[Media-watch] FW: Platform

[david Miller]

fyi

----------
From: Paul McKinney <Paul.McKinney at smg.plc.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:56:29 -0000
To: "'david.miller at stir.ac.uk'" <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Platform



> -----Original Message-----
> From: david Miller [SMTP:david.miller at stir.ac.uk]
> Sent: 14 March 2003 13:52
> To: Paul McKinney
> Subject: Platform
> 
> 
> 
> Dear David
> 
> Many thanks for this - it's heartening to see someone was still watching
> last night at 11.30!  In fact the programme did fairly well last night -
> 13% share - ahead of the Andrew Neil thing on the other side.
> 
> I agree that a politics programme must not merely interview mainstream MPs
> or MSPs - but it must also reflect the balance of elected political
> representation.  If Tommy wins 10 seats in May he will no doubt be
> appearing much more frequently in studio.  You will know he has been in
> studio this year on the Seven Days programme and he frequently appears on
> our news programmes.
> 
> I also agree that we should not just interview politicians.  I don't know
> if you caught our news coverage in the run up to the 15th Feb march - we
> devoted much of the first half of Thursday's Scotland Today that week to
> views on the protest, with people not politicians giving their opinions
> and in some cases preparing to go on the march.
> 
> As to other programmes - I am not certain that the Tonight with Trevor
> programme was right.  I felt the audience was just too negative - there
> are people in the country who support the Prime Minister, and
> professionally I feel current affairs producers should be more careful
> about achieving balance.  Indeed, from a personal point of view I must,
> and I hope I do, ensure that the programmes I am responsible for are
> balanced and are not influenced by any private views I hold.  As you know
> I have a very particular view on this war, but I am acutely aware that our
> broadcasts must be balanced and fair - that's after all what the ITC code
> lays down.
> 
> Anyway - this now sounds like an apologia for war - it's not meant to be.
> I am conscious that we need a plurality of voices and I will of course
> consider this for future programmes.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> Dear Paul,
> 
> quick comment on last night's Platform. I know that the programme is a
> 'political' show and that it is likely to be mainly politician talking
> heads, but I wondered if there might be scope to open it out a bit more.
> Maybe you have already been doing this in the last couple of weeks, but
> the
> thing which struck me last night was that there is a danger of just
> replicating the significant disconnect between the political elite and the
> population. On the programme you had Eric Joyce, Nicola Sturgeon, John
> Hume
> Robertson and Michael Moore (all MPS/MSPs), together with a rather
> frighteningly right wing US hack.  You also had an interesting package by
> Iain Mackenzie which did try and raise some wider issues.  And you had
> more
> usual suspects in the form of Angus McLeod of the Times.  I did notice
> Tommy
> Sheridan and John McAllion too in the clips, but not in the studio.  I
> suppose my concern is that if we leave this to the politicians we are not
> going to get a fair representation of public sentiment against war.
> 
> let me put it this way:  The population is fairly obviously opposed to war
> (according to all the opinion polls), yet in the political class there is
> a
> much lesser level of dissent as witnessed in the 122 votes in Westminster
> and the 6 Labour votes yesterday in Edinburgh.  given that political
> broadcasting tends to take most of its cues and interviewees from the
> political class this serious disconnect leaves broadcasters with a problem
> of not representing the public or the level of dissent properly.
> 
> Channel Four has done a lot of good stuff: Jon Snow presenting the whole
> C4
> news from the London march and a week of bulletins from Baghdad; Channel
> Five - under new editors - have appointed an 'anti-war' correspondent;
> even
> ITV have done new things with both the Ten and Tonight getting Blair face
> to
> face with anti war voters/marchers.  The ITV report was interesting for
> the
> fact that not a single member of the group which met Blair changed their
> minds after seeing him - in the words of the reporter - 'at the limits of
> his persuasive powers'.  The Tonight programme ended with Blair being slow
> handclapped.  (Perhaps you could get 'robo-Jack' on to confront anti war
> voters?). The BBC has by and large ducked the responsibility of portraying
> the dissent properly.
> 
> Can I suggest that you routinely bring wider antiwar voices into the
> studio?
> I may have missed some of these on other programmes, but it seems to me
> that
> there is a need for regular accessing of these voices.  Accessing more
> 'ordinary' voices would be good in film clips, but the key thing is to
> have
> the anti-war case properly explained by its advocates as an attempt to
> balance the relentless pro-war drum beat of most papers, the BBC and much
> of
> the political elite.  There are lots of well kent faces from England -
> even
> Question Time has had Tariq Ali, Vanessa Redgrave.  But the most important
> thing is to get the leaders of the scottish coalition and associated
> campaigners.  There are any number of people you can get into the studio
> from the Scottish coalition and the associated movement: SCND, Palestine
> Solidarity, Edinburgh Stop the War, Trident ploughshares or other
> campaigners like Mike Gonzalez of Glasgow University or Aamer Anwar.
> Obviously, there are a variety of elements to the movement and having a
> variety of anti-war campaigners on to debate with the normal talking heads
> is likely to make for more gripping TV.  All the reports I have seen
> suggest
> that real debates like this never fail to boost audiences.  Craig Williams
> at Newsnight Scotland tells me their figures are up because of the war,
> Question Time  which normally bumps around 1 million got 2.3 and 2.4 when
> Galloway and Redgrave were on.
> 
> I know that Platform is a 'politics' show, but it seems to me that we are
> now in quite special circumstances which require inventive responses if we
> are to properly present dissent.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> David
> 
>  


_________________________________________________________________
                            DISCLAIMER
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended solely
for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential information.
If it is not intended for you, please inform the sender and delete
the e-mail and any attachments immediately. Any review, retransmission,
disclosure, copying or modification of it is strictly forbidden.
Please be advised that the views and opinions expressed in this e-mail
may not reflect the views and opinions of SMG plc or any of its
subsidiary companies.
Whilst we take reasonable precautions to ensure that our emails are
free from viruses, we cannot be responsible for any viruses
transmitted with this e-mail and recommend that you subject any
incoming e-mail to your own virus checking procedures.  Use of this
or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we
might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities.
_________________________________________________________________