~~Blair's surprise criticism of media has merit
Press behaviour changing in digital age as news and opinion converge
By Jonathan Eyal , ST, Mon 18 Jun 07
LONDON - FEW politicians epitomise the media-driven age of politics more than Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair. But, as he prepares to leave office in a week's time, Mr Blair has taken on the British media.
In a speech which surprised many of his colleagues, he accused his country's reporters of behaving like 'a feral beast', a pack of hunters tearing apart people's reputations.
Mr Blair, who claims to have made the speech 'after much hesitation', predicted the response: 'It will be rubbished in certain quarters.'
Sure enough. Most British media outlets rushed to paint Mr Blair as just a bad loser: They claimed that he only lashed out because of the hostile coverage he now gets about the Iraq war.
Some senior journalists also trotted out old arguments about the freedom of speech.
'The media, whatever its flaws, needs to be free. If we can't be belligerent now and then, we aren't doing our jobs,' wrote Mr Trevor Kavanagh, assistant editor of The Sun, a tabloid which regularly interprets freedom as its right to print any stories about 'sex romps', regardless of whether these violate someone's privacy.
Other journalists, meanwhile, transformed Mr Blair's criticism into a badge of honour. 'I'd happily admit to being a feral beast,' quipped Mr Piers Morgan, a former editor of The Mirror.
All very predictable, but all missing the point. For the criticism which Mr Blair made deserves serious consideration. His misgivings are shared by many in public life, although 'people don't speak about it because... they are afraid to'.
Mr Blair's contention is that technology has fundamentally changed the way the media behaves. The proliferation of television channels was followed by a veritable information explosion on the Internet. The result is a 24-hour 'news cycle', a mad rush to fill airtime, often with no regard to the accuracy of a story.
He highlighted another pernicious impact of today's technology. Since most people get their breaking news from electronic media, newspapers try to retain readerships either by paying a small fortune for 'scoops' or simply inventing stories which do not exist.
The result is, invariably, the elimination of the old distinction between impartial news reporting and opinions. Both are now mixed, in an effort to provide the biggest possible 'bang'.
As evidence of this trend, Mr Blair singled out The Independent. London's youngest quality daily was started in the 1980s on the explicit promise to provide impartial news. Yet, with its circulation collapsing, it was also the first newspaper to abolish the distinction between news and opinions.
Its front page now bears no relation to the news of the day: It is entirely devoted to whatever campaign the newspaper's editor wishes to promote, be it the legalisation of drugs or Britain's alleged 'crimes' in Iraq.
Much of this criticism is not new. Nevertheless, Mr Blair does provide fresh evidence of the harmful influence of these developments on politics.
There was a time when a British Cabinet would agonise for days before adopting a policy. Unthinkable now: The media demands - and gets - instant answers.
'A vast aspect of our job today,' Mr Blair said, 'is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity.'
The result is not only bad governance, but also the impression that all politicians are time-serving individuals who do nothing but bicker. The suggestion that someone entered public life out of a sense of duty is laughed off.
So is the concept of a reasoned debate. Stories are always about 'disasters', 'triumphs' or government policies which either 'trounce their opponents' or 'lie in tatters'.
It is, therefore, unsurprising that cynicism about politics is at a record high. The reputation of journalists is also not much better.
But there is one rule which the British media still respects: It will never report on the drunkenness, adultery, expense claims fiddling or any other peccadilloes of its own staff or owners.
Mr Blair does not have an answer to the current predicament, apart from urging the media to exercise self-restraint.
Predictably, he is ignored. Yesterday's lead story in London's sober-minded Sunday Times was about an arms sales scandal, a classic example of a 'scoop' alleging greed and cover-up in 'high places'.
Meanwhile, the News of the World devoted pages to its outrage over a 'drunken' Prince Harry, 'pictured slobbering all over girls in a sleazy club - just hours after our 150th soldier died in Iraq'.
And Tony Blair? That's yesterday's story.
Jonathan.eyal@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment