955 replies to this topic

[radiospy]

What's the deal with Media Watch? I remember a time when it was a great eye on what was going on in the press and on the air...What happened?

Most the stories they do now seem to be classic witch-hunts after people like Jones and Laws - along with pathetic attempts to expose weather people for doing paid spots on location. Like we don't know already???

How about that shit about the repeating backgrounds? Who the hell cares?

Maybe a monthly show would be a better idea - leaving the staff to get-up some half-decent stories.

Edited by Sharpy, 03 July 2005 - 04:59 PM.

[NewsWorld]

What's the deal with Media Watch? I remember a time when it was a great eye on what was going on in the press and on the air...What happened?

Most the stories they do now seem to be classic witch-hunts after people like Jones and Laws - along with pathetic attempts to expose weather people for doing paid spots on location. Like we don't know already???

How about that shit about the repeating backgrounds? Who the hell cares?

Maybe a monthly show would be a better idea - leaving the staff to get-up some half-decent stories.

Nothing wrong with Media Watch from where I sit.

You're not concerned that these "opinion formers" were might be being paid by the organisations they were supporting and making it sound like considered opinion?

If the allegations are wrong they'll be exposed.. if they're right they should be in the open.

Frankly I don't care because I make up my own mind.. but there are many who are influenced by these people... believe it or not <_<

As for repeating background etc... sure it's a very small thing.. but it's the principle of the matter.. YOU DON'T FAKE NEWS... IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

If the average person could reasonably believe what you are doing is live and it's not.. you are breaching ethics.

And then it's just a short jump away from changing photos in newspapers... digitally altering sound in newsbulletins.. and recreating events without telling people out it.

Ehben... over to you

[ehben]

... Thanks NewsWorld.

I'm not sure if you caught Monday night's program (you can get it webcast from the ABC's website).

It was bloody stupid. Spent a couple of minutes saying how bad it was that a cross to talent in Perth on an east coast news programs featured a recorded picture of Perth keyed behind the talent. That it shouldn't have been labelled "LIVE", even though the talent was.

Then off they went on a newspaper hunt... Ten News mispelling someone's name (no mention of the ABC's new sports segment spelling a Victorian cricketer's name wrong earlier that night).

If MediaWatch wants to remain viable, or relevent, then they need to attract an audience broader than just journalists, and stop expecting everyone to be just like the ABC.

Otherwise, spelling mistakes and looped tapes just dont cut it.

There is a place for mediawatch, just like the ABC in general, but it shouldn't be there just for the sake of it. It should be there to actually uncover what's going on. And if one week there's nothing worth telling, then don't waste 15 minutes with rubbish.

[NewsWorld]

Good points.... looped backgrounds and spelling mistakes can be amusing as sidebars... but you're right, there has to be substantial material to make the programme viable.

That would be like Seven News leading their bulletin with some light and fluffy animal story... oh wait...

[fox1]

i think looping perth traffic is damn stupid anyway. get a decent backdrop... or a decent real backdrop. i hate lateline city backdrops and badly-working video backdrops

[NewsWorld]

I enjoy watching Media Watch, but have not agreed with all of David Marr's ramblings - some of which are just attacks on journalists.  If Media Watch wants to be viable, they should show more stuff-ups FROM the ABC.

They have hardly ever done that, but then I guess, who wants to diss their own network.

ABC stuffs-up more often than not.  About time they looked at themselves, and stopped showing only the stories that suit them the best.

Hmm I don't think that's fair.
I haven't done a story count but they regularly pick on ABC News and Caff.
They don't seem to care about pissing off their own network.

I'm sure someone will do a count and prove me wrong

[sarp]

Hmm I don't think that's fair.
I haven't done a story count but they regularly pick on ABC News and Caff.
They don't seem to care about pissing off their own network.

I'm sure someone will do a count and prove me wrong 

There was a great story that I remember on an ABC reporter asking children to sit on a missle and to walk around it. It exposed the reporter as verry irresponsible and dangerous.

First it showed the report that was aired with the children playing on the missle and walking around it, and then some live feed dialogue with the female reporter asking the children to do it.

[MelbourneTV]

Did they bag themselves? Did they mention their foolish moves? I surely doubt that.

Until they have the guts to review their own moves they have no right to preach to others whats happening and whats bad in other organisations. The SBC cant gets its own shop in order, what makes them think they can preach to others?

[Carlito]

But wait, this thread will probably end up on Media Watch  

lol, should of called this thread "Media Watch Watch"

[NewsWorld]

Did they bag themselves? Did they mention their foolish moves? I surely doubt that.

Until they have the guts to review their own moves they have no right to preach to others whats happening and whats bad in other organisations. The SBC cant gets its own shop in order, what makes them think they can preach to others?

Well they didn't come out screaming and swearing:

It's not surprising that The Australian, which barracked so enthusiastically for the war, is still fudging the facts, but we expected better from the ABC...... The leaking of the camera tapes is a harsh lesson for Gina Wilkinson, but no journalist should need to be told the appropriate way to film reports of this kind. Using kids in this way to get pictures is just not on.

Transcript of full MediaWatch item here

But there is a level of criticism.
You be the judge.

[modecko]

I enjoy watching Media Watch, but have not agreed with all of David Marr's ramblings - some of which are just attacks on journalists.  If Media Watch wants to be viable, they should show more stuff-ups FROM the ABC.

They have hardly ever done that, but then I guess, who wants to diss their own network.

ABC stuffs-up more often than not.  About time they looked at themselves, and stopped showing only the stories that suit them the best.

I also agree this is not a fair attack. Go to the MW website and their archives and you will see that MW has never hesitated to can the ABC or itself for that matter. Whenever it's been pointed out they have stuffed up or got it wrong they apologise in full, in the lead item of the show and prominently, something no commercial media outlet ever does. If they apologise at all it's buried in small print or a curt mentioned at the back of the article / bulletin.

Media Watch might do what are minor pieces (which means the general media are doing well) every now and again but that doesn't detract from the purpose or viability of the show. Also remember it's on a very limited budget with a small research team mostly fed from people like you and me (I've submitted some stuff in the past) and can't possibley catch everything in the Media.

If you think they are not catching items then become proactive and submit them to MW instead of bitching about them here, that's what it's about?

As to the ABC stuffing up more often than not you obviously don't watch much of it and probably just ignore the continuous stuff ups, exaggerations and sometimes outright for sensationalism lies the commercial media practice as a matter of course.

Finally can someone please rename this thread to Media Watch as it's current name is insulting and would be the same as for example calling the Sunrise thread Sundown or Today, Yesterday etc.

[NewsWorld]

Finally can someone please rename this thread to Media Watch as it's current name is insulting and would be the same as for example calling the Sunrise thread Sundown or Today, Yesterday etc.

I 2nd the motion.

Please Mr or Ms Moderator :lol:

[Mr Q]

I 2nd the motion.

Please Mr or Ms Moderator  :lol:

And so it is done...

[NewsWorld]

Looks like tonight's MediaWatch could be a beauty.

Those of us beyond the reach of ABC transmitters will have to wait a few extra hours until its available on broadband.

Can't wait :lol:

[Mark.]

They should rename the show "Alan Jones Watch".
Seriously don't these guys have anything new to report?

Edited by Mark, 19 April 2004 - 08:08 PM.

[NewsWorld]

Im sorry but, well, Alan Jones- Bit of a loser really, i mean did honestly think no one would not that the big Telstra Basher had gone mushy on em... Please, alan, you can go jump on the same ship Mark Latham is heading on... youre both Wankas!

My worry is though that why does this happen in sydney but not Melbourne!  3AW IS MUCH BIGGER THAN 2GB or 2UE yet no one has been strung up here in Melbourne, which has me thinking... our people are less corrupted... or Just plain sneaky and smart

Ehben... I do believe that's your cue! :lol:

[ehben]

No we're all very very clean here thankyou very much... time for the next converation perhaps

Seriously though, Mediawatch is filmed in Sydney, so they notice things there more...

But the issue is very important, though at times MW is rather pedantic. I hate the show. I think the concept is good, but some of the things it points out are rather stupid.