BethMellor’s Weblog

In the media, speed is everything. ‘Get the story, and get it first’ is what reporters are paid to do.

But, according to Charles S. Feldman and Howard Rosenberg, the speed of news delivery and the 24-hour news cycle has now become dangerously fast. Their new book, No Time To Think, argues that there is:

 “an insidious and increasing portion of the news media that, due to the dangerously extreme speed at which it is produced, is only half thought out, half true, and lazily repeated from anonymous sources interested in selling opinion and wild speculation as news.”

Mr. Feldman argued on Radio 4 this morning that the increasing speed of news delivery has also had an impact upon government leaders. There is so much media pressure to move the news agenda forwards that not only the public but also key decision-makers don’t have enough time to think about the gravity and consequences of events.

 If the Cuban missile crisis had happened today, he said, we may not have had the same outcome.

This increasing speed of news delivery – and the consequences of inaccurate and unreflective journalism – completely undermines the valuable role that the media play in society.

It seems to me that we have now come to a breaking point where news is practically instantaneous. Now, media providers need to concentrate not on skimming another second off their news delivery times, but on ensuring that the product they deliver has integrity. As with internet journalism; anyone can set up a news website or a blog, but it is the ones which are accurate and reliable which will – in the end – win out.

There’s a great excerpt from the book here.

Barack Obama is “on track” to nominate Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, the BBC reported this morning, prompting criticism from a number of commentators.

Times Chief Foreign Commentator Bronwen Maddox, whose work I usually greatly admire, argues in this article that Obama should not appoint Clinton as Secretary of State.

Ms. Maddox admits that Clinton’s experience – particularly her foreign policy experience – mean that she would do a good job as Secretary of State. Moreover, she says that the appointment of Clinton would appease both women and the white working-class voters who backed her, and goes as far as to say that Obama “will need those who wanted Mrs. Clinton.”

However, she believes that Clinton and Obama would not be able to work productively together. She writes: “She wouldn’t flatter him; she wouldn’t really defer to him; she might challenge him.”

But should it be the job of the Secretary of State merely to “flatter” and “defer” to the President?
The best political decisions are reached with the input of competent advisors who are not afraid to question and challenge, rather than from an administration full of yes men. Obama, to his credit, seems to recognize this.

Further criticism of Clinton comes from Gerard Baker in this article. Mr. Baker, like Ms. Maddox, concedes that Clinton is the best-qualified candidate for the job. But he criticizes Clinton for her “unrivalled knack for making politics into very personal theatre.”

This may be the case. But Mr. Baker should recognize that this is in part driven by the media: turning politics into theatre is exactly what his article achieves.