Why is it the Daily Post along with its sister paper the Echo seem absolutely incapable of doing the most cursory journalistic research before they mislead their audience?
The Post on 25th May proclaimes " Culture year success 'helping city to boom' ".
Citing research by Liverpool Uni and LJMU that show various criteria to support including the spurious " higher percentage of upbeat media coverage of the city",
What the Post doesn't tell the reader- why should they?- is that the research has been commissioned by Liverpool City council and the Culture Company.
From the cited website.
http://www.liv.ac.uk/impacts08/index.htm
"Liverpool City Council has commissioned the two Universities to develop Impacts 08 in partnership with the Cultural Research Steering Group- made up of Liverpool City Council, Liverpool Culture Company and representatives from Culture Northwest, the regional cultural consortium, including Arts Council England (North West) and the North West Culture Observatory. "
Conflict of interest?
The findings are not published on the website (though it states they are) The Post, however, has managed to source them- transparency?
Seems the Post decide on the story they'd like then find or exclude facts to fit.
In the time of Yore the Post and Echo could just cite sources without thereader being in a position to investigate- now with the web it's possible to see just how docile their reporters really are.
Citing research by Liverpool Uni and LJMU that show various criteria to support including the spurious " higher percentage of upbeat media coverage of the city",
What the Post doesn't tell the reader- why should they?- is that the research has been commissioned by Liverpool City council and the Culture Company.
From the cited website.
http://www.liv.ac.uk/impacts08/index.htm "Liverpool City Council has commissioned the two Universities to develop Impacts 08 in partnership with the Cultural Research Steering Group- made up of Liverpool City Council, Liverpool Culture Company and representatives from Culture Northwest, the regional cultural consortium, including Arts Council England (North West) and the North West Culture Observatory. "
Conflict of interest?
The findings are not published on the website (though it states they are) The Post, however, has managed to source them- transparency?
Seems the Post decide on the story they'd like then find or exclude facts to fit.
In the time of Yore the Post and Echo could just cite sources without thereader being in a position to investigate- now with the web it's possible to see just how docile their reporters really are.
Comments
Hide the following comment
Manufacturing Consent is the name of the game
30.05.2007 18:28
1. Ownership of the medium (Trinity Mirror group in the case of the Post and Echo, generally supportive of New Labour-ish policies, whichever party is putting them in practice)
2. Medium's funding sources (I haven't got a copy to hand, but mostly people hoping to make big bucks off Capital of Culture, who want a positive buzz about it)
3. Sourcing ( for this story, 'respectable' university types. The fact that the city's elites have stuck them a few quid sounds a bit like bribery, so leave that out)
4. Flak (the last thing the Post/Echo wants is the Council or C of C on their back, after all, they are an 'official partner')
5. anti-ideology (perhaps not relevant here, because that normally refers to anti-communism or anti-terrorism)
You're absolutely right about the internet (at least in theory) putting information (and therefore potential power) in the hands of working class people. That's one reason why Indymedia is so important.
Neon Black
Homepage:
http://dreaming-neon-black.blogspot.com