Anatomy of unedifying reporting

Anatomy of unedifying reporting

The scary experience of Lord McAlpine (convicted via Trial by Twitter of child rape some 20-odd years ago) will have shocked all reasonable people and has also rightly prompted columnists among the better papers to cast a beady eye over the business of citizen journalism.

But a sense of perspective is called for here. Firstly, however nauseating you might find the inane proclamations of Sally Bercow the need for some sort of regulation – or at least a sense of publishing accountability – is a task akin to policing the western frontier of 19th century America. But it has also served to take the spotlight temporarily off the BBC and the disappointingly inconsistent journalistic standards of its press staffers who ought to know better (e.g. Newsnight).

Whichever new apparatchik is anointed to the role of DG and the prickly job of sorting out the newsroom, however, must also challenge the less mortal sin of broadcasting meaningless crap that panders to the Beeb’s pervading lefty and nannying news ethos. Easily one of the most egregious examples of this is health reporting. Anybody of moderate intelligence will shudder at hearing the words, “A new study has shown that…”

An arch case in point is a BBC news report last weekend on women’s’ alcohol consumption during pregnancy. The two-and-a-half minute report was rendered utterly meaningless. The ultimate refuge of pisspoor journalism is the over-use of the conditional and the comparative.

So, our groundbreaking item that qualifies as primetime news from the world’s best broadcaster (sic.) commences, “Pregnant women who drink as little as one glass of wine a week COULD run the risk of lowering their child’s IQ.” So that’s our arses covered there.

Then our earnest-sounding newshound proclaims…
“The advice on drinking during pregnancy has shifted. A few years ago it was no more than a small glass of wine a day; then it changed to no more than one or two drinks a week. Now a new report says even that MIGHT pose risks.”
So who asks :
1. Who conducted this report?
2. What are their credentials?
3. Who conducted the original report and how was it flawed?
4. What brought about the original report and what led to its findings having been questioned in the first place?
5. Were two separate entities involved in the two reports? If so how do their expertise and levels of experience differ? If not, why is the same body conducting a second report when their methodology was proven unsafe in conducting the original survey?

Then…
[cue VT of silver fox male medical professional type…]
“We’ve got good evidence that moderate drinking during pregnancy CAN be harmful during pregnancy and is best avoided.” More arse-covering.

Next…
[run VT of busy crèche full of mums and toddlers]
Giving women the right advice on drinking during pregnancy has proved difficult. Most people would accept that drinking heavily is not good for the developing baby but evidence of the effects of moderate drinking has been patchy. So what are the details of this report…?

Well the study looked at more than 4000 mothers and children and SOME of those mothers were found to be genetically less able to process alcohol in their bodies. Now the children of the mothers in this group who drank AS LITTLE AS, say, one or two glasses of wine per week scored SLIGHTLY lower on IQ tests than the children of mothers who didn’t drink anything at all.

“I was surprised at the level of damage that you can do just by drinking a small amount throughout the pregnancy.” SOME… AS LITTLE AS… SLIGHTLY

Then the reporter continues…
“The department of health in England says it will always take note of new evidence so this report means that the current advice to women COULD change again. But SOME doctors say that women shouldn’t worry TOO much over an OCCASIONAL drink.” COULD… SOME doctors… SHOULDN’T WORRY TOO MUCH… OCCASIONAL…

As we feel the life being sucked out of our marrow, we get this…

[run VT of silverback (dyed blond) female medical professional with trustworthy northern accent]
“From now on, be a bit careful about how much alcohol you take. But if you have had a drink, please, please do not worry that you have harmed your child.” Oh so that’s alright then; can we ignore what we just heard?

Finally, the crowning turd in the waterpipe is down to our man with the mic…

“This research seems to show that in SOME families, moderate consumption of alcohol CAN make a SMALL difference in intelligence tests in children. But lots of different factors influence a child’s development. What mums want and need is some clear advice.” And not a note of irony in any way, shape or form, dear viewer and licence-payer.
More upsetting than pisspoor journalism, though, is pisspoor news management. This is not down to just the reporter.

This non-story had no business being reported, let alone being aired. This is down to the editor.