Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Police and UKBA to ransack Brixton (Thursday 6th March)

Here's a piss weak defence added to the comments section of the original article.

Alex: Although I respect the honest intentions of this piece, it seems to be finding problems where there are none.

The people interviewed were all employees of one company, yes, but does that stop them from being Brixton residents with individual opinions?

Livity have some great youth organisation branches who help propel young people into exactly the kind of positions the journalist in question is in, and if he’s returned the favour by featuring them in a piece, I can see nothing wrong with that.

Oh, I wonder if 'Alex' has anything to do with Livity?
 
It's the "But did they actually do anything wrong?" defence, which eludes the argument that it's not representative at all.

Soon it'll be 'Well it's really haaaaaard being a journalist and people in Brixton didn't want to talk to me about the police being everywhere for some reason being on TV talking about it with their name up wasn't something they wanted to do so instead I just got my mates to help me. If you're so great, why don't you do it?!!?!"

See the Commentariat thread for similar dodgy journo defences.

:facepalm:
 
"returning the favour" is not how it is supposed to work!
or try and not get caught at it at least :facepalm:
 
watched it again earlier

most seemed to say no, can't trust the police still
one said he hadn't been stopped and searched for 15 yrs
another bloke said that even with a black police officer there was a disconnect
one woman looked to be in windrush square near the stalls and sorry can't remember what they said
and they had Jasper at the end saying straight no
 
Is the problem shoddy journalism?

Or that the people interviewed didn't say the right things? (I never saw it)

Or both?
 
Is the problem shoddy journalism?

Or that the people interviewed didn't say the right things? (I never saw it)

Or both?
You can't see what might annoy people in a video new piece entitled 'How does Brixton feel about the police now?' that was comprised almost solely of the same ad agency employees?
 
You can't see what might annoy people in a video new piece entitled 'How does Brixton feel about the police now?' that was comprised almost solely of the same ad agency employees?

I've never seen much value in vox pops, however egregious an example this one is.
 
Really? That's awful leanderman!

I have not seen the film but, based on what I've heard, I can't see any justification for the interviewer keeping his job. Trust is core to current affairs and politics reporting and knowingly interviewing a bunch of mates or associates and passing them off as random samples only undermines that. How hard is it to ask a random in the street? Even if it is common place C4 should acknowledge that they don't approve of the practice (which they appear to have done silently by taking it off line).

I've never had any issues with Livity but they are supposed to be a socially conscious organisation, so intentionally and knowingly misleading people (even if they really thought their views were largely representative of the general populace) is shit. Channel 4 is one of their clients to whom they are supposed to be giving unique and deeps insights about urban youth. By participating in this collectively they have exposed a real lack of integrity amongst their ranks which can only reflect badly on the standards they apply to their own work for their clients. Are they so blasé about the idea of pretending to engage with a target group that they would consider doing this as part of research for presentation to their clients? They ask "how do you engage a more diverse audience"? By showing some integrity and not blatantly misleading them would seem like a good start.

And that incredibly juvenile Twitter response from the reporter shows an outstanding arrogance and lack of self awareness. What a silly knob. But he looks very young so he has plenty of time to learn how not to be such a silly knob.

Having said all this - I don't really much trust reporters and news organisations anyway so it does not come as much of a surprise and, er... what were we talking about?
 
Last edited:
What I don't really understand is why a journalist would, particularly , put their career at risk by doing something quite so stupid. Surely, he can't have believed that it wouldn't get flagged up. I've always got the impression that Snow and Co. see themselves as news broadcasting's honourable elite rather disdainful of the squalid machinations of the rest of the news media. Will John and Krishnan be happy about having their image so tarnished.

Perhaps, the Independent is still looking for an imaginative young journalist to fill the void left by the sad demise of johan Hari.
 
Maybe this kind of thing is OK with sports and music reporting? Channel 4 News have him as a "sports reporter".

Just seems so naive and amateurish. Why not just go out for a few minutes and talk to some people? What was the benefit in doing what he did? :confused:
 
going direct to communication specialists for a vox pop would make sense for any broadcaster hoping to avoid the time and expense involved in editing the incoherent ramblings of joe public :rolleyes:

e2a I'm using the word ' broadcaster ' in a corporate sense rather than referring to an individual.....
 
Last edited:
What I don't really understand is why a journalist would, particularly , put their career at risk by doing something quite so stupid. Surely, he can't have believed that it wouldn't get flagged up. I've always got the impression that Snow and Co. see themselves as news broadcasting's honourable elite rather disdainful of the squalid machinations of the rest of the news media. Will John and Krishnan be happy about having their image so tarnished.

Perhaps, the Independent is still looking for an imaginative young journalist to fill the void left by the sad demise of johan Hari.

I'm a journalist but would never dream of pulling such a stunt. It's mind-blowingly unethical. Channel 4 should at least acknowledge that something went badly wrong. Pulling the video and stuff is not a good look for any news organisation.
 
Maybe this kind of thing is OK with sports and music reporting? Channel 4 News have him as a "sports reporter".

Just seems so naive and amateurish. Why not just go out for a few minutes and talk to some people? What was the benefit in doing what he did? :confused:
it does sound a bit like they just got the reporter on staff with links to brixton to go and do some interviews, and he's an inexperienced reporter out of his depth and trying to muddle through / get some publicity for those that had helped him.

I hope he doesn't get sacked for this, it'd be pretty harsh seeing as he was operating outside his main area of work, but he deserves a proper bollocking.
 
it does sound a bit like they just got the reporter on staff with links to brixton to go and do some interviews, and he's an inexperienced reporter out of his depth and trying to muddle through / get some publicity for those that had helped him.

I hope he doesn't get sacked for this, it'd be pretty harsh seeing as he was operating outside his main area of work, but he deserves a proper bollocking.
being sacked is getting a proper bollocking
 
Surprisingly hard.

Most people refuse to go on the record.

Those that do are usually mad.

(I'm not defending this guy, just sharing my experience of doing innumerable vox pops in city centres)


I remember hearing a report on the radio in the summer about the problems of aggressive behaviour by seagulls on beaches. One of the respondents to the vox-pop was willing to talk about the problems she had faced, but preferred not to give her name. Still perhaps one shouldn't sneer at the risks posed by gangs seagulls seeking revenge
 
Back
Top Bottom