TODAY on Tony Blair and reactions to his comments on the media ...
HAS THE MEDIA FORGOTTEN ITS ROLE? (TODAY, Fri 15 Jun 07)
In a speech at the Reuters Institute on Wednesday, outgoing British Prime
Minister Tony Blair examined the changing relationship between politics
and the media. Below are excerpts:
THE media world is becoming more fragmented, more diverse and transformed
by technology. There are rolling 24-hour news programmes that cover events
as they unfold. Newspapers fight for a share of a shrinking market. Many
are now read on-line, not the next day. There are roughly 70 million
blogs in existence, with around 120,000 being created every day. In
particular, younger people will, less and less, get their news from
traditional outlets.
These changes are obvious. But less obvious is their effect.
The news schedule is now 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It moves in
real time. Papers don't give you up-to-date news. That's already out
there. They have to break stories, try to lead the schedules. Or they give
a commentary. And it all happens with outstanding speed. You have to
respond to stories also in real time.
Frequently, the problem is as much assembling the facts as giving them.
Make a mistake and you quickly transfer from drama into crisis. Things
harden within minutes.
I mean, you can't let speculation stay out there for longer than an
instant.
Impact before accuracy
I am going to say something that few people in public life will say, but
most know is absolutely true: A vast aspect of our jobs today … is coping
with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At
points, it literally overwhelms. We devote reams of space to debating why
there is so much cynicism about politics and public life. In this, the
politicians are obliged to go into self-flagellation, admitting it is all
our fault. Actually, not to have a proper press operation nowadays is like
asking a batsman to face bodyline bowling without pads or headgear.
My case, however, is: There's no point either in blaming the media. The
reality is that as a result of the changing context in which 21st Century
communications operates, the media is facing a hugely more intense form of
competition than anything they have ever experienced before. They are not
the masters of this change but its victims.
The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is
driven by "impact". Impact is what matters. It is all that can
distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed. Impact gives
competitive edge. Of course, the accuracy of a story counts. But it is
secondary to impact.
It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards,
driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it
should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.
Broadsheets today face the same pressures as tabloids; broadcasters
increasingly the same pressures as broadsheets. The audience needs to be
arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting
is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked.
The consequences of this are acute (see box).
1Scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is
rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.
2Attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgment. It is not
enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial.
What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct.
But misconduct is what has impact.
3The fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts
in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people
and reputations to bits. But no one dares miss out.
4the new technique is commentary on the news being as, if not more
important, than the news itself. So - for example - there will often be as
much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of
them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what
they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. This leads to the
incredibly frustrating pastime of expending a large amount of energy
rebutting claims about the significance of things said, that bears little
or no relation to what was intended.
5This, in turn, leads to the confusion of news and commentary. Comment is
a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be
separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is a
large part of the media today which not merely elides the two but does so
now as a matter of course. In other words, this is not exceptional. It is
routine.
The metaphor for this genre of modern journalism is the Independent
newspaper. Let me state at the outset it is a well-edited lively paper and
is absolutely entitled to print what it wants, how it wants, on the Middle
East or anything else. But it was started as an antidote to the idea of
journalism as views, not news. That was why it was called the Independent.
Today it is avowedly a viewspaper, not merely a newspaper.
The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find
balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and
white. Life's usual grey is almost entirely absent. "Some good, some bad";
"some things going right, some going wrong": these are concepts alien to
today's reporting. It's a triumph or a disaster. A problem is "a crisis".
A setback is a policy "in tatters". A criticism, "a savage attack".
IT IS BECOMING WORSE
It used to be thought - and I include myself in this - that help was on
the horizon.
New forms of communication would provide new outlets to bypass the
increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media. In fact, the new forms
can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest
conspiracy theory multiplied by five.
But here is also the opportunity. At present, we are all being dragged
down by the way media and public life interact. Trust in journalists is
not much above that in politicians. There is a market in providing
serious, balanced news. The way that people get their news may be
changing; but the thirst for the news being real news is not.
The media will fear any retreat from impact will mean diminishing sales.
But the opposite is the case. They need to reassert their own selling
point: The distinction between news and comment.
And there is inevitably change on its way. The regulatory framework at
some point will need revision. As the technology blurs the distinction
between papers and television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have
different systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can
be differentiated in the old way.
How this is done is an open question and, of course, the distinction
between balance required of broadcasters but not of papers remains valid.
But at some point the system is going to change and the importance of
accuracy will not diminish, while the freedom to comment remains.
It is sometimes said that the media is accountable daily through the
choice of readers and viewers. That is true up to a point. But the reality
is that the viewers or readers have no objective yardstick to measure what
they are being told.
I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now
damaged in a manner that requires repair. The damage saps the country's
confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its
institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right
decisions, in the right spirit for our future.
I've made this speech after much hesitation. I know it will be rubbished
in certain quarters. But I also know this has needed to be said.
.. OR HAS BLAIR OVERSTEPPED HIS? FINANCIAL TIMES THE DAILY MAIL THE
GUARDIAN THE DAILY TELEGRAPH THE INDEPENDENT
-----------------------------------------
In response to Mr Blair's comments, many British newspapers hit back at
the Prime Minister. Below are excerpts from yesterday's editions:
Minister Tony Blair examined the changing relationship between politics
and the media. Below are excerpts:
THE media world is becoming more fragmented, more diverse and transformed
by technology. There are rolling 24-hour news programmes that cover events
as they unfold. Newspapers fight for a share of a shrinking market. Many
are now read on-line, not the next day. There are roughly 70 million
blogs in existence, with around 120,000 being created every day. In
particular, younger people will, less and less, get their news from
traditional outlets.
These changes are obvious. But less obvious is their effect.
The news schedule is now 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It moves in
real time. Papers don't give you up-to-date news. That's already out
there. They have to break stories, try to lead the schedules. Or they give
a commentary. And it all happens with outstanding speed. You have to
respond to stories also in real time.
Frequently, the problem is as much assembling the facts as giving them.
Make a mistake and you quickly transfer from drama into crisis. Things
harden within minutes.
I mean, you can't let speculation stay out there for longer than an
instant.
Impact before accuracy
I am going to say something that few people in public life will say, but
most know is absolutely true: A vast aspect of our jobs today … is coping
with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At
points, it literally overwhelms. We devote reams of space to debating why
there is so much cynicism about politics and public life. In this, the
politicians are obliged to go into self-flagellation, admitting it is all
our fault. Actually, not to have a proper press operation nowadays is like
asking a batsman to face bodyline bowling without pads or headgear.
My case, however, is: There's no point either in blaming the media. The
reality is that as a result of the changing context in which 21st Century
communications operates, the media is facing a hugely more intense form of
competition than anything they have ever experienced before. They are not
the masters of this change but its victims.
The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is
driven by "impact". Impact is what matters. It is all that can
distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed. Impact gives
competitive edge. Of course, the accuracy of a story counts. But it is
secondary to impact.
It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards,
driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it
should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.
Broadsheets today face the same pressures as tabloids; broadcasters
increasingly the same pressures as broadsheets. The audience needs to be
arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting
is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked.
The consequences of this are acute (see box).
1Scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is
rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.
2Attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgment. It is not
enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial.
What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct.
But misconduct is what has impact.
3The fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts
in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people
and reputations to bits. But no one dares miss out.
4the new technique is commentary on the news being as, if not more
important, than the news itself. So - for example - there will often be as
much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of
them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what
they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. This leads to the
incredibly frustrating pastime of expending a large amount of energy
rebutting claims about the significance of things said, that bears little
or no relation to what was intended.
5This, in turn, leads to the confusion of news and commentary. Comment is
a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be
separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is a
large part of the media today which not merely elides the two but does so
now as a matter of course. In other words, this is not exceptional. It is
routine.
The metaphor for this genre of modern journalism is the Independent
newspaper. Let me state at the outset it is a well-edited lively paper and
is absolutely entitled to print what it wants, how it wants, on the Middle
East or anything else. But it was started as an antidote to the idea of
journalism as views, not news. That was why it was called the Independent.
Today it is avowedly a viewspaper, not merely a newspaper.
The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find
balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and
white. Life's usual grey is almost entirely absent. "Some good, some bad";
"some things going right, some going wrong": these are concepts alien to
today's reporting. It's a triumph or a disaster. A problem is "a crisis".
A setback is a policy "in tatters". A criticism, "a savage attack".
IT IS BECOMING WORSE
It used to be thought - and I include myself in this - that help was on
the horizon.
New forms of communication would provide new outlets to bypass the
increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media. In fact, the new forms
can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest
conspiracy theory multiplied by five.
But here is also the opportunity. At present, we are all being dragged
down by the way media and public life interact. Trust in journalists is
not much above that in politicians. There is a market in providing
serious, balanced news. The way that people get their news may be
changing; but the thirst for the news being real news is not.
The media will fear any retreat from impact will mean diminishing sales.
But the opposite is the case. They need to reassert their own selling
point: The distinction between news and comment.
And there is inevitably change on its way. The regulatory framework at
some point will need revision. As the technology blurs the distinction
between papers and television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have
different systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can
be differentiated in the old way.
How this is done is an open question and, of course, the distinction
between balance required of broadcasters but not of papers remains valid.
But at some point the system is going to change and the importance of
accuracy will not diminish, while the freedom to comment remains.
It is sometimes said that the media is accountable daily through the
choice of readers and viewers. That is true up to a point. But the reality
is that the viewers or readers have no objective yardstick to measure what
they are being told.
I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now
damaged in a manner that requires repair. The damage saps the country's
confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its
institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right
decisions, in the right spirit for our future.
I've made this speech after much hesitation. I know it will be rubbished
in certain quarters. But I also know this has needed to be said.
.. OR HAS BLAIR OVERSTEPPED HIS? FINANCIAL TIMES THE DAILY MAIL THE
GUARDIAN THE DAILY TELEGRAPH THE INDEPENDENT
-----------------------------------------
In response to Mr Blair's comments, many British newspapers hit back at
the Prime Minister. Below are excerpts from yesterday's editions:
FINANCIAL TIMES -
Mr Blair's critique of media "hyperactivity" would be more convincing if
his government were less prone to capitulate to the manufactured moral
panic of the tabloids. But he does score several palpable hits; it would
be hard not to.
Political reporting in the United Kingdom is too often obsessed with
process and personality at the expense of policy and outcome. Controversy
too often trumps reporting. Comment fuses with news. Trivia triumphs.
Facts get bent in the furnace of competition. Impact, Mr Blair says, is
all.
Indeed. But if he were a better reporter, he would see there are two sides
to this story.
Instead, he has sought, well, impact. At all points. His decade in power
has seen a tenfold rise in press officers to more than 3,200, with civil
service information officials often pushed aside. More impact for your
pound.
When he declaims against impact does he recall his chief of staff
playfully challenging his spin doctor to predict what the headline would
be in the Evening Standard following the "dodgy dossier" on Iraq?
His complaint that stories "are all black and white" resonates. But after
a decade of aggressive media management favouring single message spin over
contextual complexity, Mr Blair is not best placed to pursue that
argument. Instead, he has forfeited public trust. The media has many
faults. But responsibility for spin, cronyism, sofa government and the
fatal misjudgment over Iraq lies with Mr Blair and his government.
Mr Blair's critique of media "hyperactivity" would be more convincing if
his government were less prone to capitulate to the manufactured moral
panic of the tabloids. But he does score several palpable hits; it would
be hard not to.
Political reporting in the United Kingdom is too often obsessed with
process and personality at the expense of policy and outcome. Controversy
too often trumps reporting. Comment fuses with news. Trivia triumphs.
Facts get bent in the furnace of competition. Impact, Mr Blair says, is
all.
Indeed. But if he were a better reporter, he would see there are two sides
to this story.
Instead, he has sought, well, impact. At all points. His decade in power
has seen a tenfold rise in press officers to more than 3,200, with civil
service information officials often pushed aside. More impact for your
pound.
When he declaims against impact does he recall his chief of staff
playfully challenging his spin doctor to predict what the headline would
be in the Evening Standard following the "dodgy dossier" on Iraq?
His complaint that stories "are all black and white" resonates. But after
a decade of aggressive media management favouring single message spin over
contextual complexity, Mr Blair is not best placed to pursue that
argument. Instead, he has forfeited public trust. The media has many
faults. But responsibility for spin, cronyism, sofa government and the
fatal misjudgment over Iraq lies with Mr Blair and his government.
THE DAILY MAIL
Mr Blair says, with some justice, that Parliament has been underreported
without pausing to consider that he has done more than anyone else to
marginalise it. When Parliament becomes important again, it will be better
reported.
He grumbles that there is "a confusion of news and commentary". Can't he
understand that its readers are perfectly capable of telling the
difference between news and views?
Nor is he right to assert that the media "hunts in a pack". Individual
journalists sometimes may, but newspapers generally want to differentiate
themselves from one another, and that is not achieved by presenting the
same story in the same way day after day.
On the point of cynicism and "damaged" relations between politicians and
the Press he is right, but one has to ask who bears the greater
responsibility.
Can one imagine any act more likely to induce cynicism in the electorate
than an apparently deliberate lie that took us into a war under false
pretences?
An honest, relatively competent politician has little to fear from the
media, feral or otherwise. Readers will take the empty huffing and puffing
of newspapers with a pinch of salt. It is when they expose true scandals
and corruption - of which there have been quite enough examples in 10
years of New Labour - that people begin to take an interest.
Gordon Brown will, I trust, ignore Mr Blair's call for tighter regulation,
by which he must mean a kind of censorship. An honest administration
cannot be torn apart by the media.
Mr Blair says, with some justice, that Parliament has been underreported
without pausing to consider that he has done more than anyone else to
marginalise it. When Parliament becomes important again, it will be better
reported.
He grumbles that there is "a confusion of news and commentary". Can't he
understand that its readers are perfectly capable of telling the
difference between news and views?
Nor is he right to assert that the media "hunts in a pack". Individual
journalists sometimes may, but newspapers generally want to differentiate
themselves from one another, and that is not achieved by presenting the
same story in the same way day after day.
On the point of cynicism and "damaged" relations between politicians and
the Press he is right, but one has to ask who bears the greater
responsibility.
Can one imagine any act more likely to induce cynicism in the electorate
than an apparently deliberate lie that took us into a war under false
pretences?
An honest, relatively competent politician has little to fear from the
media, feral or otherwise. Readers will take the empty huffing and puffing
of newspapers with a pinch of salt. It is when they expose true scandals
and corruption - of which there have been quite enough examples in 10
years of New Labour - that people begin to take an interest.
Gordon Brown will, I trust, ignore Mr Blair's call for tighter regulation,
by which he must mean a kind of censorship. An honest administration
cannot be torn apart by the media.
THE GUARDIAN
Blair grossly underestimates the role of politicians in changing political
coverage. Once, important announcements had to be presented first to
Parliament (or at least the Cabinet) and were jealously guarded until
then. Leaking gives ministers substantial advantages.
They can leak partially. They can leak to selected journalists, who may be
deemed trustworthy or just grateful for a story. They can leak at a moment
of their choosing, dovetailing the story with a "grid" of ministerial
"initiatives" or burying embarrassing news. They can leak before potential
critics have a chance to give a more informed verdict. They can even
"leak" something that has already been announced so as to milk positive
angles again.
The difficulty with Blair's speech is one of chicken and egg.
Did the pressures of 24-hour news come first, or the politicians' more
manipulative approach to supplying news? Probably they developed together,
but the politicians - who face real competitive pressure once in four
years - were surely in a better position to go back to the more measured
habits of old. Why didn't Blair?
The answer is that he survived a decade in office and, until the end,
hardly suffered from, for example, taking the country to war on a patently
false prospectus ... The relationship between public life and the media
might, as he says, "be damaged in a manner that requires repair".
But the media didn't do him so badly, did they?
Blair grossly underestimates the role of politicians in changing political
coverage. Once, important announcements had to be presented first to
Parliament (or at least the Cabinet) and were jealously guarded until
then. Leaking gives ministers substantial advantages.
They can leak partially. They can leak to selected journalists, who may be
deemed trustworthy or just grateful for a story. They can leak at a moment
of their choosing, dovetailing the story with a "grid" of ministerial
"initiatives" or burying embarrassing news. They can leak before potential
critics have a chance to give a more informed verdict. They can even
"leak" something that has already been announced so as to milk positive
angles again.
The difficulty with Blair's speech is one of chicken and egg.
Did the pressures of 24-hour news come first, or the politicians' more
manipulative approach to supplying news? Probably they developed together,
but the politicians - who face real competitive pressure once in four
years - were surely in a better position to go back to the more measured
habits of old. Why didn't Blair?
The answer is that he survived a decade in office and, until the end,
hardly suffered from, for example, taking the country to war on a patently
false prospectus ... The relationship between public life and the media
might, as he says, "be damaged in a manner that requires repair".
But the media didn't do him so badly, did they?
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH -
Mr Blair is right to highlight some of the worst qualities of some British
journalism: a seam of sourness and aggression; a bullying, puffed up
self-regard; a casualness about the borders between public and private; an
obsession with impact over proportionality.
It also does not mean that Mr Blair has not got important things wrong. A
speech about the British media which does not pay tribute to its strengths
falls into the very trap - of painting the world in black and white -
which is part of the Prime Minister's own charge sheet.
In some parts of his critique Mr Blair was leading with his chin. Yes,
newspapers report Westminster debates less than they once did. But it is
pretty rich to be lectured on such matters by this Prime Minister who,
more than any other, has marginalised parliament through a combination of
sofa government, selective leaking and sophisticated media manipulation.
Truly, he helped feed the animal he now wants to chain.
Mr Blair ended by trailing hints about a changing regulatory framework,
which might encompass all media as technologies increasingly blur
distinctions between print, online and broadcasters. It is a reasonable
issue to raise, but we hope nothing will ever come of any attempts to
place the press under any kind of statutory regulation.
The British press is all the things Mr Blair says it is. But it must
remain free to be both awful and, on its day, magnificent.
Mr Blair is right to highlight some of the worst qualities of some British
journalism: a seam of sourness and aggression; a bullying, puffed up
self-regard; a casualness about the borders between public and private; an
obsession with impact over proportionality.
It also does not mean that Mr Blair has not got important things wrong. A
speech about the British media which does not pay tribute to its strengths
falls into the very trap - of painting the world in black and white -
which is part of the Prime Minister's own charge sheet.
In some parts of his critique Mr Blair was leading with his chin. Yes,
newspapers report Westminster debates less than they once did. But it is
pretty rich to be lectured on such matters by this Prime Minister who,
more than any other, has marginalised parliament through a combination of
sofa government, selective leaking and sophisticated media manipulation.
Truly, he helped feed the animal he now wants to chain.
Mr Blair ended by trailing hints about a changing regulatory framework,
which might encompass all media as technologies increasingly blur
distinctions between print, online and broadcasters. It is a reasonable
issue to raise, but we hope nothing will ever come of any attempts to
place the press under any kind of statutory regulation.
The British press is all the things Mr Blair says it is. But it must
remain free to be both awful and, on its day, magnificent.
THE INDEPENDENT -
After 10 years of the Blair administration, a decade of spin and
counter-spin, of dodgy dossiers, of 45-minute warnings, of burying bad
news, of manipulation and misinformation, we feel that the need to
interpret and comment upon the official version of events is more
important than ever.
And we are confident that our readers can differentiate between news and
opinion. We can also be sure that our readers will make up their own
minds.
What clearly rankles with Mr Blair is not that we campaign vociferously on
certain issues, but that he doesn't agree with our stance.
All that said, we welcome Mr Blair's contribution to what is an important
debate. He is right to say that relations between the media and the
political establishment need to be repaired. And his comments on the role
of newspapers in particular in the fast-changing media landscape echo
discussions that are currently taking place in this office, and in
probably every other newspaper in Britain.
The days when a newspaper could be simply a notice-board of the previous
day's events are as outdated as black-and-white television.
Of course, news is still the backbone of our offering, but we feel our
readers today want more: A diverse range of commentary, colourful debate,
provocative front pages and, yes, the views behind the news.
After 10 years of the Blair administration, a decade of spin and
counter-spin, of dodgy dossiers, of 45-minute warnings, of burying bad
news, of manipulation and misinformation, we feel that the need to
interpret and comment upon the official version of events is more
important than ever.
And we are confident that our readers can differentiate between news and
opinion. We can also be sure that our readers will make up their own
minds.
What clearly rankles with Mr Blair is not that we campaign vociferously on
certain issues, but that he doesn't agree with our stance.
All that said, we welcome Mr Blair's contribution to what is an important
debate. He is right to say that relations between the media and the
political establishment need to be repaired. And his comments on the role
of newspapers in particular in the fast-changing media landscape echo
discussions that are currently taking place in this office, and in
probably every other newspaper in Britain.
The days when a newspaper could be simply a notice-board of the previous
day's events are as outdated as black-and-white television.
Of course, news is still the backbone of our offering, but we feel our
readers today want more: A diverse range of commentary, colourful debate,
provocative front pages and, yes, the views behind the news.
No comments:
Post a Comment