What happened? The newspaper reports. What could happen? The newspaper discusses. What should happen? The newspaper gets opinion.
What happened? The newspaper reports. What could happen? The newspaper discusses. What should happen? The newspaper gets opinion.
IT WAS something of a journalistic low point, while on holiday, to read Dr Brian Edward's negative critique of New Zealand's national paper, NZ Herald. He describes it as "tabloid trash" while conceding its high circulation and impressive rack of annual awards. Trash and good circulation go hand-in-hand, the mediapersonality argues.
Dr Edwards is entitled to his opinion, and I know that's a catchphrase every beleaguered editor throws up when they get a hit from the public.
Correctly judging the tastes and attitudes of the vast majority of readers will always engender hits and digs from an elitist minority, and yet, the former Fair Go presenter's comments affected me more than it should have done.
But his comments are useful because it forces newspapers to explore and reinforce their identity and their service to their readers, which can be quite unique depending on the locality you report on. There is also the situation that if an academic reads a newspaper with a critical eye he or she is bound to be disappointed.
I don't believe in messages about what is good or not good for you to read. Many of us got given the message as youngsters: don't read comic books. Yet many of us enjoy reading them today, either as a relaxing diversion or even a more significant read as graphic novels. It is a successful industry and who is to say it's wrong.
On holiday, as I unhappily digest Dr Edwards' column, I receive a text from my mother, telling me she had met someone who wanted to pass on her heartfelt thanks for the funeral coverage for her husband.
As I sit in a damp room above the City Arms pub in Oxford, I'm reminded of that other role of newspapers: service to a community. And that text saves me.
