Old Media

Times – Channel 4 in row over mosque film

Transcripts, please. Raw footage. All I’m seeing on Channel 4 right now is Krishnan Guru-Murthy acting like Iain Dale.

UPDATE – AHAHAHAHAHA! At the close, Krishnan made a point of mentioning that the police had chosen not to speak to them (*gasp*)… but failed to mention that the other party in the matter – i.e. Channel 4 – somehow failed to come forward publicly with the raw footage that could clear this up in a jiffy. FFS, they had the commissioning editor, who pretty much paid for it, right there in the chair, minus a tape (that he pretty much paid for), and the poor dear was reduced to assuring us that the footage that he could not show us ‘spoke for itself’.

There’s a lovely howler on the front page of the Independent today. Why don’t you relax and enjoy that and the latest Britblog round-up? I’ll be with you shortly.

The World Press Photo Of The Year 2004 is likely to be seen by many more people than the World Press Photo Of The Year 2003.

I’m sure you can work out why.

If you’re a seasoned web user, then it probably hasn’t escaped your attention that much of what is published and/or broadcast about the internet is usually bullshit – and mostly negative.

Please excuse me for having an opinion, but it seems to me that this – and the often baffling arrogance displayed by established media – plays an important role in the preservation of the status quo.

These people make a healthy living from producing, publishing or broadcasting, so they really can’t be blamed for wanting to protect this; but why does it have to be at our expense?

It’s quite simple, really. Direct information feeds are no longer exclusive. Web users don’t have to rely on the interpretation of journalists (with opinions normally led by their editor and/or the owner of the media channel they work for). We can instead pick and choose the information that is relevant to us and access it at will.

Hell, we’re free to compare multiple feeds of the same information, interpret it as we see fit, discuss it amongst ourselves, or even – God forbid – publish our own opinions.

Of course, these opinions count for sweet bugger-all, because we aren’t trained journalists.

We know this to be a fact, for many journalists have told us that it is so.

The material we produce for purposes of enlightenment and/or entertainment? Equally worthless.

Are we paid professionals? No, we are not (at least, that’s the assumption). Therefore, we should be grateful when our work is lifted in its entirety for publication or broadcast. Indeed, we should be flattered that it is given credence by exposure to a paying audience at the hands of trained professionals.

Happily, such exposure happens often and for this we give thanks.

We live in dangerous times, people. The system of media control by the few is under threat. You can help to stem the tide by spreading the following information:

- The Interwebnet is a confusing and dangerous place, filled with fraudsters, sex maniacs and computer viruses that can actually kill you. Avoid it at all costs.

- You cannot believe anything that you read online. If you seek truth, please purchase a newspaper, or turn on your radio or television.

- Create whatever you like in your little playground channel, but please remember that it’s not worth a damn until one of these more established channels gets their hands on it.

- Above all, please remember that the forming and voicing of opinions and/or entertainment in published form is best left to the professionals.