To Peter Barron re Crick's piece on Respect split

[johnwhilley]

Dear Peter,

Michael Crick's Newsnight 'report' (16 November 2007) on the split within Respect was a disgraceful piece of shallow, biased 'journalism'.

We had the usual and expected cheap jibes and trivialities (Life of Brian-type factionalisms and that well-worn footage of Galloway in his Big Brother attire). But, we also had offensive, insulting commentary from Crick on those who form part of this movement.

I'd like you to consider very seriously the propriety of a so-called serious investigative reporter talking in sneering tones of the (former) Respect coalition as “Muslims, Marxists and a ragbag of others on the left.”

I actually count myself as a supportive part of that “ragbag” left tradition. Are people who have contributed as activists, academics and in other socially-progressive ways just to be dismissed in such derisory terms? And why the implied assumption of Muslims, Marxists and the “ragbag” as somehow distinct? Can't a Muslim also be a Marxist – or part of the “ragbag”?

Is it remotely possible to report earnestly, analytically and, dare I say it, intellectually, on such matters? Or does Gavin Esler's own sneering laugh at the end of the piece represent the true nature of Newsnight's approach to covering the left? I strongly suspect so.

You should really be embarrassed by Crick's puerile output. It's no more qualitative than that expected of the Sun.

Regards,
John

[johnwhilley]

It's not just that Crick's report is biased and cliché-ridden. It's the patronising assumption that the viewer can't see this, nor cares to desire anything more qualitative.

It's part of a deep and widening poverty of journalism which eschews any serious attempt to understand, inform and explain an issue in its analytic essentials. It's dumbed-down reportage posing as 'flippant', 'irreverent' 'invstigation'.

"Confused? I am", says Crick, feigning apparent bemusement at the 'double conference'. Actually, it's not very confusing at all, as Crick obviously knows. Neither is this just a reporting device. It's part of the standard medium of ridicule reserved for left political matters.

Ultimately, there's nothing of substance here, no contextual analysis, little that would leave the viewer more aware or enlightened.

It's, essentially, 'info-tainment'. Piece pending about the 'mad left?' Let's get 'Crick on the case.' Context and story-line? Oh, yes, let's do the usual jocular stroll around the main players; even get them to comment in serious tones so we can intercut it with pantomime clips and references.

If this wasn't such a gross distortion, Crick's piece could itself be laughed-off as pantomime journalism. Alas, with it's box of editorial tricks and clowning tone, that's exactly what it is. The problem is the serious propaganda it serves to convey in the process.

John

[johnwhilley]

Exchange with Peter Barron

(19/11/2007)

Dear John,

I'm sorry you were unhappy with Michael Crick's piece about the split within Respect.

Newsnight and Michael Crick have always treated politics and politicians with robustness and sometimes a sense of mischief, but I don't think there was anything in Friday's report which was offensive or unfair to Respect or different in tone from the way we might talk about other parties.

It was certainly not our intention to be sneering and I don't think we
were.

Best wishes

Peter

--------------

(20/11/2007)

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your comments.

I have no problem with a little stylistic irreverence or “mischief”, as you call it. The bland world of mainstream politics would be all the duller without it. But that's rather different from the routine pantomime coverage of the left, as evident in Crick's film.

As noted, there's an apparent assumption within the BBC that we can't have a seriously-informed and intellectual discussion about 'far left' politics – even on a supposedly analytical slot like Newsnight. I wonder why. Instead, we're treated to crude stereotypes and reductionist labels like “Muslims, Marxists and a ragbag of others on the left.” Where's the actual analysis?

On Saturday, the two 'Respect factions' held their respective conferences. Seeking detailed discussion of the ideological issues separating them, and the possible outcomes, I happened upon Richard Seymour 's (aka Lenin of Lenin's Tomb) account of the non-Galloway event. http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/11/respect-very-live.html And, even though he's part of that latter grouping, the standard of analytical journalism in his report made Crick's look like a piece of lazy tabloid copy. In short, it told me meaningful things about the issue.

There's now a well- documented bias in how the BBC, at large, covers left politics and 'maverick' left politicians – as in John Sweeney's appalling portrayal of Chavez (This World, BBC2, 19 November 2007). And, like Sweeney's loaded and cartoonish diatribe on the Bolivarian reforms, Crick's report had virtually nothing to say about the serious, ideological reasons behind the Respect split as a significant development in left British politics.

A short report like this may not allow for forensic examination of the issues. But, should it be so reliant on cheap caricature and dumbed-down content?

Best wishes,
John

PS: well done with last week's revealing report on Trident and the UK's 'launch procedures'.

[johnwhilley]

An interesting reply here from Newsnight's Meirion Jones, who produced Michael Crick's report on the Respect split. Some of the comments are, I think, revealing of the thinking behind the production and editing process.

Jones comments: