Media Disrupts Effective Government

This is a story from a few weeks ago when Tony Blair made a speech about the relationship between government and the media. It was well timed in the sense that nobody could accuse him of sour grapes as he no longer had anything to loose or gain.

The one good thing about the BBC article is that they have published Tony Blair's speech in full. This gives me a rare research opportunity to go back to the source material rather than rely on sound bite quotes from a media outlet.

"A free media is a vital part of a free society. You only need to look at where such a free media is absent to know this truth."

No one would disagree with this although the media also use this as a crutch to report everything and anything. Tony Blair is right as much as anyone complains about the media the countries that have one are all the better for it.

"But it is also part of freedom to be able to comment on the media. It has a complete right to be free. I, like anyone else, have a complete right to speak."

Agreed, the media are not exempt from free criticism and in our society at times the media can seem untouchable except by law courts and even then a retraction of a story or compensation does not change the original untrue story or its impact.

"The verdict [of the Hutton enquiry] was disparaged because it was not the one the critics wanted. But it was an example of being held to account, not avoiding it. "

I have made this point before, the strength of the media can mean that they can set the agenda, once a front page gives an opinion it can sway public opinion. Stories are sometimes end up being a small number of editors representing the public majority. Where the system fails is what if the editors give incomplete or opinionated facts rather than presenting the whole story.

A prime example is when the media see an opportunity to force a minister out of office. The minister makes a mistake and they put pressure on him to resign like a pack of jackals. There is never a considered review of whether he is a good minister just a blood lust. The labour party have largely resisted these calls for ministers to resign but due to this culture how many good ministers have we lost just because the media are baying for blood.

What Tony Blair refers to in the Hutton enquiry is that the media had already decided the result. If it agreed with the media view it would be a triumph for democracy and Tony Blair would be pressured to resign. If it disagreed then it was clearly corrupt and not given the full information and Tony Blair would still be pressured to resign. So the media had acted as a non-independent inquiry with a small group of people deciding the outcome claiming they represented the people rather than their own self interest of selling stories.

"Internet advertising has overtaken newspaper ads. 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."

Blogs get a mention. Blogs can be worse than the mainstream media, they are sometimes pure opinion, they can be even less concerned about facts that the mainstream media. Readers of blogs still need to consider the source and compare with other stories. At their best blogs complement the mains stream media and help to question the established truth.

"They[the media] are not the masters of this change [increased competition] 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."

With 24 hour rolling news any event is instantly reported, reporting is now real time. Take a major incident like a rail crash, road crash, terrorist bomb something where by the nature of the event the information is slow, sketchy and often contradictory. The general questions we want to know the answers to who, where, how, government response, police response, comments etc.

The story will start with perhaps a one line news flash on the news wire. So at minute 1 you have the standard "We are just getting reports..." After that one line, in order to keep going they have to move into speculation, eye witnesses are tracked down, terrorism experts are dragged in. Similar events in the past are recapped. This is not news its speculation, created to maintain as Tony Blair says 'impact'.

This media cycle can continue, for 5 minutes out of every hour you get the actual facts and then the other 55 minutes of news is speculation or so called expert opinions. Then in the next hour you get more facts which contradict 40 minutes of speculation from the previous hour. That doesn't matter because if you don't put out the story, any story, someone else will and they will beat you to it. The truth doesn't necessary matter if the speculation creates 'impact'.

"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."

Tony Blair is a lot kinder than I am when he says that accuracy matters. The only bearing accuracy has is that on balance a media outlet must be seen to be accurate the majority of the time otherwise the public will go elsewhere. Some media outlets survive because they share the opinions of their public which is at times far from the established truth i.e. Daily Mail.

"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. First, scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down."

This is why the media nearly always take a negative view in its reporting. They rarely agree with the government because that just doesn't sell. Controversy is always better.

"It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial."

The public love conspiracy theories and this hunger is fed by the media, there are no mistakes in the world it is always an act of conspiracy or negligence. This attitude pervades into our personal lives. Some people today refuse to accept that anything could be their fault or that they made a mistake, it has to be some body else's fault.

The media should challenge these conspiracy theories, they should be the guardians of the truth. The media is in a position to offer moral leadership to the people yet it struggles to raise itself above self-interest.

I should point out at this point that a large number of reporters are in the job to expose the truth and they are not the media equivalent of stock brokers. Some even actively challenge the media to act as the guardians of truth. However, it is clear that even they are powerless to change the entire industry.

Tony Blair defines five consequences of the media drive to create shock and emotional responses:

1. Scandal or controversy stories always come first.
2. Attacking motive is always better than attacking judgement.
3. Pack hunting - the media hunts together to destroy, tearing victims apart like a 'feral beast'.
4. Commentary is more important than the story.
5. Confusion of news and commentary.
   

Mr Blair gives an example of a speech by a minster. The speech is almost re-written, every word is scrutinised to see if any of the above can be applied. The story can almost be about what they missed out as much as what they said.

"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."

"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 not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course."

It is rare for this separation to be clear in any news article. In this you can compare my article to the BBC article. Both written from the same source but both containing different commentary. I am not representing my article as news but purely commentary, is the BBC presenting commentary or news or a mixture of both.

This is a criticism of so called 'experts'. Whenever anything they get an expert on to comment, the news caster will generally encourage them to speculate. This speculation is then passed off as news such as a "bomb by suspected Al- quieda". There may be no news to back that claim up.

This applies to so called 'inside sources close to the investigation'. This still isn't news it is commentary until it is officially stated. How can you accurately judge the information? I am not saying everything needs to be official before it can be news but the media should give us some indication of the source of the statements rather than using standard code words like 'inside sources'.

"Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life's usual grey is almost entirely absent."

The media generally take a firm view to create a better story, or if it is a bit greyer get equally strong but opposing views. A middle line just does not sell.

"New forms of communication would provide new outlets to by-pass 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."

The internet is a great thing for news and can act as a balance to traditional news outlets but it can also create a 'wild-fire' of opinion that can race ahead of the media. The interweb could be said to be the home of the conspiracy theory. On the internet there is even less of a need or desire to stick to the truth, opinion and theories whoever extreme can be easily proposed and accepted as fact or the 'real truth' behind the 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."

There is definitely a market for 'real news', several internet sites have opened up to service that need. Certainly for the main stream if someone took the leap then they would create a point of difference from their competitors which would be a selling point. Others would then jump on the band wagon and the media would change for the better.

The BBC website already occupies this niche as a respected market leader and thus demonstrates that others could follow.

Tony Blair then says a bit about the need for a unified regulation system across all media outlets but leaves it at that, he doesn't offer a way forward, just that it need to change.

In a final summary Tony Blair describes the damage that is being done due to this disconnect between public life and the media:

"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."

Tony Blair is right, all this negative reporting undermines our society and may harm 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. "

A well though out speech that did need to be said and will need to be repeated until the media mends its ways. The 'feral beast' does not need to be tamed but society does need to be able to live with the beast within.