Comments on: News doesn’t reflect real world, says former newsreader Martyn Lewis http://positivenews.org.uk/2012/culture/media/9085/news-doesnt-reflect-real-world-newsreader-martyn-lewis/ Inspiration for a change Fri, 24 May 2013 13:40:56 +0000 hourly 1 By: Are you sick of bad news? | Ertblog http://positivenews.org.uk/2012/culture/media/9085/news-doesnt-reflect-real-world-newsreader-martyn-lewis/#comment-65725 Are you sick of bad news? | Ertblog Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:49:21 +0000 http://positivenews.org.uk/?p=9085#comment-65725 [...] journalist Martyn Lewis famously criticised the media for focusing on bad news. He’s still making the case for a more balanced view of the [...] […] journalist Martyn Lewis famously criticised the media for focusing on bad news. He’s still making the case for a more balanced view of the […]

]]> By: Claudia Cahalane http://positivenews.org.uk/2012/culture/media/9085/news-doesnt-reflect-real-world-newsreader-martyn-lewis/#comment-65556 Claudia Cahalane Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:03:31 +0000 http://positivenews.org.uk/?p=9085#comment-65556 Flikster I don't think anyone would be so crude as to suggest a figure for the amount of positive agenda-changing news that should be covered, it's not that simple. Positive News seeks to redress the balance that's needed ... it is a low-resourced paper however and can't not do all the work in this area, and there are plenty of stories it doesn't have the resource to cover itself, also. I have worked at several local papers and I would say they are fairly 'shallow' in their stories...I know sometimes this is also down to resource. If you read Positive News, it goes deeper than charity bike rides and charity cheques... we want news that shows the unseen positive and good changes happening in society. Deep stuff that shows what's really happening in the world. See more here: http://positivenews.org.uk/2012/culture/media/9085/news-doesnt-reflect-real-world-newsreader-martyn-lewis/ I'd urge you to come to future events to see what I mean. Flikster

I don’t think anyone would be so crude as to suggest a figure for the amount of positive agenda-changing news that should be covered, it’s not that simple. Positive News seeks to redress the balance that’s needed … it is a low-resourced paper however and can’t not do all the work in this area, and there are plenty of stories it doesn’t have the resource to cover itself, also.

I have worked at several local papers and I would say they are fairly ‘shallow’ in their stories…I know sometimes this is also down to resource. If you read Positive News, it goes deeper than charity bike rides and charity cheques… we want news that shows the unseen positive and good changes happening in society. Deep stuff that shows what’s really happening in the world. See more here: http://positivenews.org.uk/2012/culture/media/9085/news-doesnt-reflect-real-world-newsreader-martyn-lewis/

I’d urge you to come to future events to see what I mean.

]]> By: Flikster http://positivenews.org.uk/2012/culture/media/9085/news-doesnt-reflect-real-world-newsreader-martyn-lewis/#comment-65511 Flikster Sun, 30 Sep 2012 22:39:20 +0000 http://positivenews.org.uk/?p=9085#comment-65511 What's balance, though? The story says they found 16% of stories were positive. Do they want 50-50? What's their definition? News is by nature usually things gong wrong, and newspaper research (I work in newspapers, as you can probably tell!) shows that although generally people say they want to read 'positive news', they actually read negative news. It's also interesting what they say about 'not reflecting the real world' - yet have set up a website that does a 'round-up'(presumably from newspapers, rather ironically) of positive news. Hardly what you'd call reflecting the world; rather, the world they want to see. Rather like trying to define the 'true' version of history. Hats off to them if it genuinely is as wildly successful as they say; but newspapers are businesses (they've never claimed otherwise) and wouldn't miss an opportunity to give people what they want to read. Papers are already in decline and I doubt filling the pages with endless cheque presentations and charity bike rides would help the situation. Anything positive that is genuinely news, however, does get reported. There isn't a good news filter in newsrooms and if it's a story it will go in. As an aside, I would also say that the BBC is a special case and criticism probably quite rightly can be levelled at it: being a state-funded media organisation (Leveson take note), it has its own agenda and it is certainly full of the 'irrelevant' stories to which Lewis refers. If you want to get away from irrelevance, agendas and poorly quality reporting, while at the same time supporting the cornerstone of a free democracy that is the free, non-state funded Press, then stop reading the BBC website and start going to your local newspaper website, wherever you live. I work in local media(and thus will probably be called biased, but there's not a lot I can do about that as this is what I genuinely believe), and the quality of the reporting, the depth and detail, the number of stories and follow-ups on issues is FAR superior. With the BBC, expect to see one story(usually taken from local newspapers anyway as the BBC almost never breaks stories - they don't even ask their reporters to find their own stories, unlike newspapers) on an event. With local newspapers and their websites, expect to see more coverage, more angles, more exclusives and breaking stories, and - the all important return to events and people to get the good news stories when things return to normal. Have a look and see what I mean. What’s balance, though? The story says they found 16% of stories were positive. Do they want 50–50? What’s their definition? News is by nature usually things gong wrong, and newspaper research (I work in newspapers, as you can probably tell!) shows that although generally people say they want to read ‘positive news’, they actually read negative news.
It’s also interesting what they say about ‘not reflecting the real world’ — yet have set up a website that does a ’round-up’(presumably from newspapers, rather ironically) of positive news. Hardly what you’d call reflecting the world; rather, the world they want to see. Rather like trying to define the ‘true’ version of history. Hats off to them if it genuinely is as wildly successful as they say; but newspapers are businesses (they’ve never claimed otherwise) and wouldn’t miss an opportunity to give people what they want to read. Papers are already in decline and I doubt filling the pages with endless cheque presentations and charity bike rides would help the situation. Anything positive that is genuinely news, however, does get reported. There isn’t a good news filter in newsrooms and if it’s a story it will go in.
As an aside, I would also say that the BBC is a special case and criticism probably quite rightly can be levelled at it: being a state-funded media organisation (Leveson take note), it has its own agenda and it is certainly full of the ‘irrelevant’ stories to which Lewis refers. If you want to get away from irrelevance, agendas and poorly quality reporting, while at the same time supporting the cornerstone of a free democracy that is the free, non-state funded Press, then stop reading the BBC website and start going to your local newspaper website, wherever you live. I work in local media(and thus will probably be called biased, but there’s not a lot I can do about that as this is what I genuinely believe), and the quality of the reporting, the depth and detail, the number of stories and follow-ups on issues is FAR superior. With the BBC, expect to see one story(usually taken from local newspapers anyway as the BBC almost never breaks stories — they don’t even ask their reporters to find their own stories, unlike newspapers) on an event. With local newspapers and their websites, expect to see more coverage, more angles, more exclusives and breaking stories, and — the all important return to events and people to get the good news stories when things return to normal. Have a look and see what I mean.

]]>