Meeting the audience
| 10:43 UK time, Thursday, 19 October 2006
The 麻豆社鈥檚 College of Journalism has been organising sessions where we get to meet the audience face-to-face and hear what they think of our reporting.
I went to one two nights ago, slightly apprehensive. What would the audience say? Would they be nice about our work? About us? It felt like an exam. The organisers kept a close eye on the journalists. We were discouraged from leaping to our own defence. Arguing with the audience members would, I feel, have been frowned upon. And the journalists weren鈥檛 allowed to sit together - depriving us of safety in numbers. Instead, we were interspersed among the visitors.
With them, we watched, listened to and read examples of our coverage. Then we heard what they thought about it. I made some notes: 鈥淕ive us the roots of the story鈥, was one comment I wrote down. 鈥淓xplain why it matters, how it started鈥 you assume too much knowledge.鈥
Another message was about the power of images - to tell the story, but also to shock. TV footage showing dead civilian casualties of conflict caused some heartfelt objections and debate. There was enthusiasm for an online email exchange as a way of letting 鈥渞eal people鈥 (as opposed to journalists) tell the story. This sort of format actually takes a lot of behind-the-scenes editorial effort to produce, but on this evidence it looks as though it鈥檚 worth it.
I'm not sure what the audience made of the evening - or of us - but I'm grateful to them for giving up their time. They had some thoughtful feedback and lessons, and there鈥檚 nothing like hearing it in person. We should make a habit of it.
Comments
I am glad that some journalists are brave enough to get feedback from their clients. Journalism has to be one of the few industries where the staff are insulated from the views of the people who use their services. Other forums where journalists have been invited to take views from the public have usually descended into a journalist taking one viewpoint and argiung that everyone else in the room is wrong. Good for you guys.
"I'm not sure what the audience made of the evening - or of us"
Maybe it would be an idea to find out then?
I am curious to know what you thought about the 鈥渢houghtful feedback and lessons鈥.
Aren't you glad I didn't attend? I would have asked a lot of questions about how news should be reported so that the audience gets just the facts without the journalist skewing them so that it reveals his own bias. This includes not only reporting all of the facts in a "fair and balanced" presentation but airing all sides of a dispute with equal and impartial coverage. I would have liked to know how 麻豆社 assures that when a broadcast is over, the audience doesn't have a clue which side 麻豆社 is on. I'll bet a lot of other people who involuntarily pay for 麻豆社's services would like to know the same thing. Yes we here in the US pay through our taxes which are used to subsidize PBS and NPR both of which have contracts with 麻豆社. We don't have the luxury of voting NO by declining to buy a license.
Are these clandestine meetings?
Why are they not advertised? Or are the 'audience' carefully selected?
Interesting to read that 麻豆社 is listening people in this way. It's good to get more viewpoints about how people think about your work and how things could be done better. Also it's nice to see that you use blogs to open up information.
I wish I had attended the meeting. I would have had many harsh words about your work. I would have asked you the main question: Why are you so biased? You certainly are not neutral but ultra liberal and it is clear. Of course you can present extreme liberal views but then you can't claim impartiality and professional journalism.
Ultra multiculturalism and extreme leftist ideology is your agenda but I don't think it should be funded by public money. I wish 麻豆社 had more balanced programmes where conservative views would have its place as well. 麻豆社's extreme multiculturalism resulted in situations where violent ideologies are presented and promoted (violent Islam). I heard that 麻豆社's executives decided that if Osama bin Laden approached 麻豆社 you would make an interview with him and publish it. I wonder if 麻豆社 would also be so eager to air Hitler's thoughts in similar situation. Certainly Hitler would have had his points like Osama has.
Even in local information column you report crimes when there is a case about white attacking black but you deliberately omit cases when black attacks white. It happened so many times that I am fed up with it. I am turning to the Internet where I can find much more valuable news reporting what is really going on in Britain and els were.
Fortunately 麻豆社 acknowledged that is biased . But ultra multiculturalism is deep inside BCC and correcting it may take much time, assuming the 麻豆社 wants to improve it the first place.