In response to my post on the problems of a long recess, two readers – Adrian Kidney and James Clarke – expressed distrust in the media. I pointed out that Eurobarometer data reveal that they are not alone. The data show low – and declining – levels of trust in the press. Eurabarometer 69 (Spring 2008) shows that only 19 per cent of Britons trust the press (down from 21 per cent six months previously). This is the lowest figure among EU member states. The EU average is 44 per cent. Trust in the broadcast media is somewhat higher: 55 per cent trust the information they receive from the radio (the EU average is 61 per cent) and 51 per cent trust television (close to the EU average of 53 per cent).
In commenting on the findings, James Clarke argued that there was a dumbing down and complained that there was inadequate coverage of Parliament. He wondered if there were any moves to legislate to require the press to carry supplements reporting on what was happening in Parliament.
There has been a declining coverage of Parliament. Some years ago, Jack Straw showed this in a study of newspaper coverage. Television coverage of Parliament is less extensive now than it was when television cameras were first admitted to the House of Commons. What coverage there is focuses disproportionately on Prime Minister’s Question Time.
This begs two questions. What accounts for the declining coverage? Is Parliament becoming less relevant to people’s concerns and interests? Or does the problem lie with the media, dumbing down in order chase ratings and maintain market share? Or is it a combination of the two? The answer is important to answering the second question. What, if anything, is to be done about this decline in coverage?
I am against legislating. If we believe in a free press, we should not tell it what it should or should not be covering. There is also no point in forcing the media to cover what happens in Parliament if no one is actually interested. My view is that if Parliament is to do anything it must be to demonstrate its relevance. It can also do a lot in a practical sense to entice the media into the Palace. I very much welcome what has happened in recent years in making the Palace more welcoming to broadcast media. You now regularly see reports being carried from Central Lobby. We have now information officers who do a splendid job in disseminating information about our work. (The Information Office in the Lords does an outstanding job.) What we need to review, though, is our practices and procedures. What more can we do to ensure that what we do is not only relevant but also seen to be relevant by people outside?
Given the low level of trust in the press, would our newspapers benefit from greater (and more informed) coverage of Parliament?
Good evening, I have been mulling over what you said above, and the poitns you have pulled out of the comments that James Clarke and Adrian Kidney had made.
I certainly agree that legislating to force newspapers and the like to carry political supplements would most likely not work. Ignoring the matter (and it is a slightly important one..) of our free press. The public take an active interest in those subjects and issues that (for want of a better word) interest them, and have a direct bearing on their own day-to-day lifes.
It comes down to directly engaging with the public, in the same way as trying to engage with the public at elections, if you cannot get the public to show an interest in politics, the press will not want to cover parliamentary affairs (unless they are the shock coverage of ministers doing ‘a’ or ‘b’ or u-turns in particular policies, etc.
Can I just ask, who do the information officers disseminate information to?
Ethan: The Information Office provides information on a proactive as well as a reactive basis. The Lords Information Office produces a range of excellent publications, including ‘The House of Lords at Work’, which is available on the Internet as well as sent to a range of institutions, including schools and universities. The booklet is also made available to visiting groups, such as students. The Office also answers incoming queries, which are numerous. The information offices of both Houses brief the media on select committee reports. They are also involved in developing Parliament’s Outreach programme.
As you will know, since this Blog is an example, there are various initiatives designed to exploit new technology: the Blog, videos on YouTube, and utilisation of the Parliament website. The Education Unit has also revamped its website and is busy enhancing provision of educational material. The Lords has introduced a Peers in Schools progamme, where peers visit schools to talk about the work of the Lords. I have been regularly engaged in speaking in schools, with several more visits scheduled between now and Christmas.
Given limited resources, I think we do a good job in disseminating material, though I would like to see those resources expanded. We still have a small staff engaged in disseminating information compared, for example, with the Scottish Parliament.
There is also the point that, even if people are interested in the work of Parliament, how do you reach them if they are not willing to take some action of their own to obtain some information? Is it sufficient to rely on the Internet, given limited press interest? Or is there more we can do to reach them?
Before I get started proper Lord Norton, I wish to take slight umbrage with your comments on press freedom. I think its gotten to the point where press freedom no longer matters, they don’t deserve the excuse anymore. Apparently it’s a valid reason for invading a mans sex life, but when it comes to defending their right to publish in the name of press freedom, I can’t remember a time when they have ever actually stood up and fought for the right to do so.
All it takes is a few adolescent half-wits with nothing better to do than assault people in the name of their sky-fairy – and press freedom is given up without a fight. Dispicable.
***
The answer is both. Yes, there has been massive ‘dumbing-down’. And yes, parliament is irrelevant.
First parliament, the reason nobody cares is because its byzantine and boring, with all sorts of words that I’ve never had explained to me – I remember having to look up what a white-paper is.
It all seems as though its just show, just fluff, too. I stopped watching PMQs some time ago – its got nothing there, all you’ve got is the Opposition making up jokes to tell and Government MPs asking how the PM gets to be so wonderful, I mean, after all, his reforms – which the Opposition opposed! – have done so much for my constituency …
Parliament is not only seen as irrelevant, but fossilised and broken too, with no point in fixing it. In order to reverse the problem we need two things – orators and clear-thinkers. Orators are only really there to rally the masses who already support your cause, but I would love to hear one, just one, the lack of (good/professional) orators has made politics vapid and empty, and not worth listening to. All we’ve got these days is one-up-manship, real pity. I’ll get to thinkers later.
Regarding the press – its mostly been a dash for ratings. And look at how they have dealt with the rise of blogs – by abandoning reason even further and loading on the opinion and demagogy. Not all of it of course, but people like Ben Goldacre are few and far between.
Ultimately, the blame lies with Government. Theres a wonderful ‘Bit of Fry and Laurie’ sketch on the Tory Party – where Laurie just stands up and repeats ‘Family, Standards, Tradition’ or such like, in various iterations over and over again – and thats what politics has become, repeating the right words, not having to think.
Now, heres the cure:
Imagine,for the moment, the following happening during a General Election; all the major potential Chancellors (say) sitting on a stage, facing the audience, and facing them, a brigade of economists – all poised to ask difficult and demanding questions of each of the candidates. With a moderator to make sure the questions are answered rather than defelected.
There, problem solved. Why? – Because the MPs will think, the audience will think, the public will think, and the media will have endless material to pour over and translate over to the public.
Engaging the public like this, in the most fundamental way, would be the best step forward.
I’d like to see something like this happen every election, if we can just get people to think, if we can just get people to think, theres no place like home, theres no place like home … 🙂
Too ambitious?
***
That was something of a essay, I’ve got a nasty habbit of doing this – still, I don’t like my policy in soundbites anyway.
Lord Norton,
In the US, there was (an excellent) T.V. show called The West Wing that depicted the White House and goings on. It was one of the most popular shows in the US for 7 years and drew massive viewer interest. It provided viewers a easy and understandable view into the (purported) functioning of one of the centers of power in that country.
While this blog is a fantastic way to explain the functioning of the House of Lords, the views of its members, and to engage with the public, might not a program like The West Wing (even on youtube if not a commercial broadcaster) draw a far wider audience?
I think if people are interested but not willing to take action on their own, then they’re evidently not that interested.
Also presumably the decline in the amount of coverage of parliamant on the TV is to be expected. Watching MPs debate the course of the country had novelty value at first, but it’s like any other job. On a day to day basis, I would guess most of it isn’t great entertainment. It’s much more efficient to get a brief summary of the main action from a news source than to watch it all.
Troika21: Some of your points are relevant but others are way off. Your final comment rather shows the problem. You don’t like your policy in soundbites but that appears to be what you want politicians to deliver.
You need to distinguish politicians from Parliament. Some of your comments about the former are relevant, but not those about the latter. Parliament matters. It is the body that legitimises measures of public policy. Acts of Parliament are fundamental to what we do. They determine what we can and what we cannot do. Our lives and our daily behaviour are shaped by the law. And what people think are important issues are actually issues that are discussed by Parliament.
Law is important and it also has to be precise in order to have the intended effect. That means legislation is not drafted in broad, simple terms. Otherwise, lawyers can get round it. Even whether you use ‘and’ or ‘or’ has a significant legal effect. I doubt whether people are going to want to watch a parliamentary debate on whether ‘on more than one occasion’ is replaced by ‘on one or more occasions’: it was one of my amendments and the Government accepted it, recognising that it clarified what was intended. Especially in the Lords, time is devoted to ensuring that the wording is correct in order to have the desired effect. If it isn’t properly drafted, then – as I say – lawyers can get round it and it fails in its purpose. I doubt if the public will thank Parliament for apparently dealing with a particular problem only to find it hasn’t managed to deal with it at all.
Parliament is also important for ensuring that issues are brought on to the political agenda – issues that are important to particular sections of society but which otherwise might be neglected. We have procedures to enable members to raise issues, independent of the Government. Some of the issues may seem minor, or affect only a few people, but they are crucial to those who are affected; but the issue may not excite any interest beyond them.
In short, Parliament is crucial but it does not and cannot spend all its time discussing issues at such a level that is going to excite interest outside. Procedures and terminology have been simplified over the years, but that is not going to have a major impact if people are not interested in following what is going on. To take a simple example of a change: in the Lords, an ‘unstarred question’ is now known as a ‘question for short debate’ which is fairly straightforward.
Where you have a relevant point is in respect of politicians, especially in the Commons. The problem is not Parliament but party competition. Each party wants to out-do the other and partisanship leads to sound-bites and conflict. Critical debate is fine as long as it is substantive, but it is of little value if it amounts to nothing more that shouting platitudes at one another. There is the danger of MPs putting party interests ahead of the interests of the institution of which they are members. They are drawn to partisanship in order to advance party interests even though the consequence may be to reduce public support for Parliament.
Every generation bemoans the absence of orators – I traced the complaint back to earlier centuries! – though I do think that there is a dearth of rousing speakers; having said that, I think there are some new Members who have great potential. And both Houses have seen some outstanding individual speeches in recent years.
I do think that politicians need to reflect on what can be done to strengthen Parliament and that may require leadership on their part. I would also add that, as should be apparent from what I have written, the principal challenge lies with MPs. The Lords gets on with the necessary, complementary role of scrutinising legislation in detail – making sure the content actually delivers what it is designed to do. It is highly specific work – not the sort of thing that will draw the crowds – but it is essential.
Krishna: We had the equivalent of ‘The West Wing’ in the form of ‘Yes Minister’ and ‘Yes Prime Minister’ which were brilliant television programmes. (I have a complete set of ‘Yes Prime Minister’.) However, they -like the ‘The West Wing’ – had as their focus the executive and not the legislature. There have been some attempts at dramas and comedies based on Parliament, but none has really taken off.
Lord Norton,
Research in this area shows that while coverage of Parliament in the press has declined, markedly from the days of dedicated Parliamentary pages in newspapers, there has been an increase since the early 1990s in the number of articles covering the work of select committees. Do you see this trend as a positive one, and what lessons would you draw from it for boosting coverage from the chambers?
The latest Ofcom Communications Market Review showed that television was overwhelmingly the public’s main source of news, so in terms of Parliament reaching out to the people, it’s the best bet to attract the widest possible audience.
Krishna,
There’s been no shortage of political tv shows in Britain – in the past House of Cards and Yes Minister, more recently The Thick of It and Party Animals – but none of them have the same kind of optimism and positive presentation of government of the West Wing. Possibly the closest comparison in terms of hopeful idealism was The Amazing Mrs Pritchard.
Matt Korris
Hansard Society
I’m not too sure if we have a dearth of really good public speakers nowadays. I think there’s a good number of people today who could compete with orators of past ages, but the patience of attention span of people has shortened.
I can’t imagine anyone trying to do a Gettysburg Address or a ‘blood toil tears and sweat’ speech nowadays. It would just disappear within all the dross about celebrities and so on.
Moreover I think we in Britain are also handicapped slightly by the influence of our American cousin. Not disparaging the United States or their constitution, but it does put a lot of weight on voting for individuals (Governors, presidents, chiefs of police, judges and so on), but they also elect their executive, the ‘business end’, shall we say, of government. We don’t do that here in Britain – we vote for the legislature alone – and so I think we probably have a lot of confusion among the public about what’s worth bothering with.
So, we have a lot of coverage of the actions of the Prime Minister when he stands before Parliament once a week, but beyond that Parliament is ignored. Not necause it’s irrelevant to our livelihood, but because it’s difficult for people to visualise an essential committee of people as the supreme power in the land, unlike in America, where the business end is concentrated in a single person, the President, which is easy for movies to glamourise into a hero.
Perhaps I’m rambling, but I think we have a clash of cultures.
Matt Korris: Increased press coverage of select committees has been a very positive development, both in terms of raising awareness of the work of select committees and in drawing attention to the issues raised by the reports. This is a product of the relevance of the work of the committees and the activities now of the information offices. The consequences for Parliament – in terms of media coverage and public awareness – remains to be seen. The fact that the media cover a particular committee report does not necessarily mean they will be more likely to cover activities in the chamber: the attraction of the report (in terms of being newsworthy) is the subject matter. It is also not clear that the public will draw wider conclusions about Parliament from the work of the committees. We know that constituents tend to rate highly the work of their local MP, but their views of the MP do not feed in substantially to their views of Parliament. One would hope that the link between committees and the House will be more apparent.
It is somewhat ironic that press coverage of select committees has increased as the number of television programmes dedicated to committee work has decreased. I am not sure why this has occurred. The work of committees is relevant and committee sessions can be more interesting, and productive, than debates in the chamber. I also understand that, given the times at which the programmes were broadcast, they attracted good viewing figures for the time slots.
Adrian Kidney: I agree with your analysis concerning the differences between the UK and the USA. In the US, elections are far more focused on individuals than in the UK. This is, in part, because of the separation of powers with a single executive but it is also the product of a weak party system. As a result, candidates are far more important than in the UK in terms of organising – and funding – their own campaigns. Primary campaigns are campaigns within a party and so candidates have to fight their own intra-party battle. As a result – and as we have seen recently – campaigns can get extremely personal.
The comment above is a bit uncoordinated isn’t it? I think its best to regard it as the mutant ofspring of caffine induced sleepless excitability, coupled with a tendancy to verbiage and pleonasm.
***
My perspective is this: the media dumbed-down, both print and vision went for populism over nuanced arguement. And not just news, but everything. Horizon used to be the BBCs flagship science program, now its sub-idiot.
What happened next, though, was entirely the fault of parliamentarians. Our new, media-savvy!, politican class. They internalised this, and responded by playing along – speaches no longer need to inspire, they are simply there to get the lastest buzz-word into the papers.
I do believe that the problem can be solved with leglislation, if politicians could know that they are in an enviroment that would not seek to distort their words, then they would feel comfortable with nuance. I believe you’ve said before, Lord Norton, how the Lords allows this sort of enviroment, and ministers feel more able to give complicated answers.
I outlined above (poorly, I admit) how this might be achieved in General Elections, all candidates asked questions from a panel of experts, with no media invlovement, appart from reporting it. Something like this happened in the American Nominations recently – where Youtube was used for the public to ask questions directly. They almost got it right – but I believe experts, the people who spent their lives studying these complicated articles, should be the ones asking the questions. Like in the Lords.
You know, looking over what I’ve just said, I think I’ve gone the long way round in argueing for a more important House of Lords.
I agree with Lord Norton that there is a dearth of really good political orators within Parliament. A good speaker must talk from the heart, with conviction and with some passion. The listener establishes trust and honesty from such narrative.
There is ‘plagiarism’ at work too with political oratory; it appears that everybody borrows from another when the words are well received.
To me it does not matter who you are or where you come from; in politics it is simply the ability to be a good orator and to get your message and vision across to your audience. To use six words when others might use one.
If someone is not ‘pitch perfect’ with their oratory skills they can make up for it by having good written skills and in this respect many politicians do write set pieces in newspapers to assist and clarify what they have said or wish to say.
The House of Lords offers par excellence in both oratory and written skills.
if Parliament actually mattered then MPs would take it far more seriously than they actually do. Hardly any of them can be bothered to turn up and even when they do they are either doodling, texting on their mobiles phones or thinking about other things. I’m not just talking about the Chamber either…this is all common practice in Committee.
I think attending Westminster and going through the motions is seen as a chore by the majority of MPs.
Most people simply won’t watch an in-depth news programme. What would make people interested in the workings of Parliament? Rather than a fictional series such as “Yes Prime Minister”, how about a fly-on-the-wall documentary, following peers as they go about their business, showing how much hard work is involved, and that they don’t just sit about in plush offices. Any volunteers, Lord Norton?
Of course, the current obsession is with “reality TV”, so how about an X Factor-style series where the contestants compete to become a peer?
Jonathan – I don’t think an X-factor style show is such a bad idea!
I think the House of Lords needs some form of representation from a range of backgrounds which currently have no or very little representation in the upper house – or indeed the House of Commons – students, the unemployed, single mothers etc.
It might also get more people interested / aware in the work of the Lords and Parliament.
Dear god no; we’d get the Baroness Goodie of East Angular.
The fly-on-the-wall documentary was a serious idea. It could be even more fascinating than Lord Norton’s and others’ insights into the Lords on this blog. The X-Factor suggestion was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, though!
Troika21 and Senex: Perhaps not surprisingly, I agree with your conclusions. I think the House of Lords does a good job in terms of influencing legislation and is able to do so through reasoned debate. This is facilitated by procedural constraints. Speeches are time-limited and so one has to think in advance and ensure that the main points are made, clearly and succinctly. This avoids long dreary contributions. A debate with relatively short contributions from a range of well-informed speakers can be enormously educative and effective.
Though I think we do a good job, I would like to see our role enhanced. This is especially the case in respect of contact with those outside the House. Select committees do quite a good job in connecting with bodies and sometimes individuals outside the House, but there is still more we can do in respect of legislation. I would like to see us make regular use of evidence-taking committees, so that those outside the House with views and information are better able to feed those into our deliberations.
Jonathan and Nice One Sunderland: A few years ago one of the television channels did something along the lines of an X-Factor competition to select a parliamentary candidate. It produced a rather right-wing winner. It didn’t quite attract the voting figures of X-Factor or Pop Idol. The idea of a fly-on-the-wall documentary is one I would certainly support. There have been occasional such programmes in the past – there was one independent documentary-maker who made one or two good ones. The important point is to ensure that it is a fairly accurate portrayal. I would certainly have no objection to being followed for such a purpose. I did do a short exercise of this sort for a programme on BBC radio a few years ago. The idea was to convey what a day-in-the-life of a peer was like; the programme covered three members of the House. I thought it was very worthwhile in giving some insight into what we did, especially away from the chamber.
There is one general observation I would make in relation to media coverage. The House of Lords admitted the television cameras in 1985. The House of Commons only voted in favour of proceedings being televised in 1988 and the cameras began coverage of proceedings in 1989. In the intervening period, there was a late-night television programme called ‘Their Lordships’ House’, which provided extracts from the day’s debates (rather like the ‘Today in Parliament’ programme on Radio 4). I understand that it attracted good viewing figures for the time it was transmitted. It served a valuable purpose in showing the constructive work of the House. Once the cameras started covering the Commons, the programme ended and the Lords has not really had a look in since.
Troika 21: In respect of the House of Commons, I do not necessarily disagree with your analysis: I think that politicians have responded to the media-driven demands for soundbites. The media like Prime Minister’s Question Time because it is televisual. People watch it for the conflict even though they disapprove of the adversary nature of what they are watching. Lord Protector: I would offer a somewhat different perspective. It is certainly the case that MPs have difficulty finding time to attend debates and, often, committee meetings. This is not because they do not matter – they do – but it does reflect for many MPs the problems of trying to do everything that is nowadays expected of them. The demands have grown decade by decade, especially in relation to constituency work. In the 1950s and 1960s, MPs could reply to the few letters they received in longhand. Nowadays, they need good office-support in order to cope with the sheer volume of correspondence they receive from constituents and outside organisations. That volume has increased as a result of e-mail. Pursuing an issue on behalf of a constituent or a good cause can necessitate lots of correspondence as well as meetings away from the chamber. I should add that the provision of offices for MPs has had the effect of taking MPs away from the chamber, but not necessarily had the effect of preventing them following proceedings in the chamber: they can watch the proceedings on screen.