Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Turning a good point into a well made point
Something stood out from the standard Gorilla coverage of the ICC (and police) investigation of members of the touring Pakistani cricket squad as a result of allegations of match fixing:
Simple actions can make an incredibly strong point. When Muntazer al-Zaidi threw a shoe at George Bush, it was a strong statement because of the comparative symbolism of how Iraqi's who once hit the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein with their shoes to show their disrespect, felt the same about the leader who would argue that he was their liberator.
Fathers 4 Justice dressed in superhero outfits and descended on British landmarks in order to raise their profile in the eye of the public. Were the superhero outfits necessary? Absolutely. Children look up their parents, believing them to have superhuman powers and these were fathers wanting their children to look at them as though they would move mountains just for the opportunity to be their parent.
When a mass climate/peace camp descended on Parliament Square in July the impact was negligible bar none, and served to negate the impact of important messages as the actions of the protesters overawed any coverage of the point. A flash mob consisting of a clique of professional protesters setting up home failed to challenge a new audience with an engaging point and packed itself away when it realised its own irrelevance.
We all have the right of freedom of speech, but we also have a responsibility to use it wisely to say something. Be it a searing editorial, a gentle protest or a bold statement the key is to reach a new audience with a relevant and innovative approach; make a good point, make it well and know when it's been made.
"Cricket fans in the eastern city of Lahore threw green tomatoes at donkeys labelled with the names of the players embroiled in the investigation." (Tuesday 31 August 2010, The Times)At a time when the country is fighting a war on multiple fronts - against terrorism and against a terrible humanitarian crisis - these fans have found an inelegant beauty. A humanity which detracts from the grim of one more tale of corruption in the 'istans. Disgruntled by yet another failure of their nation's representatives, these fans resorted to gentle humour so revered in the cricketing world to make their dissatisfaction known. Once heroes, nothing brings a cricketer down to earth like being paraded as a donkey in the face of rotten vegetables.
Simple actions can make an incredibly strong point. When Muntazer al-Zaidi threw a shoe at George Bush, it was a strong statement because of the comparative symbolism of how Iraqi's who once hit the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein with their shoes to show their disrespect, felt the same about the leader who would argue that he was their liberator.
Fathers 4 Justice dressed in superhero outfits and descended on British landmarks in order to raise their profile in the eye of the public. Were the superhero outfits necessary? Absolutely. Children look up their parents, believing them to have superhuman powers and these were fathers wanting their children to look at them as though they would move mountains just for the opportunity to be their parent.
When a mass climate/peace camp descended on Parliament Square in July the impact was negligible bar none, and served to negate the impact of important messages as the actions of the protesters overawed any coverage of the point. A flash mob consisting of a clique of professional protesters setting up home failed to challenge a new audience with an engaging point and packed itself away when it realised its own irrelevance.
We all have the right of freedom of speech, but we also have a responsibility to use it wisely to say something. Be it a searing editorial, a gentle protest or a bold statement the key is to reach a new audience with a relevant and innovative approach; make a good point, make it well and know when it's been made.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
William Hague's SpAd resigned to media shambolics
Mid-week has been dominated by the news that William Hague's (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) Special Adviser (Christopher Myers) has resigned as a result of rumours circulating Whitehall and Fleet Street about the nature of their relationship. This as a result of a well connected media hack's comments regarding photos of the pair taken over a year ago.
What has been remarkable and consistent across the majority of news outlets has been a sense of unease about covering the story. With the broadsheets trying to focus the story on whether the Secretary of State's judgement is sound and the tabloids switching tack at the drop of a statement to 'Hague's heartache at struggle for family', it is self-evident that this is not concrete news. All of this was picked up by every outlet in the mainstream media as a top story with no evidence further than a dated and unrevealing snapshot and some internet gossip. In an attempt to justify coverage there has been a nuanced suggestion of homophobia in the new Government - but with several gay members of the Ministerial team this line alone is not nearly robust enough.
That a Cabinet Minister was so overwhelmed by comments emanating from the blogosphere as to his sexuality that he - a notoriously private person - felt the need to publicly disclose intimate details about his marriage is an outright demonstration of how senior public figures are unduly influenced by the perception of them, not in the public (as there is little evidence to suggest that this was a widely held belief), but in the media.
With MPs sent away by the Prime Minister to relax after an arduous election campaign and first session of Parliament; Westminster and it's lobby groups have largely rung silent. This has left news outlets struggling to find anything newswothy to talk about, for example Alex Thomson of Channel 4 visibly squirmed as he attempted to fill a 3-minute segment on Sunday evening with a report on the nefarious content of his own Tweets. Why hasn't the media used the let up in relentless press releases as an excuse to broaden news coverage on other, less media savvy issues. The role of the media is to tell a story, not to wait for press offices to control the news cycle.
Something largely uncommented upon is the appointment of Special Advisers - David Cameron issued new guidance at the start of his term stating that each Department is permitted to appoint two Special Advisers. This rule was wavered by the Prime Minister for William Hague to enable him to appoint a member of staff with no knowledge of foreign affairs and little parliamentary experience. The Prime Minister is driving to increase accountability of government, including appointments, yet seems to have little concern about the lack of merit required to be appointed to a position which steers the direction of major policy at the expense of the public purse.
The coverage of this story is not news, and so-called political journalists should be ashamed of succombing to regurgitating a story that is neither of political, nor public, interest.
What has been remarkable and consistent across the majority of news outlets has been a sense of unease about covering the story. With the broadsheets trying to focus the story on whether the Secretary of State's judgement is sound and the tabloids switching tack at the drop of a statement to 'Hague's heartache at struggle for family', it is self-evident that this is not concrete news. All of this was picked up by every outlet in the mainstream media as a top story with no evidence further than a dated and unrevealing snapshot and some internet gossip. In an attempt to justify coverage there has been a nuanced suggestion of homophobia in the new Government - but with several gay members of the Ministerial team this line alone is not nearly robust enough.
That a Cabinet Minister was so overwhelmed by comments emanating from the blogosphere as to his sexuality that he - a notoriously private person - felt the need to publicly disclose intimate details about his marriage is an outright demonstration of how senior public figures are unduly influenced by the perception of them, not in the public (as there is little evidence to suggest that this was a widely held belief), but in the media.
With MPs sent away by the Prime Minister to relax after an arduous election campaign and first session of Parliament; Westminster and it's lobby groups have largely rung silent. This has left news outlets struggling to find anything newswothy to talk about, for example Alex Thomson of Channel 4 visibly squirmed as he attempted to fill a 3-minute segment on Sunday evening with a report on the nefarious content of his own Tweets. Why hasn't the media used the let up in relentless press releases as an excuse to broaden news coverage on other, less media savvy issues. The role of the media is to tell a story, not to wait for press offices to control the news cycle.
Something largely uncommented upon is the appointment of Special Advisers - David Cameron issued new guidance at the start of his term stating that each Department is permitted to appoint two Special Advisers. This rule was wavered by the Prime Minister for William Hague to enable him to appoint a member of staff with no knowledge of foreign affairs and little parliamentary experience. The Prime Minister is driving to increase accountability of government, including appointments, yet seems to have little concern about the lack of merit required to be appointed to a position which steers the direction of major policy at the expense of the public purse.
The coverage of this story is not news, and so-called political journalists should be ashamed of succombing to regurgitating a story that is neither of political, nor public, interest.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)