I gave written evidence to the Levison Inquiry last January and was asked to give additional evidence last month. I have now done that and it will be published by the Inquiry. My evidence is mainly about the type and form of any future regulation but it also contains my views about the way politics and the media interact – a much neglected subject.
The media is far more powerful and political then may people believe and sadly that results in politicians being unduly fearful of it. I saw some of the evidence given by Gordon Brown yesterday and was reminded of the way political leaders have responded to media power over the years.
I had reason to raise the issue of media briefing by supporters of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at the PLP a few years ago. It ended up on the front page of the newspapers referring to me giving them a ‘gold plated bollocking’. It was one of the most popular things I did in the PLP because by that time MP’s could see it might cost us the next election. I threatened to name the people who were doing the briefing and maybe I should have done. It was a major factor in our demise as a party of government.
Gordon had always believed that Tony had promised to step down and allow him to stand for the leadership. Tony did not see it that way. There was heavy briefing by Gordon‘s supporters. I remember walking in on a conversation between Charlie Whelan and John Humphries of the Today programme. John looked distinctly uncomfortable and I lingered long enough to make sure I knew what Charlie was doing and, sure enough, he was briefing against Tony and his supporters by describing what the policy should be – that is, he was giving Gordon’s views.
I found Charlie to be one of the most destructive members of Gordon’s team and I said he should be removed from his job. Eventually he was.
I should write more about this as it does tell a very important story about the relationship between the media and politics. Perhaps a series of entries on this blog?!
Yes, LS, you should write more about it. As it is very interesting. I await the next episode with bated breath.
Your topic appears to be, or to include, “relationships between media and politicians”
but kindly allow a quick ‘snapshot’, at a target in your para 2 “The media is more powerful and political than many people believe, and sadly that results in politicians being unduly fearful of the media”:
with such Internet E-Sites as The Lords of the Blog, politicians can be communicating daily, even ‘hourly’, 24/7/52
two-way direct with The Public.
This more ‘honest to source than the free market media’ should in turn be developing into a ‘Disinterested Daily Factorama’ economically-ecologically sized,
managed & edited by such a professionally-unbiased body as Hansard, and published daily both on ‘free’ e-sites and as a low-priced newstand ‘fact-sharing tabloid’.
The above in turn is because both the printed and televised media do too much agenda-cornering, definition-stipulating, spin-doctoring and sensationalisation, often deliberately omitting key facts and factors.
Whilst most people get some ‘relief’, stimulation, relaxation or guided-popular-daydreaming from the gripping, hedonistic, and ‘news-therapy’ effects of that dominant sensationalist media,
most people do I believe ‘see through’ the hype, if not by the next day than by the next week;
but (‘sadly’) like the quick-uplift from a sugar sweetened ‘coke’ or icecream, that colourful-uplift has worn off by the morrow
and most people are back for more sensationalism, day after day.
Of such media manipulation no-one should be afraid;
least of all politicians
who do have ample alternative communication channels direct with The People
…………… ??? ………..
( or do they ? )
It is obvious to me and a lot of other people how close the media was to the government. You would see a series of news items come out and then suddenly the government was legislating. An example is the way the daily mail reported on the disabled and jobless as cheats and scroungers and low and behold suddenly welfare reform was being brought in. Not only did it get everyone riled up enough to suddenly see cheats and scroungers around them but some disabled people actually get abuse hurled at them. It’s not right and isn’t an appropriate way to use the media so that policies can be put through with ease.
I hope those people who have taken things to far actually get punished at the end of the day as they have effected people’s lives in so many more ways than just phone hacking.
Government’s job and duty is to stop people from taking things to far
before they take them too far
surely ?
——–
But politicians, and other professional-pyramids, upon whom we and our living-lifesupports depend, fall far short of doing the jobs they are highly overpaid to do
and obscenely over-bonused to not become rebelliosly, blackmailingly, “indispensable”;
so they too are “taking things too far”
are they not ?
A welcome reminder, Lord Soley, of how fast Mr Brown’s popularity evaporated once the public were allowed to see what Westminster knew.
However, I suggest that the public have been pretty clued up about the media’s modus operandi since, at least, Squidgygate (The Sun)and Camillagate (Daily Mirror). If this is largely true, it might be argued that the editors/proprietors of media outlets and politicians have been playing a game of ‘Who has the largest cojones?” to the detriment of me as a voter and taxpayer. Should I run this past my lawyers?
PS I would love to discover more on your take; it is refreshing to see a Labour politician willing to donate his memoirs for the public good. I wonder which volume Mr Umuna is working on.
@Lady T:
Isn’t the Mr Umunna, you mention, Labour’s man, being groomed Obama style for their leadership role in the near future. And isn’t he the grandson and nephew of the QC’s Milmo. You see how nepotism follows every candidate one way or the other.
However, he is heavily pro big business and big money, Blair style. So, simply another put up job for people to swallow, called ‘change.’ The business lobby know how to follow a fashion, I’ll give them that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuka_Umunna
T could scarcely admit to having agreed to it, but the nuance was there right from the beginning in 1997.
I actually rate G the superior politician, and statesman, when all is said and done, but that is another matter.
When a media mogul had a regular audience of 8 million as was the case until the complete fragmentation of the TV channels 10 or so years ago, (internet news), the one was surely far more of a politician than the politician him/herself, especially when the
“chairing” of the meeting on natioanl TV was controlled by producer and presenter.
Since the publication live of Parliament TV the facts have been easier to get at by the public…. IF they want it.
Generally people want to be entertained when they watch passive TV, and that is when the presenter gets to work. In the case of Radio
Mr Jeremy Vine, who must know that he is getting more boring by the day, exercises far more political clout than any select committee hairman or even cabinet secretary has done recently. He does so by being part of subliminal radio channels, ie ones that you merely hear and don’t actually listen to.
It all depends on what kind of political influence you are talking about, which realm.
I did not make Mr. Whelan’s acquaintance.
40% market share of terrestrial TV is too much of a dominant share? What do you propose doing about it?
40% market share of terrestrial TV is too much of a dominant share? What do you propose doing about it
Find a British Berlusconi.
40% is the BBC’s market share.
Are you saying we should break it up?
1. Raises lots of cash.
2. Deals with the dominant market share
3. Drops the license fee in the process.
4. Increases media plurality.
Regarding Blair and his phone calls to and from the US White House.
Did anyone see or read what his spin doctor, Alistair Campbell, outed over the weekend? I have yet to see one of the heavies pick it up? Surely they couldn’t have missed the significance of it? Or, is it they have known of this for so long they simply didn’t read it as exlosively important to us.
What Campbell said was, Bush, as President of the US, in a phone call to Blair, at the time he was pushing the lie of WMD in order to convince our HoC to take up arms illegally against another country, threatened our opposition leader, at the time IDS, with annihilation as the leader of his party, when he faced election, ‘if he didn’t support the Blair in his promotion of war on Iraq.’
He also said that Bush was disraught at the prospect it could fall apart, after his malfeasance in readying all concerned to go along with it, would expose him to humiliation if he failed to come through.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160439/Campbells-diaries-tell-Bush-threatened-rid-Iain-Duncan-Smith-failed-Blair-Iraq.html#ixzz1y2WWiK9J
Now the truth, at last, is coming out. Our country is held to ransom by the USA. And if Campbell is the patriot he is appearing to be, we may be able to get out from under the suffocation we have been endured for decades at the hands of a foreign dictatorship.
However, what is just as important, how many of our Prime Ministers have been threatened this way, or, bribed by the Americans to do their bidding against the best interests of our country? And why has this been tolerated in Parliament?
This article also reveals, Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary at the time, was infuriated at the ‘arrogance and bullying’ he witnessed from this capitalist obsessed nation. Campbell tells us, Straw begged Blair not to send any British troops into action and instead, restrict their role to post – conflict humanitarian aid. And the Blair refused.
Well he would wouldn’t he? All those green backs he was hoping to finger would have floated up the Thames as he kissed them goodbye had he done so.
There must surely be an inquiry into how our country is held to ranson by an outside force, and who and why our movers and shakers went along with it.
Campbell should have revealed this at the time, as should IDS. Why didn’t they? What are they colluding in? Why are we in these monsters clutches?
And now we are being persuaded to top us Trident in order to give the Americans another tranche of tax payers money, for, why do we need this mostrosity in the first place? What good is it to us? We can never use it. And guess what, if we wanted to we have to have permission first? From guess who? Well of course, those who are selling us this crap in the first place. They have the key to its launch, we cannot do it without them.
You would have to roll on the floor with laughter if it wasn’t so terribly serious.
ie. Cost us billions for a personal gain of millions.
e.g. Cost us 2,700 a day (ignoring the cost of their legislation), for a personal gain of 300.
Sounds familiar.
Yes, it does, LB. And did you see those who are planning to take a stand against reform are old MP’s who are just about on the out from the Commons. Throwing their toys out of the pram, as they fear their sure thing is being shiped down the river just as they were ready for appointment.
This has to be a lesson to the public on self obssession and what that does to morality.
Mind you, this little snippet advises that, at last, some are having the courage to revolt against the Blair who once had them shackled to the ceiling of a dungeon. Are they seeing the light, we have to ask?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-158283/MPs-voting-House-Lords-reform.html
Rid of him should be the first priority. Nothing sticks in the nations craw like that old phoney.
1. Lords claim its not a job – they just get expenses.
2. Now when threatened with the boot, suddenly it is a job, and they demand redundancy.
Next it will be that there is a party list for elections to the Lords, so in effect the selection is by 5-6 people in central party offices.
So much for democracy