Bloggers on television

Those who were particularly sharp eyed will have seen this post - briefly - when I posted it a day or two ago before I pulled it for further editing. I have not really had the time to give it the further editing, but have received a comment from one of the sharp eyed about some of the advice it gave being helpful. So, in the spirit of offering something of help to others, I am putting it back up again now with one or two subsequent additions.

It has been interesting to notice that two Catholics appearing on television programmes have recently appeared with the straplines "Catholic bloggers". Being a blogger has become part of an identity group. I am thinking of James Preece and Joanna Bogle. And this post prompts thoughts on whether blogworthiness has now become newsworthiness.

One must give all due credit to those who agree to appear on television (or radio) to defend Pope Benedict XVI, and the teaching of the Church. It takes very considerable courage and nerve, so congratulations to them.

There is something in the view that those employed as media professionals by the Church - or, indeed, bishops themselves - should be willing to do this. In some situations this is probably true; but the hostility of the environment of a particular programme or interview can also lead to a legitimate judgement that that is not an environment in which the Church's view can be fairly or effectively communicated and so a declining of the invitation. There can be quite careful judgements to be made.

Looking at the number of comments attracted by James Preece's post linked above, I am reminded of the sheer power of television as a medium for getting a message into peoples lives. I am also reminded that a television appearance demands very different skills than posting to a blog. Only in the rarest situations is a television appearance an opportunity to present a reasoned, argued case. It is much more about "coming over well" and creating an "impression". Integrity demands that this is not done in a dishonest way; but, nevertheless, the exercise is not one of presenting a complete intellectual argument. In the jargon, it is about getting the sound bites correct.

In the past, partly through my trade union background but also from other sources, I have had the benefit of some training for news media. Herewith some thoughts:

1. It is always much more effective to present a positive case of your own rather than to be responding to an attack from the "other side". So you do not have to answer a point that is put to you in an interview - it can be much better to instead make a positive point of your own instead.

2. Decide what you want to say before you appear, and, write yourself a little script beforehand. A series of short, coherent points is what is needed - sound bites. I am inclined to use cards, one card for each point. And, see point 1, make them positive points. There might be some predictable points you can prepare because you know they are likely to come up, too; it is perhaps more important than ever to have a pre-prepared script for these. But try to make it positive, not a "reaction" answer.

3. And perhaps think of your appearance as an opportunity for evangelisation. Not to be forced unrealistically onto the interview/programme - that would be utterly counter-productive, but there might be a cue to allow a little sound bite of "primary proclamation".

4. Do not let yourself be forced to say something that you do not want to say. If in doubt, keep silent - silence is the interviewers problem, not yours, particularly in a one-to-one situation. Or, just pick one of your positive points and respond with that instead.

5. Remember, your reason for being there, as is true of everyone else who is appearing alongside you, even if they do not admit it, is NOT to answer questions that you might be asked. It is to communicate the message that you want to get over ...

So, Pope Benedict XVI is not a liability because:


how many people, predominantly young people, attended the closing Mass of the World Youth Day in Cologne in 2005? 1.2 million

what was the title of Pope Benedict's first encyclical letter? "God is Love". And let me read you a sentence or two of it (as I post this, I had reason to re-read a couple of paragraphs last night, and it really is quite something!)

As far as homosexuality is concerned? What do we mean by love? It's wanting the best thing for the other person, and what Pope Benedict is saying is that this is more than just what we might want to do, or are attracted towards (applies just as much to those who identify themselves as straight as to those who identify themselves as gay).

As far as others being "hurt" by Pope Benedict's teaching? The Church calls everyone to conversion, to change of life so as to be more like Christ. Everyone, not just those who identify themselves as gay - and it is uncomfortable and challenging, and affects different people in different areas of their lives. But we would expect Pope Benedict to offer that challenge to conversion.

Grass roots Catholics do not agree with the Pope? Well, many ordinary Catholics do agree with him - cf the numbers at World Youth Day, etc.

Which country is the first carbon neutral country in the world? Vatican City State (according to BBC radio news coverage this morning of Prince Charles visit to Pope Benedict)

ITN news presenter Julie Etchingham

The Bishops Conference of England and Wales website carries a news release about an awards ceremony for the diocesan media officers who went to Sydney for World Youth Day. The awards were presented by Julie Etchingham, a presenter of ITN's News at Ten. The most interesting part of the release is the part that refers to Julie Etchingham's own experience:

Ms Etchingham felt a particular affinity with the young Communications Officers because she had been invited by her bishop 17 years earlier to serve as a Media Officer at World Youth Day in Czestochowa for her home diocese of Nottingham:
“It was a very far cry from all the amazing kit that is available to you. I simply kept a written diary as we were trudging through fields and making our way through Eastern Europe on a bus, across cobbled motorways. We didn’t have Facebook; we didn’t have Bebo, we weren’t communicating on mobile phones. It was out of the ark when I was there.

“That WYD was a very special one – it was in Pope John Paul II’s home country and it was a big homecoming for him and it was just after the Berlin Wall had come down so a very visual barrier had been removed in terms of communication. There was an extraordinary spirit at the time of young people wanting to get to know each other from across that very concrete divide.

The experience helped affirm her desire to pursue journalism as a career: “I think as a Catholic it can be quite a noble profession. In its best moments, it speaks rofoundly human being to human being about the truth of the world that we live in, the challenges that we all face, it allows us to be a witness. And it is a very privileged position to be in, to witness some of the dreadful things in life, but to communicate them compassionately and also to witness some of the glorious things in life and make sure that we provide a window on the world and with all these extraordinary facilities that you all have now…it is something to be embraced.”

A "journey of sexual discovery" and shame

I have read the Telegraph today instead of the Times, and two items caught my attention.

Under the headline "Channel 4 teen sex series in morning", the newspaper reports on a sex education series to be broadcast by Channel 4 in November. Searching the schedules of Channel 4 Learning, this is going to be a series of short 5-10 minute programmes intended for use in PSHE teaching programmes in schools. The show is entitled KNTV Sex, and I believe it has/is being produced for Channel 4 Learning by a company called Tern TV.

Two things struck me about the Telegraph report and the (limited) information I could see about the programmes in a web search. One is the un-real nature of the presentation -cartoon figures Kierky and Nietsche (drawn from an earlier Tern TV series on philosophy - get it?) set in a fictional "last remaining communist state" of Slabovia, comedy footage from television shows. It looks as if human sexuality will be treated as a bit of a joke, communicating a certain gap between the messages the programme series is trying to get over and consequences in the real lives of young people.

The second is the description of the series as a "journey of sexual discovery" (quotation marks in the Telegraph report, so, presuming the professionalism of the journalist concerned, taken verbatim from Channel 4 or Tern TV's own blurb/news release - though I couldn't find anything directly to check this out), and the statement that the series will discuss different ways of having sex, bisexuality and "coming out". In other words, an intention, not just to communicate information and then leave young people to make up their own minds, but to develop and form a particular immoral view of sexual activity. I use the word "immoral" advisedly - the reporting of the programme gives no indication that there is any right or wrong at stake ... And given the participation of THT and SEF in preparing the materials, we aren't surprised.

In the comment section of the paper, Liz Hunt has a short piece entitled "Have we no shame?" The photo accompanying the piece illustrates precisely what shame (in the good sense) is not: it is not humiliation, and definitely not public humiliation. Liz Hunt's context is not that of human sexuality, but rather of situations where celebrities have found themselves undertaking community service orders for offences. One of the chapters of Pope John Paul II's book Love and Responsibility that I have always found very striking is that entitled "The Metaphysics of Shame". There is a perfectly correct and healthy way in which we should be ashamed - as a judgement of conscience when we do something wrong - and have a preference that what we have done does not become public knowledge. The seal of the confessional has always occured to me as a way of respecting this legitimate character of shame after sin. On the other hand, shame does have a public character in the sense that what is seen by society as shameful and to be frowned upon acts as an incentive towards moral behaviour, towards behaviour that will not lead to an experience of shame. [Aside: imagine how smokers feel these days!]

Now, have Channel 4 and Tern TV and their collaborators lost their sense of shame?