Speaking at the 2005 James Cameron Memorial Award last Tuesday, Bryson went on to say that the standards of reporting in our newspapers today are in rapid decline.
The grand, and predominantly greying audience nodded their agreement. BBC news presenter Michael Buerk was among the crowd, which included a weighty selection of newscasters, journalists, and other luminary figures from the British media. Just that morning, Buerk's comments about 'lame brain' TV newscasters had triggered strong responses from across the national press.
Citing two articles from the Times, one of which revolved around his own laughably tenuous involvement in the Blunkett/Quinn affair, Bryson lamented the prevalence of whimsical, erroneous stories based on sloppy research.
Bryson loses the plot
Bryson's speech reached no conclusion: "I have nothing profound to say about this," he said, signing off rather bleakly. He made no attempt to explore why standards were slipping, and rather frustratingly, he made no attempt to look elsewhere for signs that journalism could still be a noble profession (as exemplified by James Cameron, war correspondent and white knight of the trade).
There were no questions and answers, and everyone filed off for drinks and nibbles. Had there actually been a debate, I wonder if any of that distinguished audience would have pointed to the internet as being a bastion of journalism in the Cameron tradition?
Perhaps someone among that circle of media elders could have mentioned the legions of bloggers who opened our eyes and ears to life in the former Yugoslavian states, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan and other centres of conflict around the globe, or of the online news services that are turning somersaults over more plodding, antiquated modes of news production.
The 'prestige' myth
The recent online poll carried out by greatreporter.com found that 66 per cent of respondents consider print journalism to be more prestigious than online. According to the article, the reason for this is that respondents believe that the public holds the printed word in higher esteem than digital. This may be, but if this preconception is ever to be challenged, surely it is up to the journalists to do so.
Online news still carries the stigma of inconsistency and is often perceived as factually inaccurate with little editorial control. This is true in many instances. But as Bryson noted, this is not the sole preserve of the internet. Anyone who has worked in print knows that uncorroborated stories get printed all the time.
I have written many freelance features for one national newspaper that have been published with exactly the same typos that I made in the draft version on my PC, weeks prior to submission. They had been lifted intact and placed into production without the sniff of a sub-edit or fact check.
As for the quality of the content, filling space with soft stories – lifted from press releases or cribbed from other publications and rehashed – is an art that is exulted in many newspapers.
And yet journalists are apparently still desperate for a print byline. Perhaps the real motivation behind this is not so much that the public see print as more prestigious than online, but that the media elders do – those people that can make or break your journalistic career.
I wish that after Bryson's lecture there had been a debate. Then I may have been proven wrong. Perhaps someone would have stood up and said: 'Look what is happening online – James Cameron would have been proud!'.
Perhaps next year's winner of the James Cameron Memorial Award will be an online journalist. But before that happens, the attitudes of those who should be advocating the online medium – journalists, editors, publishers – needs to change.
Christian Walsh is a freelance journalist and editor of IDeA Knowledge, local government's primary source of news and best practice.
Email your comments.
Comments
From Craig McGinty, 19:53 10 June 2005
I think there are a couple of points of interest from the report of Bill Bryson's speech.
His fears for the quality of current journalism are well founded and I feel the cause of this is endless cutbacks of editorial staff, ensuring a lack of depth in articles and even the chance to cover a 'patch'.
It is only a matter of time before online news becomes the norm. Looking at the greatreporter.com survey - where 25 per cent of people say online is best - well, that's not bad for a medium that is still in its infancy compared to 'old media'.
And I think the only reason journalists are keen for a byline is so they can apply for another job when they've been laid off!
Free daily newsletter
If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).
Related articles
- 'Lords review of media is in danger of achieving nothing'
- 'None of the papers have grasped the fundamental difference between the internet and print'
- 'Journalists are too often reduced to a cross between call-centre workers and data processors'
- 'UK offline media is one of the most competitive and creative in the world. You have to ask why that hasn't followed online'
- '40,000 citizen journalists working to report one story for your paper? It's possible, we did it'
