Poor standards of journalism - RTE and others

Del.Monte wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how major incidents are treated by the media but one would expect the National broadcaster to deal with things properly. Today, the story of the cruise ship off Norway leaves the listener hanging on wondering what the current situation is. We are told some people taken off by helicopter, the storm has abated and then there's a pointless soundbyte from some Norwegian expert who says some passengers suffering mental trauma.

Has the ship sunk? Have the engines been restarted? Will the rest of the passengers be taken off by helicopter? This sort of nonsense reporting is becoming more and more the norm - a logical follow up I suppose to the trite reports from various tragedies involving fires, car accidents etc. where the reporter asks "and how do local people feel about the deaths" - well, they are obviously overjoyed. :rolleyes:

Honestly, such examples of awful writing ought to have been beaten out of aspiring journalists in the College Newspaper phase of their careers.

Of course, the quality of writing (or, broadcasting) varies enormously between journalists. I find Barry Lenihan (RTE Drivetime) to be particularly concise and precise in his language. He is almost as exact in his language as Philip Boucher Hayes, whose work (whatever you think of the man personally) is far ahead of that of any of his peers at the Station.

Another person who deserves to be commended as a broadcaster with a wonderful grasp of language, meaning, and style (forgive my Oxford comma) is Sean Rocks (RTE Arena).

Rasberry awards for muddled and incoherent reporting, in this caller's opinion, go to Suzanne Campbell (Drivetime), Evelyn O'Rourke (Today SOR), and the winner of the Joe Duffy Pepetual Cup for the Absence of Style, Mr. Joseph Duffy (Liveline)

tretorn wrote: »

I cant listen to Boucher Hayes at all, his drawling speech makes me want to lie down.

I quite like him, but I do see where you're coming from.

In any case, I'm only referring to his diligence in preparing his reports. You may not want to sit beside him on an airplane, but I don't think any of us can accuse his work of being incoherent, or lacking in clarity -- a vice that is characteristic of far too many journalists attached to the National Broadcaster.

I wonder whether RTE even examines the grammatical skills of its prospective jounalists. It would be interesting to conduct a survey of individuals broadcasting at the station - in whatever capacity - to discover how many of them can complete basic tasks like identifying the subject or the predicate of a sentence, or identifying a subordinate clause, and so on. The sort of basic knowledge you would expect from a primary school child.

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Joe’s style is perfect for the show he has.

I always think his ability is highlighted in his absence - PBH is I’m sure a lovely fella and his more formal style works for Drivetime, but whenever he fills in on Liveline I think Joe’s “c’mere to me” gossipy chat approach is what the show really thrives on

Liveline is certainly compelling, and its host is very adept at drawing-out some of the craziest statements and wild notions uttered across any broadcast media.

But I think what the OP is referring to is a very fundamental journalistic skill - to impart as much information as clearly as possible, without placing obstacles in front of your listener. It sounds like the simplest thing in the world to do, but so many journalists seem to struggle with it.

You're quite correct to point out that Liveline is a different kind of beast to The News At One, for example. I just mention Duffy's show since it is the ne plus ultra of rambling, barely-coherent radio !

And I'm not one of those grammar nazis, by the way. We all make clangers when writing informally, but if you're getting paid to impart information as a broadcast journalist, you should really be able to do so clearly and competently.