A row broke out in Medialand today and it wasn’t formulated for a headline

Any journalist who has read Nick Davies’ Flat Earth News is likely to think twice before picking up the phone to get the counter argument to ‘balance’ the story. 

Or if they still do subscribe to that formulaic news format (‘he said-she said’ = ‘a row broke out today’) for the sake of it where it’s simply not relevant, they’re probably cynically resigned to repetitive, unimaginative journalism, and care little for its value. 

Ever since (and this was pre-publication of Davies’ tome) I heard a journalist in a regional newsroom ring up a local councillor for the ‘anti-PC’ line and feed them ‘it’s PC gone mad, isn’t it?’*, I’ve tried to avoid that news reporting pattern (where possible) and I’m currently in the lucky position where I don’t have a cynical ‘we know what the readers want’ editor pressing story formulae on me. 

Like Davies says (I think it’s in the book too, but he certainly said this at last year’s CIJ summer school), there are times when you should just look out the bloody window (or something along those lines) when reporting whether the sky is blue or grey. You don’t always have to create a row to make a story. 

Nonetheless there are times when rows break out – witness that in action on Charlie Beckett’s blog today: between some key figures in the media regulation debate. So I felt vindicated in writing this news article which described a clash between the Media Standards Trust and the PCC: I couldn’t think of any other way to present it, apart from ‘he said he did – he said he didn’t – he said he did – he said he didn’t’. 

Whatever the whys and wherefores of the arguments going on here, it certainly shows there’s some interesting debate on regulation to come, and I’m going to start canvassing some alternative opinions on what shape future regulatory models could take. 

*a story concerning the local school nativity play … I’ll leave the rest to your imagination – endless variations. 



  1. charlie beckett

    Nick is an investigative God but he's not always right. Why shouldn't the public have both sides? Why shouldn't journalism show its workings? My blog post that you refer to is a good example of how the argument can happen and develop online with the public fully plugged in (if they read my humble little blog, that is…)It is clear from my blog that is opinionated, but I hope, not a rant and reasonably fair in allowing access to different views. cheersCharlie

  2. jtownend

    Oh no, I certainly didn't mean to imply it was a rant – I just was trying to make the point that sometimes (perhaps often) there are genuine disagreements that need to be reported on. In this case, I thought putting the two points of views side by side represented the story. In fact your blog post and its comments are the best way to witness the differing points of view emerging.

  3. Matthew Cain

    It's a shame, though that the PCC has chosen to attack the process rather than engage in the issues. If they were as good at protecting people misrepresented in the media as they are at protecting their reputation, there wouldn't be a need for PCC reform.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s