Tagged with the media

Is Alessio Rastani real? Of course he is, but does he speak the truth?

Alessio Rastani on BBC News 24

Late on Monday morning, Alessio Rastani, a stock trader, stunned viewers (and subsequent YouTube users when the video got uploaded yesterday afternoon) on BBC News 24 by saying that the Eurozone will crash in the next year and that bankers and traders like himself are waiting to make money from it:

This problem cannot be solved. I’m fairly confident that the Euro is going to crash, and it’s going to fall pretty hard.

The depression in the 30′s wasn’t just about a market crash. There were some people who were prepared to make money from that crash. I think anybody can do that. The governments don’t rule the world. Goldman Sachs rules the world. Goldman Sachs does not care about this rescue package.

I got to bed every night, I dream of another recession. I dream of another moment like this.

He even had a message for viewers, because he’s that kind:

Prepare yourselves, because things are just going to get worse and if you plan ahead, you can make big money. Look into hedging strategies and treasury bonds. In less than 12 months, my prediction is the savings of millions of people are going to vanish, and this is just the beginning. So I would say be prepared and act now.

It’s quite an astonishing series of quotes. Martine Croxall, who was interviewing Rastani, looked shell-shocked and said that jaws had dropped in the studio (I actually found it cruel of them not to prove the point and point the camera towards crew members with hands on their hands or over their wide-open mouths). The internet, as it often does, went crazy. It was the talk of Twitter for a good few hours and even the Spanish Finance Minister Elena Salgado, who is already under enough pressure as it is, expressed his anger about Rastani’s views on national television:

It seems immoral to me, immoral, amoral.

So, anyway, many views on YouTube later people are now debating whether or not that Rastani conforms too much to the ‘evil banker’stereotype (if you don’t know what that stereotype is, listen to The Complete Banker by The Divine Comedy and you’ll get the general idea). He only trades his own money and is not a professional trader, which does make you question why the BBC thought he was an authoritative voice on the matter. One of the more popular theories was that he is part of the Yes Men, a U.S.-based protest group, who have already fooled the BBC back in 2004 by having an imposter claim that Dow Chemical would compensate victims after the Bhopal disaster.

However, the Yes Men have denied that Rastani is part of their group and the man himself has said to Forbes that he is genuine and he not part of any hoax. The BBC, meanwhile, have also claimed that he is real after carrying out ‘detailed investigations’. A spokesman told AFP:

He is an independent market trader and one of a range of voices we’ve had on air to talk about the recession.

So if he’s real we should really be asking another question – is the media once again not telling us all the information that we should know before everything goes belly up or is this a lone ranger over-exaggerating what’s going on in the financial world? It’s too early to say and, to be honest, it could well be a bit of both.

After the financial meltdown of 2008 American news media like CNBC were criticised for not being aware of what was going to happen and believing the lies of corporations – most notably by Jon Stewart who famously made CNBC host Jim Cramer squirm in his seat on The Daily Show in March 2009 – and not challenging what they are saying. Is the same thing happening again? Are journalists not being as tough as they should be?

Of course, this all depends on whether or not other more authoritative figures agree with Rastani’s judgement. What should happen now is that journalists should be looking to more senior figures and asking in all honesty whether or not his claims stack up and, if that doesn’t work, researching and fact-finding. There is simply no excuse not to do this, especially with the rise of data journalism.

Alessio Rastani’s quotes may not be instant cause for concern it reinforces the message that viewers should at least be told the truth of what’s going on rather than tip-toeing around it.

Tagged , , , , ,

Showing a Newsnight debate after Terry Pratchett’s documentary was an act of poor editorial judgement

Last night I, like many others I presume, sat down and watched Terry Pratchett: Choosing To Die, an emotional documentary that showed the author, who is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, exploring the subject of assisted death, which he supports. This involved going to Switzerland – the act is legal there whilst it currently isn’t in the UK – where he followed two people who chose to end their life there. The last ten minutes showed a man drinking a lethal fluid before subsequently falling asleep and then eventually was pronounced dead.

It was a startling, powerful and thought-provoking documentary. I feel very much when these things are televised that one has to absorb what they’ve just seen. I would certainly need the time to consider and conclude what my feelings are on assisted death/euthanasia after seeing that program because it raises many important points.

Sadly, the BBC had other ideas. Right after it ended, a special edition of Newsnight started up, presenting…well, I’ll let the Radio Times explain:

In a follow-up to the documentary shown at 9pm, Jeremy Paxman talks to Sir Terry Pratchett, while a panel of guests debates the controversial issues surrounding assisted death. Can a satisfactory legal framework ever be devised to enable the terminally ill to take their own lives?

I have no problem with the idea of a debate on the issue and I appreciate that a level of sensitivity towards the issue was shown but this particular broadcast really angered me for two principal reasons.

Firstly, the timing of it is really ill-judged and it leads on to a much broader point about the state of news, specially television news, in the technology/24-hour age. We now live in a world where it is impossible to witness something and then be allowed to have some time to make our own judgements. Instead, what we’ve now succumbed to is watching people talk about thing they’ve just seen unfold on the TV and making snap judgements that are meant to be final. Inevitably these discussions can help influence what we think to the point where any opinion we have thereafter is not truly our own opinion.

A snap judgement on an issue as complex as this is impossible, so why hold this now? Why not wait a week or two or maybe even longer for all the fuss to die down? The counter-argument is that it’s topical. This is true but it’s not the be all and end of it.

Secondly, it trivialised the debate to almost excruciatingly painful levels. Three people who supported assisted death were pretty much pitted against three people against it, therefore pretty much allowing argumentative and overly-passionate discussion to unfold. How is this productive? If anything it is counter-productive and has the potential to encourage discourse of a dubious and questionable nature. A week ago, Graham Linehan refused to get sucked into an ‘artificial argument’about films being brought to the theatre. You can read his piece on The Guardian’s site but this quote is key:

The style of debate practised by the Today programme poisons discourse in this country. It is an arena where there are no positions possible except for diametrically opposed ones, where nuance is not permitted and where politicians are forced into defensive positions of utter banality. None of it is any good for the national conversation.

Whilst watching the debate, I felt that there seemed to be no middle ground being offered up; it was incredibly stilted. The reason why, in my mind, was because it was set up to be that way. It also didn’t help that, when you take away the pre-recorded segments that were introduced throughout, they only have twenty minutes to discuss everything, which is utter nonsense.

Incidentally, after I tweeted about my disappointment with Newsnight, I got a response from their own Twitter account basically asking why. I hope that this goes some way towards answering that but I also have queries of my own. Why are debates like the one you aired last night set up in a way that feels constructed more to get people riled up as opposed to actually producing a discussion that is sensible? Why did you decide to have this debate immediately after the documentary aired? I’d be really interested in what they have to say for themselves and, in a dream world, would hope to have a discussion with someone of appropriate power. I love journalism and I love current affairs but this didn’t it any justice whatsoever.

Disclaimer: Just to clarify, before someone thinks otherwise, I am not criticising the documentary itself. It was extraordinary television that will no doubt be one of the year’s most memorable piece of documentary-making.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

An open letter to Sky News

Sky News

Dear Sky News

Yesterday, it was brought to my attention that you had invited Peter Andre onto your news channel for an interview with Kay Burley. In that interview, discussion turned to Andre’s personal issues involving his kids, which he brought up with former wife Katie Price. Burley proceeded to show him a clip of Dwight Yorke, an ex-partner of Price’s, talking about Andre’s role as a father on the same news channel in a recent interview. After responding angrily to this piece of footage, the conversation continued until he started to tear up and then proceeded to promptly stop the interview.

This entire piece of broadcasting angered me yesterday. Here are the three main reasons why it did so:

This isn’t news

There are lots of things that happen in this crazy, complicated, misunderstood world that we live in. In case you’ve forgotten, here’s my list of news-worthy topics from yesterday:

  • The debate over electoral reform.
  • Peter Robinson returning to Northern Irish politics.
  • A scan that ‘unlocks’the minds of vegetative patients.
  • Toyota recalling hundreds of cars.

This is just a small sample. You may or may not have run stories on these subjects yesterday but the point is that there are tons of news stories that you could be devoting time to that have more news value than the interview you aired.

Instead of devoting time to actual stories, you took a story that in itself isn’t a story and is only considered one because a few people in this country have heard of the people involved. At what point is this news? This isn’t going to affect anyone other than the parties involved. Whilst you can argue that Andre did agree to come on your news channel in the first place and that he would be possibly aware of the fact that this subject could have come up, the fact remains tthat this isn’t worthy of airtime. What is worthy of airtime are stories that affect us in some way and stories that we need to know.

Also, don’t even think about countering with the claim that this is something that people want to know. That may be true, but these people can surely go to some trashy media outlet like Heat magazine or wherever it is that followers of showbiz news get their ‘gossip’from. The audience for gossip news already has places to go to. It doesn’t need the attention of a rolling news channel.

The way you handled the interview was atrocious

There were several uncomfortable moments in the interview. The way you managed to work in showing a clip of Dwight Yorke talking trash about your interviewee from a previous equally un-newsworthy interview was eerily similar to some of the sensationalising tactics used by Jeremy Kyle on his diabolical TV program. At one point, such were the similarities, I was expecting Graham from that same program to come in with his viewpoint. Well, until I remembered that you annoyed him around this time last year.

That’s beside the point though.

What you did was very similar to what an internet troll would do: show/say something that is likely to irritate its target and then watch that target cling onto the bait. What’s more, matters were certainly not helped by Kay Burley, who aggravated things further by asking how he would feel if Alex Reid, the current partner of Price, were to adopt the kids. This is what ultimately led to the sudden stoppage of the interview. This wasn’t so shocking, because Burley has a pretty long track record of asking questions that go far over the line of what is acceptable and she does it with very little tact. Why does she do it? I suspect that it might be to gain publicity for her own self-gain. Either way, it just showed how much of a mockery she makes of news talent.

It’s why channels like yours should never be allowed to exist

You’re under constant pressure to provide viewers with news. There is nothing wrong with repeating news on an hourly loop, however boring it is, if it is actual news. Why? Because that’s what you should be doing. This kind of segment smacks of a news channel that has run out of ideas. Why do you not have the time to actively hunt news stories? Why do you have to rely on pointless entertainment gossip to fill up time? Most importantly perhaps, if you can’t find enough actual news stories to fill up your day, what is the point of a channel like yours even existing?

I was pretty disgusted after watching the interview. It wasn’t just me though. There are comments all over the news page of that story on your website like these (albeit slightly edited for grammatical and spelling reasons):

OMG Sky News you should be ashamed of yourselves, this man has to deal with the break up of his marriage and not seeing his kids as often as he would like. How dare you ask him what he would feel like if Alex Reid asked to adopt his kids. Just because he is a celebrity it does not give any of us the right to ask them hurtful questions. I am that disgusted that I will no longer search for the news on your site.

Natalie Rossa

What a nasty, nasty, hurtful thing to do to someone. He may have been the one to end his marriage, that doesn’t mean it hurts any less when he sees the nasty little piece of trash he was married to parade her (cough) love all over the papers as is her way. She is a money headline grabbing nasty piece of work. To ambush someone in this way is not news, it’s dirt of the highest order. Sky News should be ashamed…appalled!

John

I want to know where I can leave an official complaint, this interview was disgusting. How Kay had the nerve to say those stupid hurtful questions…basically asking how he would feel losing his kids because his ex got remarried. Kay should be ashamed. Sky News is supposed to be about news, not trying to coax an amazing father into fighting for his kids. She is in no way a proper journalist!!

Tracy Gardner

The search term ‘Kay Burley’also popped up as a trending topic on Twitter very quickly after the video of the interview hit the internet, such was the furore.

So, here’s a suggestion that I made yesterday on Twitter, but slightly more sensibly-phrased. Why don’t you report some news? You know, in the way that a news channel should operate? After all, your channel name has the word ‘news’in the title…

Yours,

Max Raymond

Tagged , , ,

Autism and the media representation

Rain Man

Usually I don’t expect BBC News to have decent feature articles, especially in their Magazine section – the internet equivalent of The One Show – but today there was one thing worth reading. It looked at the representation of autism in storytelling such as films and theatre and asks why Hollywood only portrays one view of the disease – someone who also happens to have a unique skill that is extraordinary such as photographic memory.

For me, as an autistic person, it is refreshing to see an article that tells you that being autistic doesn’t mean you have some sort of skill attached to it. I am managing to live a normal life and, whilst I understand that some cases are more severe than others, when you see the same old portrayal again and again it’s a bit annoying. It’s understandable though – viewers want a story. They wouldn’t be interested in following someone like me.

It worries me even more so to hear that The X Factor has an autistic contestant that goes far in the new series. Given the programme’s history of exaggerating personal woes, I dread to think what false impressions it might give people. I mean, if it is a severe case then the contestant deserves credit for going through the process in the first place. However, I don’t want the guy’s apperances to be shrouded with untrue facts about autism and to give people the wrong impressions.

Tagged , , ,

Jade Goody

Jade Goody

I think the situation with Jade Goody has been extremely well documented in the last few days. It amazes me that people are actually having a go at her for getting money through these media deals for her kids.

Let’s say you were in the same position as Jade Goody – you get cancer and it’s going to take your life and you’re leaving behind two kids. What would you do?

I reckon a lot of people on here would do what Jade is doing or something similar so that they can get money for their kids’future put that as a main priority, because (and some people here may have forgotten about this) they require a lot of time and money devoted to them. I would be making sure that my kids are going to be able to have the best life they could possibly have, and trying to make sure that my partner (or someone else if I didn’t have a partner at the time) is capable of looking after them and that there is money available for that person to raise up the kids. Not to say there is anything wrong with giving money to related-charities. I probably would leave some money to charity myself if I could but my kids would be the bigger priority.

In another part of my mind I would also be thinking that I would also be raising awareness of this illness and also, hopefully, inspiring some sort of public debate. There are definitely problems that the NHS has in dealing with this and, whilst it should never take the death of a well-known personality to make people realise this, try and force a change in the way they take care of these things.

I’ve never really liked Jade Goody that much…but I don’t blame her for doing what she is doing. She’s just trying to make sure her boys have a decent upbringing and a happy life…if there’s a problem with that, shoot me.

Tagged , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.