 |
| Piers Morgan - angel or devil? |
It appears we know loads about Mr Morgan. We are aware of his feuds, with the list of people he's fought against longer than the Channel Tunnel - Jeremy Clarkson, Lady Gaga, John Cleese, and Ian Hislop to name a handful. He is also known to block anyone who shoot grammatically incorrect insults at him on Twitter. He's a fiery Aries, that's for certain. Yet, the deeply analytical part of my brain wonders whether his views make him a heartless man - perhaps an understated view from his critics - or an individual who has good intentions and a high moral compass.
I think both sides of the argument above are valid. Back in 2015, I analysed businesswoman turned media commentator Katie Hopkins here and to this day, I have conflicting opinions of her. I disagree with much of what she says, but I know she has a good side that many wish not to see. What can I say, as someone who wants to live in a judgement-free world, one must start by not personally attacking individuals that have a right to speak publicly, like everyone else.
But Piers Morgan is different to Katie Hopkins. He has come from a different background and his journey to being a co-lead on the ITV breakfast news programme is through merit and more than 30 years' experience in journalism. From childhood, he wasn't completely surrounded by journalists for him to enter that world by being born with influential contacts. Wanting to be a reporter from a young age, he went through the natural process in being globally recognised. He went to college and studied journalism, then started at a local paper. After three years with Streatham and Tooting News, he joined The Sun. Through there, his credibility went from strength-to-strength and by 29 years of age, he became Britain's youngest editor, of News of the World.
 |
| Daily Mirror controversy (Image: Sean Linnane) |
I can't help but admire Morgan's ambition. As someone who entered the PR world without key contacts, I was also eager to enter the industry and make my mark. Morgan's ride to being where he is today has been a rollercoaster, and there were certainly bumps along the way. For example, his reputation while editing the Daily Mirror took a dent when reporting anything in order to condemn the Iraq War. Also, his time in the United States was cut short as his CNN show was discontinued after three years. Despite this, he's still going strong with over 5.7 million followers on Twitter and plenty of his 102,000+ tweets being headline news.
Morgan's views do raise eyebrows. Yet, I see him as one of the iconic faces of modern journalism. There was a time when the 'best' journalists were the ones who didn't express an opinion when reporting a news story. Back then, unless you were a columnist or commentator, your personal views shouldn't interfere with your profession. Morgan has changed that in the UK, and is setting a trend for many budding journalists to do the same. The more his outspoken views are uttered, many members of the public would criticise traditional news platforms like BBC News for being too much on the fence when it comes to crucial societal and political matters.
Is this a good thing? I'm conflicted. I'm in complete support for free speech and if you have a view, regardless of what you do for a living, you have plenty of platforms to express these. Nobody is going to stop you from pushing the 'Share' button. Hearing the likes of Morgan and Hopkins is somewhat refreshing, if you want to open your eyes to alternative views of the world. So long as you back up your opinion with facts rather than emotion, your perspective should be celebrated.
 |
| Jeremy Clarkson, one of his many nemesis (Image: Daily Mail) |
Now, I have seen the other side of Piers Morgan. I have been a studio audience member to two of his ITV Life Stories episodes. He was brilliantly balanced, completely calm and represented the type of journalism I was inspired by as a teenager. He performed like Michael Parkinson who, to this day, is a media personality who I still look up to.
What Morgan does well is obeying to his job description. He knows in Life Stories, his brief is different to his role on Good Morning Britain. It may look like as if he has different personas, however, he's paid to be controversial in one job and composed in another. That said, we, as members of the public, have to be careful not to emulate him. We're living in a Politically Correct (PC) world Morgan despises. His controversial views won't get him fired but yours could.
You may not like the PC brigade biting your backside, but is it worth the risk uttering a misunderstanding which could lead you seeing your P45? We've seen cases of this before. More recently, Kelvin MacKenzie, formerly an editor of The Sun, lost his position as their columnist for his misguided views on Everton footballer Ross Barkley. It wasn't in MacKenzie's remit to be reckless to this extent. There's a limit to controversy that could mean that even a journalists' job isn't safe. Piers Morgan is very skilled and tactically aware of the circumstances of where his views could lead him. His role isn't to be the publicist of JK Rowling, Madonna and Arsene Wenger. He's paid to be controversial, the reality is that he's otherwise.
There are more than a few mistakes/false assumptions in your piece.
ReplyDeletePiers Morgan doesn't block people for being ungrammatical or insulting him as is apparent today when someone called him a, well see for yourself. It's a comment from Ash Unsworth.
“I was taught that it's a journalist's job – regardless of his or her position in the industry – is to inform and educate, not to use their authoritative influence to tell the public what they should think.”
PD: I've never heard that it is a journalist's job to educate. Inform certainly but educate? I don’t think it’s the job of a sub (who in any case has no “authoritative influence”) to educate the readership.
“There was a time when the 'best' journalists were the ones who didn't express an opinion when reporting a news story. Back then, unless you were a columnist or commentator, your personal views shouldn't interfere with your profession.”
PD: That is still the case. That’s why news and opinion pieces are different.
“Morgan has changed that in the UK, and is setting a trend for many budding journalists to do the same.”
PD: No, he hasn’t. Budding journalists are still taught there’s a difference between news and opinion. “Many budding journalists” may want a platform to air their views but that’s not the same thing at all.
“The more his outspoken views are uttered, many members of the public would criticise traditional news platforms like BBC News for being too much on the fence when it comes to crucial societal and political matters.”
PD: That’s not true either. Traditional news platforms like BBC News are and have never been on the fence. The BBC, for example, is pro-EU, pro-Lab/Lib, pro-gay marriage, a firm believer in manmade climate change, pro-immigration, etc – that doesn’t seem like being on the fence to me.
“This week for example, he approached an interview with people who don't identify themselves with the gender of their birth, with sarcasm and mockery. It's fine to disagree with them on a personal level.”
PD: Piers Morgan is under no obligation to give both sides of any story. He is not paid to be even-handed.
By the way, why do you want to live in a judgement-free world?
And finally, aren’t we getting a bit too American? Piers is a presenter on GMB. In America, he might be an anchor but here we are British.
When I say judgement-free, I mean a world where we don't judge people or go our of our way to offend people based on their decisions.
DeleteI've not seen proof that BBC is pro-EU or pr-Lab/Lib, and so on. Individual reporters may follow certain allegiances but when reporting stories, I like to think they're completely balanced. Channel 4 may be different as they're seen to be more 'liberal', but not BBC News.
On your point regarding news and opinion pieces being different, titles like Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Independent do otherwise. They mix them together and disguise opinion as news. Financial Times, The Times and The Guardian are the only national British titles that separates the two.
A journalists' role is to inform and educate. We learn something new everyday, and that's largely thanks to journalists delivering facts, do their bakckground research, collating variety of views and tell a story that's effecting our world. To inform and deliver facts (that lead to educating people about a particular issue) is paramount in journalism, as appreciated in the NUJ Code of Ethics: https://www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/.
On your final point, I'd like to target readers from both sides of the Atlantic - if that means using more than one word to describe a presenter which happens to be American, then so be it.
What’s wrong with judging people? Are you seriously saying you like everyone and judge them all the same? Not everyone is the same, not everyone is worthy of respect. Would you not criticise Tony Blair for his role in taking Britain into an unjust war?
DeleteRegarding the BBC, you may like to think it’s completely balanced but it isn’t: Mark Thompson, the former DG of the BBC, said that the corporation had an institutional bias towards the left.
Andrew Marr said that the BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”. All this, he said, “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.
Peter Sissons said: “By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.”
Fact and opinion: I’ve worked on three of the six newspapers you mention and my experience is different to your opinion.
The Financial Times does not separate fact and opinion certainly not when it comes to the European Union. It is rabidly pro-EU and makes no secret of it as its editor Lionel Barber showed on This Week a few weeks back.
“A journalists' role is to inform and educate. We learn something new everyday, and that's largely thanks to journalists delivering facts, do their bakckground (sic) research, collating variety of views and tell a story that's [a]ffecting our world.”
But you just said that journalists mix facts and opinion…
I would criticise Tony Blair, and I have manier times on here. But I won't judge him as a person. I'm not suggesting we should like every person, but I feel it's importnt to understand where those have come to their decisionmaking. I separate the individual to their act. It goes without saying that some acts cannot be justified.
DeleteJournalists do mix facts and opinions of others - I feel the best reporters don't use their own personal views to interfere with the story they're reporting.
On your point about BBC's liberal bias, I'd like you to respond to the clicktivists who believe that Laura Kuessenberg and the like who are apparently anti-Labour, etc. Is there anything wrong with producers who read The Guardian. I do agree that they should be covering all angles (if the vast majority don't, as you claim).
That Marr quote is from 2006 while Labour were in power. My assumption was that they follow the government's lead as it's them who they have to keep sweet, no?
great service and wonderfull artical......
ReplyDeleteWandsworth Airport Transfer | Mitcham Taxi | Mitcham Cab