Browsed by
Tag: objective reporting

YouTube Al Jazeera English Channel

YouTube Al Jazeera English Channel

In an interesting move, the Al Jazeera English channel put a video on YouTube asking for feedback videos on the YouTube channel. What are people’s perceptions, views, and suggestions?

(An aside – wow, is that anchorwoman Ghida Fakhry ever pretty!)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVFrryFNfEA[/youtube]

As you might expect, the video responses were of varying quality. Many respondents disguised themselves. One hid a pretty nasty message in pig latin. Others used it to interview for a job, or to express various opinions of their own. Here were a few that stood out to me for one reason or another.

The Hands-Down Best Critique.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDU61G59FoA[/youtube]

Under pressure (including murder) to dilute reporting, now importing “BBC” types for the English channel.
(Journalist author filmmaker John Pilger)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaUTTlK4MW4[/youtube]

To Address Preconceptions, Change to a Neutral Name (i.e. “Associated Press”)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zD-UqnKJI8[/youtube]

Paris Hilton (etc.) vs News – any questions?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7jB3UK4O-I[/youtube]

And, my favorite…

Save Me Some Brain Ache, Please.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFUOnh4DLeY[/youtube]

Media Vocabulary Guidelines Needed

Media Vocabulary Guidelines Needed

When you see it, protest. I wrote to Brad Kalbfeld (Deputy Director, Managing Editor, a member of the AP senior management team) to recommend vocabulary guidelines:

“I am writing to you to request that you draw up some vocabulary guidelines for the Associated Press.

As an objective reporting service, you surely cannot have missed the fact that vocabulary choices resonate. In the political climate of the United States at this time, I think it is important that you consider very carefully the way certain words are gaining currancy in our news. Please do not contribute to the problem.

The immediate cause of my writing is the following story (see below), which was distributed by you and picked up by action news2 wbsbtv.com.

MARTINEZ — Two people and an unborn child died when their car was struck at an intersection by a shoplifting suspect.

In describing a pregnancy of 16-20 weeks as an “unborn child” you are choosing a vocabulary that is championed only by those who wish to change our laws about a woman’s right to choose an abortion, to use birth control, and the like. The rhetoric of the personhood of a fetus is extremely charged. Not all of us want to be visualized as “pre-pregnant” and I, for one, am completely opposed to the christian dominionist thinking that has permeated our media. A child is a child at birth. “Unborn” is nonsense, like “pre-dead”.

“Two people, one of whom was pregnant, died…” or something like that would have been more appropriate.

The AP has stood for freedom of information. The media is the message. I implore you to consider the discourse and rhetoric that you use and construct. There are neutral ways of talking, and I rely on the AP to employ them.”

When I read the article more carefully, I realized that the woman who lost her pregnancy hadn’t died in the accident, so my alternate wording would have been incorrect. My bad, but the larger point holds.

I urge others to comment on specific instances of inflammatory or inappropriate language, misleading coverage, outright propaganda, and the like.