Political Campaigning & Reporting: Partners in Democracy or Rats in a SackThe other speakers are Nick Robinson, David Hill (former No 10 Director of Comms), Joy Johnson (former Director of Comms to Ken Livingstone and BBC reporter) and Peter Tatchell.
The event is designed to mark the launch of a new MA course in political campaigning and reporting at City University.
Apparently 350 people are already signed up to the event and it's full. Not bad! Believe it or not I have already prepared what I want to say, but I'd be interested in hearing your views on the topic under discussion.
12 comments:
What on earth is Peter Tatchell doing there.?
Or is he the "token" gay?
In the old days i got used to seeing the token Black man.
This is a step too far
Four lefties and a left-of-centre conservative. What a balanced panel!
This is a fascinating issue, a circular one in many ways.
The government has a message to get out that can be viewed positively, negatively or in neutral terms.
The government sucks up to those who spout the message and turns all its guns on journalists who transgress the "message".
Journalists rightly view government announcements with some cynicism and question everything. Government gets arsey and attacks the media. Back to the start...
In journalism terms, government policy needs to be seperated from politics. There needs to be a proper accountable government news agency which puts out all formal government announcements, with an audit trail and a guarantee of impartiality. Political journalists could still tap their sources for party goings-on, but no more unattributable lobby journalism and spin with regards to policy.
Lowest point reached thus far was the lies told over Iraq and the dodgy dossier. Blair and Campbell should have done jail time over it and will be rightfully hated for the rest of the days,
Unfortunately Iain I think you are right. That the government is firmly behind us is very disturbing though.
They SHOULD be partners in democracy, they ARE rats in a sack, and the current conundrum is how to get out of that. The problem is, of course, that full time political reporters share the same space, ideas, principles and concerns as the politicians they are reporting on, which leaves the interests and concerns of normal, non-political people aside. Of course, that is not to say that the reporting of 'insiders' cannot itself shed light on politics and illuminate the democratic process, it is just that such reporting tends to begin with a set of assumptions shared in Westminster but not in the UK equivalent of Main Street.
How do you get away from that? You don't. You accept that that's the way it works, and then expect viewers and listeners to exercise their own critical faculties in response. That's the point of democracy, and if viewers/electors don't want to exercise their critical faculties - well, that's the point of democracy also!
Sounds like a good debate - pity it's full!
"What on earth is Peter Tatchell doing there.?
Or is he the "token" gay?
In the old days i got used to seeing the token Black man.
This is a step too far"
ROFL the "token gay"? I'm not sure your counting is up to much... or you don't follow this blog well!
I'm well aware of the tastes of the blog's host.
Perhaps he carries it with more dignity than that horrible, in yer face,Tatchell chap, or chapess, or whatever handle he likes to call himself.
anyway, my god, is he ugly!
Bloody Hell!
Glad I'm not going. There would be a blood bath.
I only rarely see Nick Robinson, but he seems to be to be a useless bot-licker. Or do I mean boot-licker?
Only a MA course?
Why not increase academic inflation and make it a PhD course?
Didn't Plato have a go at the Sophists all those centuries ago - so no change in politics.
Tatchell must the be most highly-paid whinger in all the Kingdom; he seems to turn up everywhere these days.
Iain,
I attended the debate last night and have a question for you that unfortunately I didn't get the chance to ask:
Err-ing on the side of Partners in Democracy, do you not feel that - as yourself and Nick pointed out - the media are too quick to jump on bad news or scandal in the interest of a scoop where as they should really have more of a duty to society.
For example, and extremely prominent in the current financial climate, is the "doom and gloom" attitude that has been taken by the media towards the UK economy. I work in the financial markets and see day-to-day how much media opinion affects the markets. I feel that in situations such as we have at the moment, it would be extremely useful if the media were to support the Governments efforts to buoy the economy. If people woke up to read in the papers that the economy was recovering, the "recession" was coming to an end etc, public opinion would start to drive the markets back up.
I had an argument with Fraser Nelson on one of his CoffeeHouse blogs about this and he believed that it was his duty to report everything he heard and pass it on as he hears it. I did and still do disagree - the media has a lot more power than they know and their opinions can have a profound effect on the general public.
I am curious as to your point of view.
Best.
Post a Comment