- Mark Coyle
- 25 Apr 08, 04:08 PM
It's always a sobering experience for journalists to hear in no uncertain terms from their readers, viewers or listeners.
Our coverage of the planned two-day strike by has prompted quite polarised points of view on our pages.
Many writers have expressed support for the workers whilst others reckon the action is a throwback to the "bad old days" of 1970s industrial unrest.
A third strand of the argument has emerged, one where we, the media, are being accused of fuelling the "petrol panic-buying" fire.
Here are two such comments from our Have Your Say:
"The panic buying is caused by the media. If they kept quiet, the chaos at the pumps would not be as intense. Ian Drysdale, Cumnock."
"Tell people there is a crisis with no real thought to how the message is put out and there will be a crisis. Mark Mitchell, Glasgow."
But should we ignore the fact that queues have formed at some petrol stations and that some have imposed rations on motorists?
The expressions "damned if we do, damned if we don't" and "chicken and egg" spring to mind.
It's difficult to imagine how we could report properly on this story without at the same time trying to predict the consequences of the refinery being out of action on people the length and breadth of Scotland.
That said, we've been trying hard to avoid the phrase "panic-buying" on the أغر؟´«أ½ News website unless we're quoting its use by an interviewee. I must admit though that it has cropped up in places.
Human nature being what it is, even the most selective use of words would not entirely prevent some people from wanting to keep the needle on their fuel gauges right on maximum.
Mark Coyle is أغر؟´«أ½ Scotland's continuous news editor
- Alistair Burnett
- 25 Apr 08, 10:35 AM
The World Tonight - in common with other parts of أغر؟´«أ½ News - has given extensive coverage to events in where, a month after the presidential election, results have still not been released and it is unclear whether President Mugabe will stay in power.
Given Mr Mugabe's prominence as an independence leader and the catastrophic nature of his country's economic decline in recent years that has led to an inflation rate of 100,000%, an unemployment rate estimated to be 80%, and millions of people leaving the country in search of work, the story merits coverage.
But we have been discussing at editorial meetings whether it merits quite as much as it's been given. Over the years, some listeners have accused us of doing too much on Zimbabwe at the expense of covering other countries which are in a worse state.
One such country is . So far this week at least 80 people have been killed in fighting there between Western-backed Ethiopian troops - who intervened in 2006 to support an interim government - and Islamist fighters. The UN says the recent upsurge in violence is making a humanitarian crisis more likely and has accused both sides of breaking international law. And yet Somalia has received relatively little coverage.
The أغر؟´«أ½ does cover Somalia - recently our correspondents, Mark Doyle and Rob Walker, have reported from there and the أغر؟´«أ½ African Service has reporters there. And on The World Tonight this week we have covered both stories - but we have given more airtime to Zimbabwe.
Why should that be?
Is it because Zimbabwe is a former British colony and most of Somalia was not? That is what some audience feedback tells us. I think that is one explanation - audiences in Britain are more familiar with Zimbabwe and may have historical links with the country and are more interested in what is happening there.
Is it because Somalia is a very dangerous place to report from? Many journalists, including from the أغر؟´«أ½, have been killed covering the country since it collapsed into anarchy in the early 1990s. This is certainly true, but in recent years the أغر؟´«أ½ has been restricted from reporting from Zimbabwe by the government, so the أغر؟´«أ½ has found it difficult to get correspondents' reports from that country as well.
Is it because Somalia has been in this state for the best part of 17 years, whereas Zimbabwe was until a few years ago a relatively stable and prosperous country? So the relative novelty of the what is happening in Zimbabwe could also help to explain the difference in the amount of coverage.
Many observers fear Zimbabwe is in danger of becoming a failed state. But Somalia is what those observers would say already is a failed state - maybe the most failed state in the world. It is also now home to pirates who menace shipping off the Horn of Africa; and Western governments, particularly the United States, regard the country as a source of international terrorism, so maybe the country deserves more attention than it has been receiving?
We will continue to report on both countries, but it would be interesting to know whether you think we are getting the balance right.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
The أغر؟´«أ½ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
