[Media-watch] FW: Phone ins and polls

david Miller david.miller at stir.ac.uk
Wed Mar 12 19:29:28 GMT 2003



----------
From: david Miller <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:08:07 +0000
To: <paul.mckinney at smg.plc.uk>
Subject: FW: Phone ins and polls

Paul,

I don't know if you have seen this leaked BBC memo, but I wondered if one of
your programmes might be interested in some kind of discussion on media
coverage of dissent.  Obviously there are also other issues like the
treatment of hacks in the gulf (see Kate Adie's recent pronouncements - with
you shortly), and most obviously the whole area of propaganda and
fabrication of evidence etc.

Happy to help or to point you in the direction of people.

It would be good to have a debate with a BBC high heid yin justifying their
approach, no?

Best

David
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Sambrook-Private
Sent: Thursday, 
February 06, 2003 6:30 PM
To: News Editorial-Board-Editors Cc: Stephen Whittle-and-Chris; Mark
Damazer; Mark Byford & PA
Subject: Phone ins and polls

 Can I share a growing concern.
 
Listening to phone-ins and emails it seems to me we are attracting some of
the more extreme anti-war views. There is no question there is a majority
public view which is against unilateral US action. However those motivated
to 
call in or email are, to my ear,  frequently from the more extreme end. (The
"lets have regime change in washington london and Israel" variety). We may
sometimes unwittingly be nobbled by anti war campaigners  (I heard exactly
the same question phrased the same way on 5 programmes in one day).
 
I think the "mid ground" majority views (many centring on UN support for
legitimacy)  may be  either unmotivated or intimidated from calling. This is
a view built up over several weeks.

It also forces our presenters to put the Bush/Blair position to callers --
sometimes making us appear to be siding with govt. Not true in all cases.
Equally it is of course important we have someone to articulate the
Bush/Blair line.
 
I know a lot of thought is already going into this -- but we need to be
careful both to get a realistic balance and to ensure a diversity of views.

On interactive polls -- we will increasingly need to ensure they are
representative. Currently numbers voting and the fact that we don't know the
make up of those voting mean they are not psephologically worth a fig. We
should either declare numbers voting so audience can take their own view of
how representative the views are or clearly say they are not representative
and are basically "a bit of fun" (though hardly an appropriate phrase in the
circumstances.)

These are delicate judgements  but we will pay a high price for getting them
wrong. I suggest further discussion in programme meetings and at Ed Policy
and Ed Board

R








More information about the Media-watch mailing list