TV journalism needs to face the music
Jeremy Paxman’s is part of an old-guard in television journalism who don’t want to face up to a generational shift going in in the workings of the Fourth Estate. In his recent speech he bemoaned declining standards in TV news. He pointed out the importance of good content, and then dismissed the rise of digital technologies, clearly disliking the idea of the medium being the message.
For many, Paxman represents the best of the British critical media. The BBC’s head of News, Roger Mosey, cited him (in an email exchange) as epitimising the BBCs role as par of a healthy critical Fourth estate. Paxman’s role as avatar of the critical media is so significant that the Guardian editorialised his speech: Comment is free: Televisions panic attack. But, however much we love Paxman, he probably represents the past rather than the future of the fourth estate, and here’s why…
Although a positively geriatric 32, if I want good critical information nowadays, I don’t go to the TV or to newspapers, I go to the net at large. This is a general trend: for the under 25’s the internet is the primary medium for information, well above TV. Claims that the net offers poor quality are fig-leaves for worried journalists. In his speech Paxman tries to make his quality claim by equating the web with the blogosphere. But the web contains all sorts of commentary sources, from universities, to government departments, to think-tanks, to bloggers who cite references, to bloggers who rant (ahem…). The “media” are just a part of this: Amazon is a more significant web-player than the BBC, and Google makes them both look like midgets.
Paxman is the voice of an old-school journalism. On TV it is possible to speak, as Paxman did, of enlightening the “audience” (which is a polite contemporary way of saying the “masses”.) On the internet this is more tricky, is it not sometimes the case that “the masses” do the enlightening? Journalism needs to take this into account, the media cannot be a credible fourth estate until it has risen above the bar set by internet users.
Paxman’s exclusive focus on 24 hour News is thus a distraction, akin to Blair’s slightly surreal attack on the Independent. The pressing issue is that centralized opinion formation is at risk, or at least facing transformation. It is not the emotional excesses of 24 hour TV that is the problem, it is the fact that TV is the wrong medium for the times, at least politically speaking, and journalists need to catch up with this.
Indeed, some press journalists already have. The Guardian’s investigation of BAE, involved the journalists uncovering evidence, which they then posted on the web. People “swarmed” around this evidence, carrying out their own enquiries and turning up new leads. This leveraged much needed brainpower into a complex piece of investigative journalism. It is an example of a new journalism forging powerful relationships within the emerging digital fourth estate.
This example is highly relevant to the TV market. Television is approaching a tipping point, based on these differing media-usage practices of the under 25s. Jack Schofield reported in his Guardian blog on Apple TV dropping NBC content because the network tried to hike prices. This is a bad move by the network. The TV market as it stands right now may just support making such a move. But this will change fast especially for the under 25 segment. What happens when there is a consumer product that integrates TV schedules with p2p networks in a touch of the button way?
Bittorrent programs promise to bring this about fairly soon. There is a new program for Mac, Xtorrent, which greatly simplifies finding torrents. Azureus is experimenting with a consumer interface called Vuze also making it easy to find TV content. The only missing link is to integrate these easy p2p platforms into a plug and play box, like AppleTV, and suddenly there is a whole new TV market, one that implies a journalism very different to Paxman’s enlightening vision.
This is a TV market that is more likely to support the kinds of journalism seen in the Guardian BAE investigation. Why not run a series, a bit like Watchdog crossed with Panorama. Instead of your crook on the street, it would be aimed at politicians, businessmen and other powerful wrongdoers. You could run it as a weekly series, with a few investigations running at any given time.
The web bit is a support site where all the evidence is posted by the program makers. Members of the public are invited to do research from these leads, and then post their own evidence. The next week’s program could then review what had come in, and then follow it up. There is also a possible Wikinomics approach to investigative journalism where people can earn money for providing key evidence. Now that’s what I call feral Mr Blair…
This may well be the future of the fourth estate, and Paxman hasn’t really seen it yet. He can try and enlighten the masses, but they may just vote with their feet.
Footnote:
Tom Loosemoore deserves a thanks for filling me in on a lot of this stuff.
He has been responsible for BBC 2.0 
for a while, and is moving on to Ofcom to shape their policy on public service internet provision.
He blogs here:
There was strong impact for me, reading your critique of broadcast journalism. It is a credible analysis — with some holes in it. Eg: Sky News (which I am now forced to watch at least twice weekly in the gym) has a huge reporting team — most of whom I suspect shoot, edit and report their own material — a one-stop op that was bitterly opposed by the trade unions. But inevitably Murderous Murdoch got his own way — the result of which is to challenge the power of the internet at its own game. Cheap, immediate and credible reporting from people trained in the parameters of the job. Much as I dislike their tabloid priorities, I much prefer Sky News to MySpace or almost every blog I’ve ever come across. The rants, the soap boxes, the fanaticism — the lack of objectivity — the absence of readable English –the lunatics that lurk. Too much noise, to much choice. Too much time involved in winnowing out the dross. The internet still has a lot of growing up to do. But then of course my perspective is genuinely geriatric. Having said that, I will also say that if we discard those high journalistic ideals, the standards set by the best of the BBC — it will be a huge loss for future generations. Have you ever tried watching BBC3? That’s supposed to be a *yoof* platform. It is unintelligible to me and I’d much prefer to see the millions spent on it directed towards New & Current affairs. I think your sister would too — but she has a vested interest.
Love and sunbubbles
Mum
Hi Mum
Well, this is not really an assault on journalism, it is a call for journalists to adapt to the new technologies, which seems to be exactly what sky is doing.
I don’t much like Murdoch either, but you have to admit the guy is very on the ball technology-wise. We just got his Tata-Sky service in India, and it is so slick as to beggar belief. And his news chanel out here, NDTV, is actually very good. It makes me choke to say it, but the guy is really on top of his game.
Which is why people like the BBC also need to get with the game, which they are doing, much to their credit, their web-offer is excellent. The problem is that quality journalists seem to be the most set in their ways, and don’t seem to be looking at the opportunities from the new media.
That is the point of my describing the kind of interactive investigative journalism. It could of course be very tacky, but it could lead to Panorama style investigations with serious teeth, just like the Guardian BAE investigation.
Basically it is better if Journalists try to harness the power of the internet rather than tell the tide to go back. We will never go back to a world of three or four channels, so opinion making will never be as centralised. The issue is to try and use the new formats to produce thought and analysis, to offset the dangers of it all being so quick and ephemeral.
I have nothing against good journalism by the way, I increasingly see it as both crucial and in short supply. Part of the problem is that the world is so complicated nowadays, that it is very hard for either journalists or the public to keep up!
Love,
Dan