Giving the mic
| 17:58 UK time, Tuesday, 19 September 2006
One criticism that's often made of ±«Óãtv News is that we are "politically correct". This is not meant as a compliment and although it's sometimes difficult to know what people mean exactly when they call us that, I understand it to mean we self-censor and don't open the mics to people with views not in line with what some regard as official orthodoxy.
On The World Tonight, we try to make sense of what is going on in the world by asking the questions our listeners want answers to, and reflect debates that are going on in society.
One way we do this is to set up debate between protagonists of a particular controversial viewpoint - we call them authored reports - where they make their own pieces and then come together afterwards to debate. We've done this successfully on several occasions, for instance, on whether immigration is necessary for economic reasons, and whether the EU needs a constitutional treaty. In the past few days, we have had Michael Binyon of arguing that the disability rights movement has gone too far and is damaging small businesses, and a disabled rights activist, Jim Kelly, countering Michael's arguments.
It was a controversial thing to do. I did wonder if it was in good taste, but decided that there is a body of opinion that has not been given a wide airing elsewhere and it was worthwhile giving a platform for the two sides to make their case and then come together to thrash it out. We also asked listeners for their views.
In the event, we got very little flak for airing the reports - this is the closest it came to condemnation
While I agree that it is important to be able to debate how far any rights can go in terms of the whole community, it would help to start from a basis of respect, which was missing from the beginning in your discussion. Please do not talk about people as "the disabled".
Indeed our listeners really engaged with the issue which suggests we tuned in with a real debate - and a slight majority came down against Michael Binyon's argument.
Comments
The ±«Óãtv has to give a balanced view of the news and current affairs issues, and sometimes it is worthy to note that not everybody has "Politically Correct" views of the world. In the case of the disability rights movement piece you did, I'd be more critical of the ±«Óãtv for not doing more of these pieces than less – not allowing a debate to go forward simply because it offends a vocal groups sensibilities can also mean that it will offend a less vocal groups sensibilities as well. The ±«Óãtv is not tasked with satisfying merely the vocal groups of society.
It is well known the ±«Óãtv worships the PC God(s), and as you are aware, you have many blogs documenting your every PC move. Now, one of your most shameful crimes is you inability to use the ‘T’ word (terrorism) to describe acts of Islamic brutality, preferring to use euphemism such as ‘misguided criminals’ for example. Please remember you are here to ‘inform, educate and entertain.’
Your love for PC is hampering your news output.
You should also note that the majority of the public do not share your religion.
Kind regards
Mark
The ±«Óãtv gets very little flak because the topics are well researched and are brilliantly presented. Above all the respect shown to the reader is equally important. Placing the reader at the same level of intelligence and neither talking down nor hectoring have placed the ±«Óãtv as an excellent forum for creative debate. Getting the balance right is every editor or reporter's dream: the more experience he or she has the deeper the editor is able to delve into memory lane. It is incisive reporting which gives the ±«Óãtv the edge over other broadcasters. The search for the truth could be exciting rewarding experiences for the editor,the reader, listener or viewer.
The Editor of The World tonight: "One criticism that's often made of ±«Óãtv News is that we are "politically correct". This is not meant as a compliment and although it's sometimes difficult to know what people mean exactly when they call us that, I understand it to mean we self-censor and don't open the mics to people with views not in line with what some regard as official orthodoxy.
Most people understand the terms to be rather different in meaning to that. To be a spin term used in attempts to undermine policies that have been constructed rationally in efforts to enable equality and end discrimination by suggesting, not always wrongly (unfortunately) that they go to far, and instead create inequality against others or impossible bueaucracy.
It started as an in-joke term in the Black and women's movements about the ideas of the few people who were were motivated by a hatred of "the other side" and shouted down or otherwise tried to bully into silence other views, or fell back on endless theory to attempt to overcome reason. Unfortunately some of those people were not taken sufficiently seriously and did huge damage as a result.
Those who use the term now use it without intending humour and mostly against perfectly reasonable views they can find no other way to oppose. As a smear. Which is not to say some such policies are not short-sighted or ill-informed.
...One way we do this is to set up debate between protagonists of a particular controversial viewpoint - we call them authored reports - where they make their own pieces and then come together afterwards to debate.
Unfortunately that sets it up as a confrontation, which is highly likely to make a good proportion of your potential audience literally turn off.
...I did wonder if it was in good taste, but decided that there is a body of opinion that has not been given a wide airing elsewhere and it was worthwhile giving a platform for the two sides to make their case and then come together to thrash it out.
Precisely. Like a boxing match really.
In the event, we got very little flak for airing the reports
It is a style that has come to be expected of your programme, so others don't listen, or complain. It would be so nice it there was another programme where a more co-operative approach to discussion, ideas and policies were to be found.
Just found this site which is excellent. As someone who works in media for a leading aid agency, I have found that certain guests will only come on if they are unchallenged / in a debate (eg Peter Mandelson on trade) which often means that the balance / challenge relies heavily on the anchor knowing the intricacies of the brief and being able to come back at guests. I have been frustrated around the conditions within which certain guests go on and how they are able to work their way through the more challenging terrain (eg on the paucity of the EU's movements on agriculture) and bridge into the areas they are safer in. Is there anything else that you can do within your editorial policies to deal with this? Best, Sam
Many would agree with Pancha Chandra (20/Sept/ 2006).
Nevertheless it is clear from the comments of readers that too much repetition, and even a little gratuitous comment by presenters and non-experts generally, will lead from congratulations to irritation.