Because these days we know more about the world, our appreciation of how it is reported by the news media becomes more sophisticated and exacting. With the emergence of social media, everybody fancies themselves a journalist now. But unfortunately, this coincides with a period when, for economic and other reasons, professional news coverage faces challenges which it sometimes chooses not to meet. This is nowhere more apparent than in its reporting of politics.
It isn’t necessarily that political reporting is getting worse: it’s probably that we are more demanding of it. In a more well-ordered and conservative age, authority was given more respect. A more cohesive and homogeneous public with fewer divergent views meant it was easier for journalists to accept the word of politicians, and there would probably have been outrage at any who deigned to question an MP’s word or integrity.
Auntie BBC lives up to her name
So this isn’t something new: it’s what remains of what has always been the journalistic approach in this country. It is epitomised by the BBC, who see their historic role as one of reassurance rather than challenge, living up to the ‘Auntie BBC’ nickname. The implication of course is that, in order to reassure, the report has to be supportive of the status quo. (That isn’t party political. If Labour is in government, then the BBC will treat them with kid gloves too.)
But times change, and this deference is no longer in vogue. Now, the news media are more likely to be accused of showing undue respect to politicians, and what really brought us to the breaking point was the emergence of Boris Johnson; first as foreign secretary, then as prime minister.
The news model is broken, and Johnson broke it
The British news model (if we might call it that) was already under strain. A reporter interviews a politician, who (as many people see it) lies to the camera. In general, and certainly in the BBC, that journalist wouldn’t see his or her role as being to pin the miscreant to the wall and demand explanations.
Boris Johnson however built an entire career as prime minister joshing his way through interviews, giving answers which his smirk told viewers he knew weren’t true and knew perfectly well the interviewer and the viewers also knew weren’t true, but thought it was a good joke because he knew he could get away with it.
De-bagging a politician brings GBH of the ear ‘ole
Metaphorically de-bagging senior politicians isn’t what journalists are usually trained to do. Even if they could press the point, broadcasting schedules dictate that the interview should only last two minutes. If it were recorded, then anyway anything too edgy would be edited out after somebody from No.10 has given the news editor serious GBH of the ear ‘ole.
This problem was allowed to run throughout the Johnson years and beyond, with no news editor having the courage to challenge it. Worse, once other senior politicians saw what they could get away with, they joined in. For several years, it was not possible to believe a word said by anybody in government, since everybody saw as their first priority to get the optics right, and never mind the policy and whether it worked or not.
The hacks who sup with the devil for a quid pro quo
In fact, the press followed suit. Headlines have become more lurid, more sensational, and often seem to have only the skimpiest relevance to what the story actually reports.
Here we come to the adage about supping with the devil requiring a long spoon. If you were a senior political journalist with the BBC, let us say, you would be expected to be in the know, to be able to report exclusive stories which others missed. In order to do so, you have to be close to your source, who would usually be a senior MP. That politician is in a position effectively (though probably unspoken) to demand a quid pro quo. In order to stay close and get the headlines, a blind eye might be turned to other stories.
Nobody sets out to be a client journalist
Parties at No.10? How on earth could the hacks not know what was going on when apparently they involved dozens of people? These are not the kind of relationships any journalist probably goes out to promulgate; it’s just where they find themselves. And these most respectable representatives of their profession become merely client journalists, reporting carefully considered half stories and effectively becoming apologists or even advocates.
Many news media are shamefacedly trying to regain some dignity from those dark days, and new news media like the Bylines Network are bringing a fresh approach. But East Anglia Bylines is also aware of the pressures. We have no party allegiance, and such as Mr Pecksniff’s Diary is free to criticise as that gentleman pleases.
News is a tricky johnny
But if you are a party member, you will applaud mockery aimed elsewhere, whilst taking anything critical of your own as political bias. We at EAB (and Mr Pecksniff in particular) are aware of how politicians shy away from talking, for fear of being ‘misrepresented’ as they would probably see it, if the story comes out in a way they don’t like.
News is a tricky johnny, as Pecksniff might say, complicated by the engorgement of social media and everybody fancying themselves as seeing the wood for the trees. There is no doubt that journalism has been through a shameful period, and our heightened awareness as news consumers has made that plain. But the pressures which so often emasculated it are still there, and we as news consumers are one of them. Though many traditional journalist sources are recovering some of their dignity, their parlous position makes the challenge all the greater.
More from East Anglia Bylines
