Archive

Tag Archives: Guardian

The dynamic, in the selection for a successor, is very much the father figure – an ultimate, revered, unmodern father figure (no psychology allowed here) – picking from among his devoted children, primarily a close circle of women he has mentored for many years. If the Guardian itself were to write this story of the culture at the Guardian it would likely be quite a disapproving one about the patriarchal male exercising undue and manipulative control over the dependent women around him. That in itself presents a curious management bind. Given the Guardian’s high levels of correctness and self-consciousness, the expectation is that Rusbridger’s successor will be a woman. But the women at hand are all acolytes, who have spent most of their careers in devoted attendance to their boss, and hence lack independence or their own authority. In recent years, this circle of followers and potential successors has consisted of four women, each of whom has performed duties of factotum, office wife, deputy, alter ego, and keeper of the Rusbridger flame.

Michael Wolff gets his Guardian-trolling punches in early, with this rather nasty piece about the leading candidates to succeed Alan Rusbridger.

“The poisoned chalice: who will succeed Alan Rusbridger?”

As part of its UK Public Opinion Monitor research, which aims to track the UK public’s attitudes towards development, the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex recently released this 10-minute film pleading for better coverage by UK television of the developing world, and of issues related to poverty:

The film revisits arguments advanced over many years by the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT), One World Media (formerly the One World Broadcasting Trust), POLIS, and other civil society groups. [Five years ago, I wrote and researched IBT’s report, Reflecting the Real World 2, on how new media were impacting on UK TV’s coverage of the developing world.] These groups have consistently put forward the arguments – based on research they conduct and commission, and on interviews they conduct with senior decision-makers in the UK media – that coverage of the developing world by UK broadcast television is weak, and tends to focus on crisis, corruption, and conflict, in both news and other TV genres. They argue that this has serious implications both on how genuinely informed the UK public can be about large swathes of the wider world, and therefore on how constructive domestic public debate and opinion can be about why we give aid, to whom, and on what basis.

It’s encouraging that a serious institution like IDS is interested in addressing these issues. So why does the film itself leave me so disappointed – and what might they have done differently?

Read More