The James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture - Jeremy Paxman

I have a lot of respect for Jeremy Paxman, he is the no nonsense face of the media. So any speech in which he talks about the media is bound to contain fireworks.

Although his speech is mainly about the realities of television where everything has been carefully crafted and manipulated. This was in the wake of scandals of re-edited documentaries and the telephone phone in scandals which were not really competitions. Even now new fakery is being exposed, with Blue Peter again in the frame for rigging a contest to choose a pet's name.

"We should start with some acknowledgements, the first of which is that all television is artifice to some degree. Let’s not pretend it isn’t. Even the news: when we see a reporter in waders broadcasting live from a flooded street, do we honestly think the whole town is underwater, and with it the OB truck? Every time you stick a noddy into an interview, that’s artifice. Even the live television interview itself is artifice."

-Jeremy Paxman.

After all a tv camera can present a selected edited view of the world, you have no idea what is going on behind the camera man. The tv picture is framed to fit the story, flooding is needed for a flooding story, crime and graffiti is needed for a crime story etc etc.

"It doesn’t take a genius to recognise that what links all the scandals – what is the defining problem of contemporary television – is trust: can you believe what you see on television, does television treat people fairly, is it healthy for society?"

-Jeremy Paxman.

It is easy to identify that through all things we now have a mistrust of the media, I would say the media has bought it on themselves, they have taught us to trust no one so why should we trust the media.

Jeremy talks about 'mind-numbing literalism' where the media retreat too far into reality news rather than creative interviewing and news where they draw the story out. This balance between fact and fiction is a challenge when the 24 hr news cycle must draw on rumour, conjecture and opinion to create the story. Sometimes it gets it right and sometimes wrong and each media outlet must get judged on their accuracy in hind sight.

"...television is now encountering something which politicians have had to live with for years. The weather has changed. We no longer live in a time when trust was axiomatic. The crisis of confidence in television reflects the crisis of trust in politics: the old ‘we know best’ culture – in which producers affected a patrician concern to enlighten the poor dumb creatures who were their viewers won’t wash any longer."

-Jeremy Paxman.

This is a shift away from being a pupil to being a teacher. In modern society everyone feels capable of commenting on most things. TV news has adapted by bringing in opinion trying to represent the majority view. Media has to gain the trust of the viewer, in order to gain that trust they must confirm the viewers opinion. Different opinions will cause a switch to some other media outlet. The power now rests firmly with the viewer but where does that leave the truth?

"There are too many people in this industry whose answer to the question what is television for? is to say ‘to make money.’"

-Jeremy Paxman.

This goes back to Tony Blair's speech on 'impact', impact sells and therefore impact makes money.

"Instead of seeking to enlighten the audience, they set out to second-guess them. It won’t be long before we discover what politicians have discovered: if you spend your time telling people what you think they want to hear, pretty soon you lose their respect."

-Jeremy Paxman.

I agree with the first part that the media no longer seek to enlighten but confirm what the audience already knows. I am not as sure that the public will loose their respect, with politicians the media exposed the lies, who will expose the media lies. No one in the media seems to have the balls for the job, no one wants to put their head above the parapet and shout that the Emperor wears no trousers. The only hope we have at the moment is the interweb, citizen journalism offers the Paxman like interrogation of the established truth. However, the minute the small fry get big will they not become part of the same establishment that needs to make money.

"He [Tony Blair] went on to accuse us of using extravagant language: every problem’s a crisis, policies don’t run into difficulty, they end up in tatters. We see everything in black and white, and have given up separating fact from comment.

-Jeremy Paxman.

Impact, Impact, Impact, that is all the media wants so everything is a crisis with no grey area and hindsight is always used to blame someone especially if they can force a resignation.

"But I found the media’s response – and particularly the response of the television industry - to the Blair challenge pretty depressing. Hardly anyone engaged with the substance of the criticisms – of our triviality, our short-sightedness, our preoccupation with conflict. The immediate and almost universal reaction was not to examine the charge sheet, but to utter a blanket plea of ‘not guilty’, usually followed by well, you misled us about WMD, as if that somehow entitles us to say whatever we like. Well, it won’t do."

-Jeremy Paxman.

Even when faced with a direct attack and a challenge for an open discussion on the future of the industry the media ignores the argument claiming that such criticism comes from a tainted source. If the media polices the politicians who polices the media, such an important part of society surely cannot be allowed to self regulate.

Jeremy goes on to suggest that the media is too close to politicians and this stifles meaningful debate on issues. He quotes a recent example with prisoners were released early. The media responded by interviewing the minister and shadow minister, there was no debate with other interested parties, no discussion of the issues only an attempt to portray the government as incompetent.

"Are we instinctively oppositional? With the exception of honeymoons like the start of the Blair years, I think we are. Does it matter? Well, it would obviously be better if we always acted thoughtfully. But on the whole, I think the interests of democracy are better served than in a system where the media think it part of their duty to help the government get its way."

-Jeremy Paxman.

Again I am at odds with Jeremy although I have no objection to a media which plays devil's advocate against the incumbent government I do think it is the responsibility of the media to provide balance in its reporting. That means as well as criticising, challenging bad policy we must celebrate good policy and success.

"What no-one ever says when covering these stories is that rationing is the inevitable consequence of the fact that people won’t pay more in taxes. Let none of us for a moment suggest the British people might be hypocritical or even thoughtless. No danger of that at GMTV. No danger, really, of it anywhere."

-Jeremy Paxman.

This example comes up every week, person with health condition cant get treatment on NHS, NHS says it is too expensive. As an individual they deserve it but when people consider the finite budget different people must take priorities. Yes this becomes a cold hearted statistical approach devoid of emotion but on what other basis can we determine who gets the funds. Do we expect a judge type person who considers whether the person deserves the treatment.

The same can be said about road safety, people have to die on a stretch of a road before new safety measures are put in. Although no one like the concept there is a priority list of improvement based on causalities per mile. Although there is never an acceptable level of deaths with a finite budget there has to be.

The media never really tell this story, they portray managers of uncaring automatons incapable of emotion. Manager will not defend themselves by telling the truth above because that would confirm the view but the decisions still have to be taken each and every day.

"Would it not be a lot more sophisticated –and honest - to acknowledge sometimes that things may be more complicated than they appear?"

-Jeremy Paxman.

Thankfully this is what Channel 4 news and shows like Newsnight often do, but this is not representative of the more widespread media who value impact above all else.

"Overall, I have to say that I think standards of probity on television are pretty high. I believe most of what I see on television, and when, in the heat of the moment, things turn out to be wrong, I’m willing to give those responsible the benefit of the doubt: it’s not easy getting things clear in the early stages of any moving story."

-Jeremy Paxman.

I have mixed views, I think some television does the job very well but equally some news shows do it very badly. I cannot watch ITV news because of what I perceive as a low standard of the truth, I see ITV as comparable to a red top newspaper. News is complex and ITV just over simplify and sensationalise it. However the same news organisation produces the Channel 4 news so they are capable of producing quality news. Do they in fact just dumb down to the audience's level?

Jeremy does identify one of the key issues, with breaking news the media often get the story wrong and they should be careful of passing off speculation or opinion as fact. This has got a lot worse with 24 hour news, something needs to fill the gaps in between the facts coming in.

"But the problem is that all news programmes need to make noise. The need’s got worse, the more crowded the market’s become. We clamour for the viewers’ attention: “Don’t switch over. Watch us! You won’t be disappointed!”"

"God knows, just look at almost any regional news programme, with its tawdry catalogue of misfortune, recited in deadbeat vocabulary. You’d think that every child in the city was being sexually abused, every journey every day disrupted, resulting in ‘pure misery’, every teenager a drug-crazed psychopath. Does it alarm? Sure. Does it help us understand? You must be joking."

-Jeremy Paxman.

Jeremy wonders whether there is in fact enough news for 24 hour channels but points out that regional news could expand to fill any hole in the schedules. Is this news any good unless you are directly affected. Or does it just give you a jaded view of the world, a sort of modern day brainwashing with no cure?

"But in the very crowded world in which television lives, it won’t do to whisper, natter, cogitate or muse. You have to shout. The need is for constant sensation. The consequence is that reporting now prizes emotion over much else."

-Jeremy Paxman.

News has to have an image which provokes an emotional response to hook the viewer. They have to become emotionally involved in the story. Sometimes you will get a news reader says that some viewers will find the following pictures emotionally disturbing. Is this really a warning or just another way of saying keep watching. If the pictures are so disturbing do they need to show them.

"In this press of events there often isn’t the time to get out and find things out: you rely upon second-hand information – quotes from powerful vested interests, assessments from organisations which do the work we don’t have time for, even, god help us, press releases from public relations agencies. The consequence is that what follows isn’t analysis. It’s simply comment, because analysis takes time, and comment is free."

-Jeremy Paxman.

I feel some what vindicated as I have long maintained that the media have an over reliance of going to interested parties for comments without doing the leg work themselves. The first thing we should ask ourselves is what does the source get out of it? What bias are they bringing to the story. The warning to the media is don't pass comment off as fact.

"My point is that there comes a point where the frenzy has to be put to one side, the rolling story halted, so that we can make sense of things. Television journalism’s justification should be the justification of journalism through the ages: to inquire, to explain and to hold to account."

-Jeremy Paxman.

Spot on, the media like to keep the story rolling, they dont often review things. Jeremy is right about the justification of journalism, it job is "to inquire, to explain and to hold to account". This is what good journalism is about and it should be a fact of life not an aspiration in a speech about the future of the media.

"Despite the last few months, I do not believe that this uniquely powerful medium has been taken over by charlatans. But we ought to acknowledge that parts of it are in danger of losing their redeeming virtues. We need to be open. We need to admit when we make mistakes. We need treat our viewers with respect, to be frank with them about how and why programmes were made, to be transparent.

We need, in short, to rediscover a sense of purpose."

-Jeremy Paxman.

Final words from Jeremy, I agree I don't think journalists are inherent show men or gossip merchants, but they do need to take a look sometimes and ask themselves whether the story has value and what the truth actually means.

In this speech Jeremy suggests that the media had not addressed Tony Blair's criticisms of the modern media. Jeremy I think you went a long way to answer them and start an open intelligent debate on the role of the media in modern society.