It was made even more impressive when Charles pointed out he had to cut this package together in a mere two hours. Incredible.
“You can’t do that with a Google search!” he repeated. And how right he was.
Although in complete agreement with pretty much everything Charles said, I did at times wonder where his determination to tell us about the woes of Google stemmed from. I don’t recall anyone suggesting Google-reporting is any substitute for the real thing.
Another running theme was that good reporting needs money, and plenty of it. Right again, of course, but at times it felt like Charles was pleading with his audience to keep him in a job. Maybe he was — the audience was made up of potential future journalists.
I’m not sure what Charle’s fear of the web is. Maybe I’m being a little too harsh to call it a fear. I doubt he’s afraid of it, but then like so many journalists, I don’t think Charles is entirely sure what ‘it’ actually is.
In my opinion, ‘it’ is the best platform for journalism in existence. Rather than being seen as a threat, it should be seen as the savior. On at least three occasions, Charles shared his frustration at not being able to cover certain events because of technological limitations. For example, he defended the BBC’s apparent bias to covering suicide bombers in Kabul rather than American bombings of small Afghan villages by stating that by the time a news crew could get there, the story would have passed.
With online, you can be there.
Rather than taking a satellite truck, camera man, sound guy and reporter, you can head down there with a compact video camera and get shooting. Within minutes, it’s on the web. The same goes for pictures. And audio. And interactive slide shows. You can do it all. Isn’t that exciting?
I hope Charles doesn’t see the internet as a threat. I’m sure it will make his already outstanding work even better.
Google doesn’t make a good reporter, but the internet certainly can help.
In response to Charles I would say, from my perspective I would rather read a blog post from a Russian about the incident than see his report. I would find that blog, thanks to Google. I already know what Charles is going to say. You get better insights with blogs.
Interesting point, John. I think the problem with blogs is that no blogger can claim to represent the bigger picture. It’s brilliant getting a microcosm of situation via a blog — like Salam Pax, for example — but we need to know more than just one person’s experience.
Those blogs that do seem to take a wider look at issues tend to rely on the mass media for that insight, anyway.
From hearing various thoughts on blogging in the last year, it seems that it’s only journalists that have problems with bloggers, and not the other way round. No blogger I know actively wants the mass media to disappear… it’s a case of everyone working together to provide news coverage that the public has never seen before. To do this, we need both traditional journalists, bloggers, cit journos and every other sort of bloke on the street you can think of.
Dear Dave,
I can see why your blog is getting a lot of attention. It’s an interesting read.
If I’m allowed a `right to reply’ to your blog, I am a big supporter of the internet and blogging. I believe that it is an addition,though, to traditional journalism and not a replacement. What I meant by `you can’t do that on a google search ‘ is that too much journalism is being done by just sitting at a computer, doing a google search, rather than tracking down primary sources and seeing things at first hand. There’s little that can beat eyewitness journalism.
Just to clarify what I meant about coverage of Afghanistan, it’s not that sending a crew to cover a NATO airstrike on a village would take too long, rendering it out of date, it’s that it would be just too dangerous for a western crew to go remote areas. Often they are in Taliban areas and would be too great a kidnap risk.No news editor would take the risk. As you know, in television, without the pictures, it’s hard to give the story the same weight.
Anyway, I’m glad you enjoyed the talk. Keep up the good work on the blog.
Best wishes,JC
Hi Jonathan,
Many thanks for your comment and kinds words about the blog!
Thanks for the clarity on the Afghanistan example. I agree — the internet is an addition rather than replacement. Often, though, I feel some journalists are petrified of the web and what it represents (I’m not accusing you of that, of course. I’m sure you can think of some colleagues that refuse to consider the internet as a medium that’s as important as TV or radio…)
Thanks again
Dave
Hi there.
did anybody tried to die?
Interesting thing
try it, recomend
subj
asgd asdhasdhg dfg asdf
Hi Please look at the website web.mac.com/beachhutman.
It concerns neither beaches or huts used for pleasure.
I was told by investigative journalism tutors at a Summer School
two tears running I would never prove anything with the internet alone. But I came vert very close and life has proved me bang on.
So please look at my site, I reproduce an awakening achingly formed by googling “Alice in Wonderland + theme park) That led to 5 weeks intensive searching and printing out to read later. In a couple of months I had written it up. (see my blog) Half way through I was accosted by a historical figure who was the father of the very subject I had unearthed. I escaped censure or worse, and fell into a trough of this memory for a decade. Now I do not recoil but piece it together BUT NO-ONE WANTS TO KNOW. And all because the Nazi’s land we love our mythology without the reality. If only we knew what creates Slaves. If only they realised what Masters have to be or I guess here, will become.