You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Journalism’ category.

 

Nick Robinson, the BBC’s Political Editor, conceded yesterday that his reporting during the lead up to the Iraq war was too close to the government’s own agenda.  

During a debate at City University last night, Robinson declared that “it is the one moment in my recent career where I have thought I didn’t push hard enough, I didn’t question enough and I should have been more careful,” he said. “I didn’t do enough to go away and say ‘well hold on, what about the other side?”

He then talked of the BBC’s reportage of Iraq from 2002-2003, and their failure to provide an objective, non-Partisan coverage during these critical stages: “Over the period of weeks and months, the cumulative effects meant that we never quite got round to reporting the alternative view.”

In response to a question then raised about whether he believes the government lied about the true threat of weapons of mass destruction in the lead up to the war on terror, Robinson said: “I don’t think the government did set out to lie. I do think they systematically and cumulatively misled people.”

Yet Robinson qualified this by saying that he “watched the government deliberately mislead the press, while they sat back and smiled, knowing that had allowed journalists to make Iraq, through the issue of weapons of mass destruction, one of British interest”.

Robinson referred to a press conference on the Iraq War in 2002 with Alastair Campbell, the then Press Chief to Tony Blair: “It was clear to me that Alastair Campbell knew how what he was saying was being reported, knew that that was a long way from the truth and was content for it so to be”. Yet Robinson, by his own admission, quite staunchly toed the government line.

 

The debate at City University was intended to consider whether the relationship between political campaigners and journalists was a partnership of democracy or one more akin to “rats in a sack”, with fellow panellists human rights activist Peter Tatchell, Joy Johnson, former press secretary to Ken Livingstone; and David Hill, former press secretary to Tony Blair.

Robinson’s line on the matter was that the two are co-dependent and must “work closely together to form a partnership of democracy. It isn’t the job of a journalist to pick a constant fight with people in power.”

Living with an American is exhausting.  My mother (yes I live at home still) is forever extolling the virtues of Palin and the Republican Party, she seems to have been, like many other Middle American voters, taken by the fact that she is a woman.

I feel it is precisely here where the first mistake lies; confusing a woman in power with a feminist, a woman for change and a woman championing women’s rights. As far as I can tell, electing the Republicans would set women back a century. I cannot see how a woman can be anti-choice and a feminist and why when Alaska has the highest domestic violence rate of any American state it is so low on her agenda?

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/16914870?limit_modifier=all&graph

To get to my point however, it really was the nail in the coffin of public opinion that, when asked in an interview with Katie Couric several times, Palin failed to name one newspaper she reads, claiming she likes and “reads ‘em all”:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oliverburkemanblog/2008/oct/01/uselections2008.sarahpalin

I can’t help feeling that this seems a rather large feat for a woman running for Vice President considering I cannot even find the time to read more than three and I am a newspaper journalism student.

And an interesting, if not slightly digressional fact- since the Guardian Weekly came into publication almost a cenutry ago George W. Bush is the first president not to read it. To follow suit, Palin may be America’s first president not to have read an English paper at all.