News coverage: a comparison

Apologies to my avid fans for not posting a blog yesterday. For the first time since I started this blog over two months ago I was unable to post a blog on a day I was at work for one simple reason - I was too busy! Can you believe it? For the first time in two months I was actually busy! And I have the cheek to complain about my job! My morning surgery actually finished at 12.45pm, then after a home visit I had lunch which finished at 1.30pm and straight onto my mid-term assessment from 2-4pm before my afternoon surgery which ended at 6pm, so as you can see, absolutely no time for the blog!

The mid-term assessment was quite funny actually. Prior to the actual assessment, my trainer had handed out forms to all the staff members of the practice asking for an evaluation of me. All the doctors and nurses gave me good evaluations, but the administrative staff all had one complaint, I didn't make the effort to speak to them. My trainer then went through all the administrative staff, their names and roles and I couldn't identify anyone, I knew a few names and a few faces but was unable to put them together - quite embarrassing!

The end of yet another surgery and that irate man from Monday has not returned, I can presume that his pain is getting better; I wonder if that will change his attitude in the future? Doubt it! One thing I've discovered is despite whatever I might say to my patients nothing changes their attitudes. I could spend hours calming them down or explaining the situation and whilst they may understand at the time, the moment something goes wrong I'm faced with the same problems, they don't seem to learn from past experiences.

I think, partly, this maybe down to their expectations of the NHS. It's easy to get an appointment with the GP, some may have to wait longer than others, but invariably, everyone can and will get seen. Therefore it's easy to behave in the same way, why change your actions if you can carry on doing the same things as before? Why follow advice from doctors when you know that should anything go wrong, you can always go back to your GP for more help? We are here to help regardless of what actions the patient takes. If they choose to improve their health then they can still see their GP's when things go wrong, and if they choose to ignore their health they can still see their GP.

There is no incentive. What if a 50 a day smoker was told that unless he tried to cut down on his smoking to prevent his lungs from giving up, he would not be seen by a doctor, would he then try harder to cut down? It's frustrating to see the same patients repeatedly simply because they refuse to help themselves. They have no reason to and therefore continue down the same path, leaving it to the NHS to pick up the pieces.

What's even more potentially worrying was a news report this morning about making cigarettes and alcohol available online from European countries at much cheaper prices. Thankfully, it has just been revealed that the EU has blocked low-duty alcohol online, which at least means the situation can't get even worse.

I actually had a rather ambitious plan for my blog today and have been conducting some research on the area for the past hour, but I don't know if it's going to work. For some time there has been quite extensive news coverage of Darfur, Sudan and the crises that have been developing in the area. I'm ashamed to say I know next to nothing about the conflict and so I thought I'd try an experiment. I looked at two British news websites and two American news websites and compare the coverage of the conflict. This way I get to find out about the crisis in Sudan and also compare the quality and nature of the coverage between the two countries. The websites I have used are the BBC News and Sky News websites for Britain and CNN and FOX news for America.

Starting with the BBC, they have a section dedicated to the Sudanese crisis which explores a range of issues about the conflict. To start with the best link is the Q&A site which concisely explains the situation in the nation. Infact the Q&A site neatly summarises the entire situation from the beginning in 1956 to the present day. The rest of the section describes views from various aspects of the conflict. All in all the news is well presented and seems to be balanced for both sides of the conflict.

Moving on to the Sky News website and although they do not have a dedicated section, a simple search for Darfur reveals over 30 links for news about the conflict. Most of the news seems to be about specific reports about the region with no discussion or viewpoints from leading experts which was evident on the BBC site. It appears very clinical, providing the news without opinion which at the end of the day is what news is all about, they should provide the information fairly allowing us to draw our own conclusions and opinions and the Sky News website seems to be good for that. However, sometimes reading the views of experts can help form our opinions, it's better to learn from people who are more knowledgeable about the situation than us and I can't seem to find any expert opinion on the website.

FOX news is the sister station to Sky News, both owned by Rupert Murdoch. The same search on the FOX news website reveals essentially the same results with a similar style of reporting. The CNN website is easily the worst, not one I would turn to if I needed some news. It's poorly presented and a search for Darfur shows loads of ad links before the actual news links lower down on the page. The actual coverage is again very similar to FOX and Sky News, as if they all work off the same template.

With this very crude method of research I have conducted this morning, it seems as if the BBC news website is the best place for good news reporting and also views from leading experts on the situation. Many of my links in my blogs have been from the BBC news website and I continue to use that as my main source of information on current affairs. The coverage seems to be fair on the other websites as well; it's just not as user-friendly as the BBC.

But what about the actual conflict itself. I now have a better understanding of the crises. For decades the Muslims in the north have fought for power against Christians in the south and it is still waiting to be resolved. In the meantime thousands of innocent people continue to lose their lives as the conflicts continue. Peace is hard to achieve because neither side can agree on anything and as usual the US is trying to establish peace with its own hidden agenda. As I type all this, it's all done with a feeling of 'been there, heard it all before' and there is nothing surprising about it all.

I have become so indifferent to these conflicts that it doesn't surprise me anymore. I have to force myself to think about what the conflict means. Actual people are dying, poverty is spreading and the whole situation is very serious and yet I'm left with a feeling of apathy. I should be ashamed of myself, but I'm not. Why is this? I have become so used to these news that my feelings have become deadened towards it. It just yet another crisis in a world of crises and I know I'm not the only one who feels like that! What can we do? I find myself going over the same thing again, previously it was about Iraq this time it's about Sudan, what can we do? I'm struggling to find an answer.

In the meantime I'll continue trying to at least change my attitude, be more aware of these conflicts so that I can talk to others about it, be better informed about it, I think at the very least it is my duty to be aware of what is going on around the world. Recognising the situation can perhaps lead to doing a little bit to help the situation. We'll have to wait and see.

Take care all,
Thoughts just flow, when do they have to make sense?