Difference between revisions of "Mission to explain"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The ''''Mission to Explain'''' is a philosophy of broadcasting journalist developed by [[John Birt]] and [[Peter Jay]] in the 1970s. 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 ''''Mission to Explain'''' is a philosophy of broadcasting journalist developed by [[John Birt]] and [[Peter Jay]] in the 1970s. 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 first of the articles was published on 28 February 1975 and attributed only to Birt. At this point the phrase 'mission to explain' had not yet been coined. In this first article, Birt diagnosed the problem for which the 'mission to explain' was the solution. His article began: 'There is a bias in television journalism. Not against any particular party or point of view – it is a bias against ''understanding''.' <ref>John Birt, Broadcasting's journalistic bias is not a matter of politics but of presentation', ''The Times'', 28 February 1975; p. 14</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Birt criticised the current practises of television journalism, which he argued could be defined into ‘three broad categories: news, feature and issue journalism.’ News and feature journalism, Birt argued, both failed to put events in their proper context: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote style="background-color:ivory;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;font-size:10pt">Our economic problems for instance, manifest themselves in a wide variety of symptoms – deteriorating balance of payments, a sinking pound, rising unemployment, accelerating inflation and son on. The news, devoting two minutes on successive nights to the latest unemployment figures or the state of the stock market, with no time to put the story in context, gives the viewer no sense of how any of these problems relate to each other. It is more likely to leave him confused and uneasy … Feature journalism tends to focus on one aspect or one instance of a major problem rather than on that problem as a whole. … For example, making a film about homeless people is not an adequate way of approaching the problems created by our housing shortage. <ref>John Birt, Broadcasting's journalistic bias is not a matter of politics but of presentation', ''The Times'', 28 February 1975; p.14</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | What Birt called 'Issue journalism' was criticised for relying on panel discussion which were 'generally set up to examine disagreements' and do 'little more than an entertaining way of feeding the viewer's already existing prejudices'; whilst those programmes which did not rely on studio discussion 'runs the risk of being boring.' <ref>John Birt, Broadcasting's journalistic bias is not a matter of politics but of presentation', ''The Times'', 28 February 1975; p.14</ref> | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 17:14, 14 January 2010
The 'Mission to Explain' is a philosophy of broadcasting journalist developed by John Birt and Peter Jay in the 1970s. 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 first of the articles was published on 28 February 1975 and attributed only to Birt. At this point the phrase 'mission to explain' had not yet been coined. In this first article, Birt diagnosed the problem for which the 'mission to explain' was the solution. His article began: 'There is a bias in television journalism. Not against any particular party or point of view – it is a bias against understanding.' [1]
Birt criticised the current practises of television journalism, which he argued could be defined into ‘three broad categories: news, feature and issue journalism.’ News and feature journalism, Birt argued, both failed to put events in their proper context:
Our economic problems for instance, manifest themselves in a wide variety of symptoms – deteriorating balance of payments, a sinking pound, rising unemployment, accelerating inflation and son on. The news, devoting two minutes on successive nights to the latest unemployment figures or the state of the stock market, with no time to put the story in context, gives the viewer no sense of how any of these problems relate to each other. It is more likely to leave him confused and uneasy … Feature journalism tends to focus on one aspect or one instance of a major problem rather than on that problem as a whole. … For example, making a film about homeless people is not an adequate way of approaching the problems created by our housing shortage. [2]
What Birt called 'Issue journalism' was criticised for relying on panel discussion which were 'generally set up to examine disagreements' and do 'little more than an entertaining way of feeding the viewer's already existing prejudices'; whilst those programmes which did not rely on studio discussion 'runs the risk of being boring.' [3]
Notes
- ↑ John Birt, Broadcasting's journalistic bias is not a matter of politics but of presentation', The Times, 28 February 1975; p. 14
- ↑ John Birt, Broadcasting's journalistic bias is not a matter of politics but of presentation', The Times, 28 February 1975; p.14
- ↑ John Birt, Broadcasting's journalistic bias is not a matter of politics but of presentation', The Times, 28 February 1975; p.14
