Chris Chadwick, an English Teacher
Answers
- Informing, entertaining and educating. Well, I thought about this at home and I was quite certain that the most important role of the media was to inform the public, to inform them about our government basically. I think that in a democratic society the media has an important role to play in holding the government and decision-makers to account. The political opposition is one balance, but if it wasn’t for the media, nobody would know what the opposition was saying, and sometimes the political opposition isn't very effective anyway, and it takes journalists and commentators to draw attention to what’s going on and the motivations behind politicians' decisions.
- Well, there is something of a chicken and egg scenario here. Does the media shape public taste, or does it simply reflect public taste? If the media doesn't reflect public taste to some extent, no one will read or watch it in the first place. So, I think there is a reciprocal relationship going on here. I do think that responsible journalists have a responsibility to consider the effects of their writing or their broadcasting. An organisation like the BBC has a very wide audience. People do trust its views, and it has its reputation to maintain for a start. And in newspapers and journals which might affect political debate, I think that journalist should be aware that they are contributing to the political process and I think they do have a moral duty to contribute in a constructive way, and with integrity, to the debate. I think they should guard against whipping up the fears of parts of the population who may be less well informed than they are. They should try to give a balanced view, but they also should be true to their own opinions and beliefs.
- Well, it's quite a philosophical question, really. I know that the BBC tries to be objective, but I don't believe you can ever be entirely objective. Some of the journalist’s prejudice is always going to come into the report, and there are those people who say you are expressing an opinion or you're making a judgement just by what you choose to include or exclude from a news report. If you include a lot of stories of a particular type, then you might influence your readers’ or your listeners' perceptions. That's probably the case in the British media's coverage of European issues, because whenever the European Commission introduces some rules classifying the dimensions of fruit, to quote one famous example, or other rules, on food hygiene perhaps, the media tend to pick up on detailed issues which they think will show the Commission in a bad light and which will suggest that it’s pedantic and can't be trusted with sensible government.
- I think the British media compares well, although you might suggest that I am biased. But throughout the world people have heard about the BBC, and I think that in unstable countries and in trouble spots throughout the world, if people can hear a BBC news report, then they'll rely on that for accurate information about the situation. That was even the case in the Second World War. I think that people in occupied Europe tried to pick up BBC news reports then, and it's still the case in other parts of the world now. I think we've got a good print media as well, but it’s also very diverse, ranging from rather sensational tabloids to more serious broadsheets. Some of the coverage in broadsheet newspapers is very good with insightful commentary… so that's the more respectable end of our media. But I think it's healthy to have a good variety of coverage.
- That's a difficult question for me to answer. On the one hand, there must be a role for censorship, because certain kinds of coverage can offend people if they hear information or see pictures which are shocking or which show distasteful aspects of life. But then I realised, well I asked myself, who decides on what is good taste. A lot of people suggest that censorship simply puts the censors in a very powerful position, because they have access to all the information but they restrict access to that information to the general public. So on balance, I'm inclined to think that there shouldn't be any censorship. One compromise which is struck on television is that the announcer will warn people of the type of content they're about to show and give viewers the chance to switch off if they don't want to see particularly violent pictures of war, or maybe also sexual content that some people find offensive. I think it's at least important that people know that kind of material exists, and that they have the opportunity to watch it if they want to. The case I found the hardest was the case of racial hatred, where a lot of people suggest that hateful literature should be banned. There is a very fine line to be drawn between what is genuinely hateful or provocative and what is actually just someone's right to express themselves freely, which should be allowed to appear in a free media as it can be criticised and counteracted by other views which should also appear there.
- Personally, I would say films, if I am allowed to express a preference, and I say that because I enjoy the visual component of films. I do also value the print media. I read a lot of British weekly news magazines to keep in touch with what's happening in Britain and the world as I live outside of Britain, in Poland. But for pleasure I tend to watch films. I've never been a great reader of creative literature, and although I can appreciate it, it doesn't appeal to me in the same way that striking images do.
|
