tl;dr: saving lives is more important than being positive
If you’re in a WhatsApp group or following social media right now, chances are that you’ve seen someone complaining about journalists “missing the mood” in the country.
As someone who teaches journalism students and trains journalists I thought I’d break down one typical message* – forwarded to a WhatsApp group I’m in – and address each issue.
“We do not want or need blame. We do not want constant criticism of our Government who are doing their very best in a very difficult and unprecedented global emergency.”
Have you ever had a boss who tried hard— but still made mistakes?
Did someone tell them that they’d made a mistake?
Did the boss have to explain to others why he or she made those mistakes?
Did that person continue to make those mistakes?
What if those mistakes could cause harm to others?
It’s understandable to feel sympathy for the politicians and other people having to manage the crisis — but doing their best does not mean a person should be protected from questioning, or even criticism.
Indeed, many politicians (perhaps the best ones) welcome critical scrutiny because it helps them address problems or concerns they might have missed.
So even if you don’t want critical reporting of the government, many politicians themselves do want to be scrutinised, because in the end that contributes to greater political leadership.
“We need hope, optimism and faith, with less negativity.”
This is like asking an ice cream shop for more fish and chips. News – aside from the odd human interest story or “and finally” piece – has never been the place to go for hope, optimism, faith, or positivity.
News is also an industry that focuses on facts. And most of the facts right now are not very nice facts.
Journalists are expected to report those facts, regardless of whether an audience is in the mood to hear them or not.
If an audience is not in the mood, they can always switch to another channel.
“We want and need a constructive contribution to the national effort to help us out of this crisis.”
Journalists are making a constructive contribution to the national effort by helping communicate vital information, and that means not just from the top-down but from the bottom-up too.
When journalists reported on the lack of attention being paid to deaths in social care it forced the authorities to pay more attention and communicate what they were doing; when journalists reported on a lack of PPE, it pushed the politicians into action. It was questions about help for the self-employed that were followed by the announcement of an initiative to support them.
Yes, journalists have asked dumb questions at the daily briefing too, and not every piece of journalism has been great, but journalists have been identified as key workers by the government itself for a reason: their contribution is needed.
“It is time you all changed your negative and political rhetoric for the health of this nation and start supporting our Government.”
The health of this nation is determined by its health system. The government is just one of many parts of that system — and the role of many journalists right now is to act as a bridge passing information between different parts of the system.
By giving a voice to nurses who do not have enough PPE, or to care home workers who are concerned about the numbers of residents dying, or to those struggling to get tests, journalists are actively working for the health of this nation.
What’s more: it has an impact. The government has repeatedly announced initiatives in response to news reports. So journalists are actually supporting the government, too — but supporting them through concrete information they can act on, rather than just nice words.
Some people treat the pandemic as a war, where we need to persuade ourselves that we are the good guys in order to win. But the pandemic is not a war and the objective is different: the aim is to save lives.
China and Iran had more coronavirus cases than their governments said; political leaders in the US and Brazil have been criticised for encouraging behaviour which would lead to more deaths.
You know about these things because journalists reported it.
Should they have supported their governments and kept it quiet instead?
*UPDATE The message in question on WhatsApp was adapted from a tweet by @EffieDeans but passed off as their own. At the time of writing this post I was unaware of this (this appears to have happened a lot) so I’m happy to attribute authorship.
Paul Bradshaw runs the MA in Data Journalism and the MA in Multiplatform and Mobile Journalism at Birmingham City University.
