Sir, - Much has been written and said lately about television and radio programmes, mostly accusing them of misleading and manipulating viewers and listeners. I must confess that I too have been somewhat naive about this. For long enough I listened to those popular gardening shows during which experts answer questions about gardening from a panel. It was only, when one day I sat in the audience of such a show, that I realised that these clever panelists knew the questions to be asked well in advance of the broadcast.
They were not answering "off the cuff", but had done their homework. In some small way I suddenly realised that, although they were indeed "experts", they were not the possessors of such encyclopaedic knowledge as I had thought. Of course such programmes are entertainment and I still enjoy them, but with rather less awe.
Long ago, when I was asked by both radio and television to appear as either a member of a panel to answer questions from a studio audience, or to sit in an audience, I well remember the producers or researchers who telephoned me (well in advance) to quiz me about my views on the subjects to be tackled. How I and other such participants had been chosen to be "researched" remained a secret.
I do remember that in two cases, discussing the pros and cons of nuclear weapons, I seemed to be very much alone in my view that we needed such terrible weapons, just in case some rogue dictator in charge of a country decided to lob a nuclear armed rocket at us. I got a lot of stick from other people present on those shows. It seemed to me that the participants had been carefully selected, so that a bias against nuclear weapons would become apparent - and be promoted as "informed public opinion" - when it was no such thing. We have retained nuclear weapons despite the huge Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament lobby, thank goodness.
It would seem therefore that such programmes are designed to promote the opinions of the programme makers, rather than taking a fair and overall view of "public opinion".
Recently other popular programmes have been shown to be well rigged in favour of one subject or another, and entertaining programmes featuring quick-witted people have been in fact scripted in advance (ad-libs were not so unexpected after all).
Which leaves us with the question, what can we believe when watching or listening to the media? How much is genuine or trickery? How many quiz shows are really what they claim to be. Or are most of them simply rigged "entertainment"?
In my mind some bubbles have been burst, and I watch (and read and listen to) the media with some cynicism that was not in my mind before. Pity. Some heroes of the media are shown to be fakes. That they can earn huge salaries by being manipulative con-artists simply rubs salt into my wounds. I really ought to have known better!
It seems that the Christian Church across our nation has much to do to teach the people that honesty still remains the best policy, and to remind everyone that fakery and trickery always brings tears in the end.-Yours, etc., (Rev) Desmond Mock,
Marguerite Crescent, Newcastle, Co Down.