Polite discussion not rigorous debate in 'Who do we believe?' in 'Afternoon with the Media' at Porlock arts and literary festival

Today's Adventures in Thought on a Bench reflects on my visit to the Porlock Arts Festival yesterday (Sunday 14th September, 2008) when I attended an 'Afternoon with the Media' featuring speakers Simon Hall, crime writer and BBC Crime Correspondent, and Roland White who writes for the Sunday Times. The subject under discussion was the media and 'Who do we believe?'

As it turned out, there was nothing really adventurous about the afternoon. The seats were comfortable chairs dotted around the local village hall.

The discussion, although entertaining, was rather in the manner of an after dinner speech instead of cutting edge debate.

However, the audience, who appeared mainly elderly, seemed to be gently satisfied with the afternoon's entertainment so the afternoon no doubt was a success.

I raised the question about the need to separate opinion from factual reporting in mass media. My fear was that many readers confuse opinion with fact. A statement that a politician is 'useless' can be taken by many readers to be true and persuasive in modifying or confirming their thinking without any evidence being provided. In my opinion, newspapers have agendas of their own and take advantage of this all too often to the detriment of sensible debate in Britain today.

What do you think? Should newspapers and other media be clearly required to state when they are giving an opinion or stating a fact? Is the standard of debate in Britain today 'fit for purpose' to meet the needs of our complex modern world? Is mass media debate just an irrelevant entertainment to raise a few chuckles appropriate to an after dinner speech?

Could Britain really become a better place with improved and more original thinking? The floor is yours. I look forward to your comments :-)

Bye for now

Rob Hopcott - online author who believes truth and debate are important