Mission to explain - Revision history

Tom Mills at 14:11, 26 November 2010

2010-11-26T14:11:59Z

Tom Mills at 14:06, 26 November 2010

2010-11-26T14:06:43Z

Tom Mills: typo

2010-11-25T18:13:05Z

typo

Tom Mills at 22:49, 12 October 2010

2010-10-12T22:49:03Z

Tom Mills: /* The 'Mission to explain' at the BBC */

2010-05-28T13:15:31Z

The 'Mission to explain' at the BBC

Tom Mills: /* The Times articles */

2010-05-28T13:08:49Z

The Times articles

Tom Mills: /* The Times articles */

2010-05-28T13:08:23Z

The Times articles

Tom Mills at 12:56, 28 May 2010

2010-05-28T12:56:37Z

Tom Mills: /* The Mission to explain at the BBC */

2010-03-19T15:21:33Z

The Mission to explain at the BBC

Tom Mills: /* The Mission to explain at the BBC */

2010-03-19T15:21:07Z

The Mission to explain at the BBC

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 Two further articles on the ‘bias against understanding’ appeared in September 1976. The first addressed the concerns of critics that the stress on analysis would make television less popular with viewers. <Ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'How television news can hold the mass audience', ''The Times'', 2 September 1976; p.12; Issue 59798</ref> The second article – which went as far as labelling television journalism anti-social – addressed concerns that the proposed changes would mix fact with opinion and would therefore undermine the journalistic commitment to impartiality. [[John Birt|Birt]] and [[Peter Jay|Jay]] responded by arguing that the selection of facts itself represented a sort of opinion:
-<blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt">When a journalist chooses to report the latest balance of payment figures instead of what his aunt gave him for Christmas, he does so because he judges that it is more important for society to learn about the one than the other, or, at least, that more people will be interested. But in order to make a judgment about ''what'' is important or interesting, a journalist must assume, however unconsciously, the reasons why they are more important more interesting. <ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'Why television news is in danger of becoming an anti-social force', ''The Times'', 3 September 1976; p.6; Issue 59799</ref></blockquote>
+<blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt">When a journalist chooses to report the latest balance of payment figures instead of what his aunt gave him for Christmas, he does so because he judges that it is more important for society to learn about the one than the other, or, at least, that more people will be interested. But in order to make a judgment about ''what'' is important or interesting, a journalist must assume, however unconsciously, the reasons why they are more important or more interesting. <ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'Why television news is in danger of becoming an anti-social force', ''The Times'', 3 September 1976; p.6; Issue 59799</ref></blockquote>
 They also alluded to the 'very relationship between language and reality' which they argued makes interpretation implicit in any description of the world. <ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'Why television news is in danger of becoming an anti-social force', ''The Times'', 3 September 1976; p.6; Issue 59799</ref>

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 Two further articles on the ‘bias against understanding’ appeared in September 1976. The first addressed the concerns of critics that the stress on analysis would make television less popular with viewers. <Ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'How television news can hold the mass audience', ''The Times'', 2 September 1976; p.12; Issue 59798</ref> The second article – which went as far as labelling television journalism anti-social – addressed concerns that the proposed changes would mix fact with opinion and would therefore undermine the journalistic commitment to impartiality. [[John Birt|Birt]] and [[Peter Jay|Jay]] responded by arguing that the selection of facts itself represented a sort of opinion:
-<blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt">When a journalist chooses to report the latest balance of payment figures instead of what his aunt gave him for Christmas, he does so because he judges that it is more important for society to learn about the one than the other, or, at least, that more people will be interested. But in order to make a judgment about ''what'' is important ot interesting, a journalist must assume, however unconsciously, the reasons why they are more important more more interesting. <ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'Why television news is in danger of becoming an anti-social force', ''The Times'', 3 September 1976; p.6; Issue 59799</ref></blockquote>
+<blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt">When a journalist chooses to report the latest balance of payment figures instead of what his aunt gave him for Christmas, he does so because he judges that it is more important for society to learn about the one than the other, or, at least, that more people will be interested. But in order to make a judgment about ''what'' is important or interesting, a journalist must assume, however unconsciously, the reasons why they are more important more interesting. <ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'Why television news is in danger of becoming an anti-social force', ''The Times'', 3 September 1976; p.6; Issue 59799</ref></blockquote>
 They also alluded to the 'very relationship between language and reality' which they argued makes interpretation implicit in any description of the world. <ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'Why television news is in danger of becoming an anti-social force', ''The Times'', 3 September 1976; p.6; Issue 59799</ref>

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 [[John Birt|Birt]] and [[Peter Jay|Jay]] also returned to the issue of what are often called 'human interest stories'. These, they again argued failed, because of their specifity, to promote an understanding of broader social issues:
-<blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt">The big picture is just as much part of the real world as the personal tragedy, the general as much as the particular, the abstract as much as the concrete. Both have to be reported and explained; and neither can stand proxy for the other by simple multiplying or dividing the scale, a feat televiion journalism attempts every day. <ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'Why television news is in danger of becoming an anti-social force', ''The Times'', 3 September 1976; p.6; Issue 59799</ref></blockquote>
+<blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt">The big picture is just as much part of the real world as the personal tragedy, the general as much as the particular, the abstract as much as the concrete. Both have to be reported and explained; and neither can stand proxy for the other by simple multiplying or dividing the scale, a feat television journalism attempts every day. <ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'Why television news is in danger of becoming an anti-social force', ''The Times'', 3 September 1976; p.6; Issue 59799</ref></blockquote>
 Interestingly, the article also alluded to the relationship between journalism and power, although this appears as part of the rebuttal of the fact/opinion criticism, rather than being identified as a central problem in journalism:

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 The concept emerged from a series of articles appearing in ''[[The Times]]'' in 1975 and 1976 when [[John Birt]] was head of Current Affairs at [[London Weekend Television]] and [[Peter Jay]] was an influential columnist at the paper. The term 'mission to explain' however was not coined until the early 1980s when [[Peter Jay]] used it in [[TV-am|TV-am's]] bid to the IBA for the [[ITV]] breakfast franchise - drawing on his and Birt's ideas. <ref>Robert Chesshyre, 'Peter and Frosty for breakfast', ''Observer'', 4 January 1981; p.9</ref>
-The 'mission to explain' was used as the rationale for a series of unpopular changes at the [[BBC]] during [[John Birt|Birt's]] time as Deputy Director-General (1987–92) and Director-General (1992–2000) when news and current affairs programmes were brought under greater scrutiny and tighter and centralised control. <ref>Georgina Born, Uncertain Vision: Birt, Dyke and the Reinvention of the BBC (London: Secker & Warburg, 2004) p.58.</ref>
+The concept was used as the rationale for a series of unpopular changes at the [[BBC]] during [[John Birt|Birt's]] time as Deputy Director-General (1987–92) and Director-General (1992–2000) when news and current affairs programmes were brought under greater scrutiny and tighter and centralised control. <ref>Georgina Born, Uncertain Vision: Birt, Dyke and the Reinvention of the BBC (London: Secker & Warburg, 2004) p.58.</ref>
 ==The ''Times'' articles==

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ==The 'Mission to explain' at the BBC==
-[[John Birt|John Birt’s]] philosophy of television journalism, with its emphasis on analytical content and careful editorial planning, fitted well with the objectives of the new [[BBC]] leadership in the mid to late 1980s.  In January 1987 the BBC Director-General [[Alasdair Milne]] was forced to resign by the Board of Governors – a move widely perceived to be as a result of BBC current affairs programmes that had offended the Government.  The most notable of these programmes was an episode of ''Panorama'' called ''[[Maggie's Militant Tendency]]'', which led to an organised counterattack by [[Ralph Harris]], [[James Goldsmith|Sir James Goldsmith]] and other right-wing activists.<ref>Patricia Wynn Davies, '[The Cash-for-Questions Affair: The miners' grandson who found a niche in the right]', Independent, 21 October 1994; p.3</ref>
+[[John Birt|John Birt’s]] philosophy of television journalism, with its emphasis on analytical content and careful editorial planning, fitted well with the objectives of the new [[BBC]] leadership in the mid to late 1980s.  In January 1987 the BBC Director-General [[Alasdair Milne]] was forced to resign by the Board of Governors – a move widely perceived to be as a result of BBC current affairs programmes that had offended the Government.  The most notable of these programmes was an episode of ''Panorama'' called ''[[Maggie's Militant Tendency]]'', which led to an organised counterattack by [[Ralph Harris]], [[James Goldsmith|Sir James Goldsmith]] and other right-wing activists.<ref>Patricia Wynn Davies, '[http://www.independent.co.uk/dayinapage/1994/October/21/ The Cash-for-Questions Affair: The miners' grandson who found a niche in the right]', ''Independent'', 21 October 1994; p.3</ref>
 The removal of [[Alasdair Milne|Milne]] had been orchestrated by the ([[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcher]] appointed) Chairman [[Duke Hussey]], who with his new Director-General the accountant [[Michael Checkland]] now asked [[John Birt]] to oversee BBC journalism.

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 <blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt">Most current broadcast journalism is partial - it favours the views of one group at the expense of those of another. This is because, lacking a clear sense of its obligation to society as a whole, most journalism lives under the shadow of the state and the other main repositories of power in our society; the political parties; business; the trade unions and so on. It might almost be called "corporate journalism". <ref>John Birt and Peter Jay, 'Why television news is in danger of becoming an anti-social force', ''The Times'', 3 September 1976; p.6; Issue 59799</ref></blockquote>
-==The Mission to explain at the BBC==
+==The 'Mission to explain' at the BBC==
 [[John Birt|John Birt’s]] philosophy of television journalism, with its emphasis on analytical content and careful editorial planning, fitted well with the objectives of the new [[BBC]] leadership in the mid to late 1980s.  In January 1987 the BBC Director-General [[Alasdair Milne]] was forced to resign by the Board of Governors – a move widely perceived to be as a result of BBC current affairs programmes that had offended the Government.  The most notable of these programmes was an episode of ''Panorama'' called ''[[Maggie's Militant Tendency]]'', which led to an organised counterattack by [[Ralph Harris]], [[James Goldsmith|Sir James Goldsmith]] and other right-wing activists.<ref>Patricia Wynn Davies, '[The Cash-for-Questions Affair: The miners' grandson who found a niche in the right]', Independent, 21 October 1994; p.3</ref>

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 [[John Birt|Birt]] oversaw the merging of news and current affairs into a new News and Current Affairs Directorate and shut down the Lime Grove buildings where the current affairs programmes like ''Panorama'' had been based.  As the anthropologist Georgina Born notes, Lime Grove had been ‘physically distant from the news base in White City, a distance that symbolised its independence from the body of the BBC and its own creative tradition of investigation and analysis.’ <ref>Georgina Born, Uncertain Vision: Birt, Dyke and the Reinvention of the BBC (London: Secker & Warburg, 2004) p.57.</ref>  BBC current affairs programmes were brought under tighter editorial control, creating in a more risk averse journalistic culture. Georgina Born writes:
-<blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt">The reorganisation was accompanied by intensifying managerial caution, as borne out by incidents in which programmes were cancelled or delayed under the threat of government displeasure.  In January 1991, at the start of the Gulf War, and against the convictions of the editors, a sensational Panorama was blocked which revealed that Britain had supplied Iraq with a massively powerful piece of armoury, the ‘supergun’, on the grounds that public opinion would not tolerate the story at a time when British servicemen were going to war.  And on the eve of the 1992 general election campaign, a Panorama entitled ‘Sliding into a Slump’ was pulled, in which Britain’s economic problems were laid at the door of the former Conservative chancellor, Nigel Lawson. <ref>Georgina Born, Uncertain Vision: Birt, Dyke and the Reinvention of the BBC (London: Secker & Warburg, 2004) p.58.</ref></blockquote>
+<blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt">The reorganisation was accompanied by intensifying managerial caution, as borne out by incidents in which programmes were cancelled or delayed under the threat of government displeasure.  In January 1991, at the start of the Gulf War, and against the convictions of the editors, a sensational ''Panorama'' was blocked which revealed that Britain had supplied Iraq with a massively powerful piece of armoury, the ‘supergun’, on the grounds that public opinion would not tolerate the story at a time when British servicemen were going to war.  And on the eve of the 1992 general election campaign, a ''Panorama'' entitled ‘Sliding into a Slump’ was pulled, in which Britain’s economic problems were laid at the door of the former Conservative chancellor, [[Nigel Lawson]]. <ref>Georgina Born, Uncertain Vision: Birt, Dyke and the Reinvention of the BBC (London: Secker & Warburg, 2004) p.58.</ref></blockquote>
 ==Notes==
 <references/>
 [[Category:Media]][[Category:Journalism]]