Substance or car crash journalism? Having spent quite a bit of time these last nine months with producers and presenters of both types of news network (and yes, at risk of biting a hand that periodically helps feed), the tone and depth of questions in the UK this political season was refreshing and markedly different depending on with whom I spoke and what they felt their role was. While a market/audience seems to exist for both kinds of “news,” can our nations truly be served by appealing to the lowest common denominator?
The Obama campaign raised the dialogue and issues to a very high and deeper level. His was more than campaign sloganeering, smarmy word baiting, sarcastic cynicism and tired rhetoric. When one looked at the position papers and heard him speak there were soaring ideas and a lot of very deep substance. It hooked and tugged at your heart as well as your mind.
While his rhetoric soared and his opponent tried to mock him for it, he also demanded that we listen intently with our entire being vs. simply waiting for our turn to speak. When one took the time to listen to an Obama speech, you did so in an almost reverent silence because the words dug deeply into everything you assumed you already knew.
I know I was least effective as a commentator when coiled and tensed, ready to spring and respond to quickly fill a rapid-fire 200-second segment with witty lines and “make points.” I felt that effectiveness increase when I took the time to fully hear a question, take a precious second or two of dead mic time to think, inhale and answer. The BBC mostly allowed that to happen.
Other outlets were more interested in covering a topic in 3-minutes, put warring sides opposite each other and let them duke it out. Entertaining and the loser was always the British public because my goal was always to inform in a way that allowed them to make their own choice knowing I supported Obama. I also felt I personally let the campaign and Barack down when I was less than my best or riled by another.
This campaign captivated UK and US media, at least those who could stop chattering mindlessly. It was always refreshing to have serious conversations about serious subjects and… all I could do to bite my tongue when a host was more interested in proving how much THEY knew v helping their audience to understand; yes lipstick covered pigs were funny, attack adverts were clever and none of it was real news.
In some respects having commented with BBC, itv and SKY journalists, it was easy to compare and contrast them to the USA’s PBS, Access Hollywood and FOX News networks.
At the Beeb, I always walked away with a feeling of that perhaps I helped someone understand the broader picture. It is a place of iconic journalists such as Jamie Owens and Bill Moyers, Felicity Evans and Gwen Ifell, serious people covering serious news with gravitas and a lightness where they take their work very seriously but not themselves. Most BBC news presenters have an inherent lightness and inquisitiveness to their interviewing style that brings out the best in them and with whomever they speak. One is almost never asked a leading question and they, unlike solicitors, are comfortable asking questions for which they do not already have an answer or an opinion.
Compare and contrast with the other networks and you realise the research and production folk are surpassed only by the doltish and simpering idiots conducting the interview. They are league tables below yet are quite full of themselves because they are in so-called television or radio news without recognising that with great power comes great responsibility.
We blessedly saw attempts by those slavishly devoted to the slimy stylings of US political consultant Karl Rove and his minions at FOX News rebuffed at every turn. It was astonishing to watch the debates on CNN and see the monitoring dials universally drop when a candidate attacked his opponent without offering any specifics of his (or her in the case of Sarah Palin) own solution. My prayer is that we have a trend growing where information trumps personality or at least they can co-exist peacefully in an ego-free zone.
My hope is that more networks learn from the BBC and PBS that it is possible to conduct in-depth interviews, be perceived as a penetrating journalist and follow a creed where people indeed can disagree without scoring points, becoming arrogant or personally disagreeable.
That is the real lesson of this historic campaign.
