danieldwilliam: (Default)
danieldwilliam ([personal profile] danieldwilliam) wrote2013-02-22 12:49 pm

On Reeva Steenkamp, or More Accurately Oscar Pistorius

I’m sad that Reeva Steenkamp is dead. Just as I’m sad that anyone dies before about their 80th birthday. It’s perhaps a little sadder that she has either been the victim of a tragic accident or a premeditated murder. However, I’d never heard of her before she was killed.  Lots of people will die before they reach their 80th birthday.  Since the shootings in Sandy Hook thousands of USians’ have met premature ends involving a gun.  Pretty much every day since Reeva Steenkamp died there have been bombings in East Asia killing dozens of men, women and children.

So why is Oscar Pistorius on the BBC News every evening? Why are the details of the potentially pending criminal charges against the main detective on the BBC News two nights in a row?

I get that the shooting of a somewhat well-known person by a very well-known person is news. It’s not as if we discuss violence against women (or children) enough.(1) Except as entertainment. But the current coverage is beginning to verge on soap opera. It’s certainly not an attempt to shift the public conscience on a serious social problem.

The on-going coverage tells me nothing I need to know to go about my daily business. A news worthy event has occurred. Nothing about it affects me in the future. Time to stop talking about it until something actually happens.

Nor is it I think a collective act of mourning such as we saw after the death of Princess Diana. This feels like we are revelling in the entertainment of watching one family grieve for their daughter and in the grief and shame or cold-blooded guilt of a moderately well-known runner.

In a foreign country.

About a hundred women in the UK are murdered by their partners or former partners every year. (2) That’s about two a week. Two since Reeva Steenkamp might or might not have been murdered.  If the BBC are going to start reporting domestic murders continuously  I’d much, much rather they reported the on-going deaths of woman after woman in a way that made us look at the underlying issues in gender relations and masculinity that probably lie as a causal factor in the murders of a dozen human beings a month.  So we might start to do something about it. Instead of snacking down on some popcorn watching one life end and another disintegrate one way or the other.


(1) if indeed this was a violent act against a woman. If Pistorius’ version of events is true then, in his mind, he committed an act of violence against an unknown intruder, probably male.

(2) 100 or so out of approximately 600 murders annually. Most murders are of children under 1.  This compares to just under 2,000 road traffic fatalities a year in the UK with several hundred thousand people slightly injured.

[identity profile] f4f3.livejournal.com 2013-02-22 06:08 pm (UTC)(link)
This falls into the category, for me, of "Nobody makes me read the damn papers". There are a whole lot of things that I won't read, or listen to, or watch on TV. I will not read anything to do with the Royals. Any royals. I switched the TV off if it showed Margaret Thatcher. There are whole swathes of the media I won't buy, or even take if given for nothing (I'm looking at you, News International).

The whole Reeva Steenkamp killing has smelled of nothing but wrong since it came to light. The first thing I heard about it was a radio piece about how much middle class South Africa worried about "intruders". I thought, "Someone is spinning this story pretty hard" and turned from Radio 4 to Radio Scotland.

I know it sounds pretty childish to say "Ignore it and it will go away", since it won't go away for everyone. But it will go away for me.

[identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com 2013-02-22 08:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Well yep. I can ignore it.

It's still taking up space on a public broadcaster that a) I pay for b) is widely seen as the news service of record, c) is probably is the definitive public news service in the works d) informs or defines the public debate.

Whilst I can ignore what they say I can't say as well or as widely what they have left unsaid.

[identity profile] f4f3.livejournal.com 2013-02-22 09:46 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree with you that the news agenda is out of whack, but you and I don't get to set it because we pay a licence fee. If I did, then there would be no coverage of the royal bump, or of anything that happens inside the M25, or of cricket.
I don't expect this to be in the news every night for however long it takes to try him. I do expect to have to turn over to avoid the bump, the Westminster village, and finding out what silly mid on is.
I might turn over to BBC Alba, which is following the Glasgow v Ulster rugby with a look at Scotland in 1974 (or maybe 76 - velour stayed in fashion for a long time).

[identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com 2013-02-22 10:24 pm (UTC)(link)
The BBC is a Trust and I, we are beneficiaries and part of the purpose of the Trust is providing a high quality public broadcast news service.

How is a high quality service to be defined if you don't reference the requirements of the beneficiaries?

[identity profile] f4f3.livejournal.com 2013-02-22 10:36 pm (UTC)(link)
How would you reference the requirements of the beneficiaries? Numerically? Is it enough to have Horizon on BBC4, and Newsnight on BBC2, or do all news programmes have to adhere to your (or my) definitions of quality?

[identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com 2013-02-25 09:48 am (UTC)(link)
I’d use some form of participative democracy – probably involving citizens’ juries – to explore the various dimensions of quality.

I don’t think all news programmes have to adhere to a common standard. In fact I think a common standard would be a wasted opportunity. Although I think for the BBC some elements of quality are absolutely required by all news streams. They should all be accurate. They should all be impartial – or where information asymmetry makes impartiality difficult they should wear this issue openly. They should all have good standards of technical production.

People will have different interests and different desires for depth and style of coverage.

I think the main news bulletins on BBC 1 are in a unique position in relation to the BBC and the rest of the news media in the UK, perhaps the world.

[identity profile] rhythmaning.livejournal.com 2013-02-23 01:39 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm with you on this, not least because it was only a bail hearing!

I think part of the problem with Oscar is that, under the South African legal system, so many details are reported, making it easier to broadcast "juicy" (salacious) details without recrimination.

But frankly the BBC - particularly 5Live - have been going way overboard.

Personally, I retune to Radio3 or 6Music. The benefit of eclectic tastes!