NUJ  Reporters have generally been careful to stress that there’s no scientific basis for people’s worst fears – but that hasn’t stopped some angry abuse for the journalists.

By Paul Breeden,
Chair, Bristol NUJ


How should journalists cover conspiracy theories? That’s never been so much of a burning question as it is now. The Covid-19 crisis has brought not just the usual suspects out of the woodwork – the 9/11 deniers, the world government theorists and the lizard-ruler fantasists – but those who are genuinely worried that the new virus is something other than a natural event.5G: Real, but probably misguided, health fears have become conflated with scientific nonsense linking the technology with the Covid pandemic.

It’s not surprising when something as devastating as the coronavirus occurs, causing death and economic meltdown the world over, that some people don’t accept at face value the explanations they’re being given. The truth is often nuanced, and conspiracy theories give a simple answer.

What’s a journalist to do? My abiding belief has been that it’s our job to explain all the arguments to people so that they can make up their own minds. What, though, when the evidence is overwhelmingly on one side – as with climate change? It seems wrong to present a ‘balanced’ debate for and against human-induced global warming when 97% of the best qualified experts assert that, yup, it’s happening, and we’re to blame.

The same would seem to apply to the current crop of campaigners who assert that Covid 19 is somehow connected the rollout of 5G telecoms networks.

Continue reading @ NUJ

Covid Conspiracy Theories – What’s A Journalist To Do?

NUJ  Reporters have generally been careful to stress that there’s no scientific basis for people’s worst fears – but that hasn’t stopped some angry abuse for the journalists.

By Paul Breeden,
Chair, Bristol NUJ


How should journalists cover conspiracy theories? That’s never been so much of a burning question as it is now. The Covid-19 crisis has brought not just the usual suspects out of the woodwork – the 9/11 deniers, the world government theorists and the lizard-ruler fantasists – but those who are genuinely worried that the new virus is something other than a natural event.5G: Real, but probably misguided, health fears have become conflated with scientific nonsense linking the technology with the Covid pandemic.

It’s not surprising when something as devastating as the coronavirus occurs, causing death and economic meltdown the world over, that some people don’t accept at face value the explanations they’re being given. The truth is often nuanced, and conspiracy theories give a simple answer.

What’s a journalist to do? My abiding belief has been that it’s our job to explain all the arguments to people so that they can make up their own minds. What, though, when the evidence is overwhelmingly on one side – as with climate change? It seems wrong to present a ‘balanced’ debate for and against human-induced global warming when 97% of the best qualified experts assert that, yup, it’s happening, and we’re to blame.

The same would seem to apply to the current crop of campaigners who assert that Covid 19 is somehow connected the rollout of 5G telecoms networks.

Continue reading @ NUJ

1 comment:

  1. This topic is very interesting right now and needs to be discussed in the context in which it grows and that is the lack of a free media and the impact that has right down through all media.

    The lack of public debate on mainstream outlets around the top issues which attract conspiracy theory simply serves to grow the mystery.

    Rather than applying a forum to every topic just take the top 5 of the day and give it a fair hearing in the public interest. Indeed if all topics classified as conspiracy are so, then it is definitely in the public interest to put them to bed. We have seen the affects social media had here early in the covid outbreak over WhatsApp and the government sought to encourage people to seek news from trusted sources.

    But mainstream isn't exactly worthy of blind trust as its definitely not impartial which feeds into the rise of alternative media. Many fringe political groups can only get there message across on such platforms yet then warn against them as a source of information.

    The consumer of alternative media must provide their own filters, don't take at face value, verify further, look for documentary evidence etc. Once this is applied the message within can be heeded to a degree.

    The only true arbitrator of a topic can be the public. If a topic has scientific, political, lawful merit then surely it can be presented unbiased to a public. Who currently gets to deem topics worthy of mainstream and on what merit?

    There is no freedom without a free media only a sliding scale towards a much abused word at the moment fascism and a fascist state. Nothing here hits the news unless it's deemed fit for government narrative.

    If we are to accept the damage conspiracy theories are capable of then surely there is a responsibility to show on their merit in a transparent way.

    In terms of current affairs let's be specific. How is it acceptable that No public enquiry will be permitted into the care home deaths this year. How is it acceptable that a doctor who was on the irish medical Council in March, appointed by Simon Harris who resigns in protest at policy is by June a conspiracy theorist?

    This doctor has put his reputation on the line and indeed probably in the bin by having ethics.

    He may be wrong, he could be right. But just like with Garda McCabe previously, no one wants uneasy conversations least of all government. Surely we can hear this information.

    I cannot accept every topic that goes in the tin foil hat skip because there is strong evidence in some cases.

    It must start with a free media because I agree unchecked alternative media can be corrosive but so to can unchallenged mainstream narratives.

    We only need to look at the mainstream narrative of the conflict here to know there are other versions of the narrative and that state actors are hardly wholesome.

    ReplyDelete