Don’t knock the British press. You are about to need it more than ever. Each
day the rascals feed you lies, shove their hands in your pockets and stifle
every other monitor of their incompetence. British government needs the
constant attention of an alert, confident and preferably abusive press.
It needs a press that plays the man, not the ball. Play the ball and this
bunch are over the horizon hooting “don’t blame me”. Only by pinning
responsibility firmly on human beings, dismantling their footling
reputations and hounding them from pillar to post will we ever get a noose
round their necks. Don’t feel sorry for them. They claim grotesque power
over your life and happiness and every day they take more.
At first I honestly thought Tony Blair’s “poor diddums” speech last week was
farewell satire. He could not really think himself the most persecuted
politician since Carlyle declared the supremacy of the “fourth estate” back
in the 1840s. Besides, how could the master of spin admit that he had
botched his entire modus operandi? He called journalists “feral beasts” who
hunted in packs and spread cynicism wherever they went.
What a perfect description of Blair’s office for the past 15 years. Yet the
man seemed close to tears. So plaintive was his cry that a stage army of
sycophantic columnists leapt forward to hug him and say how right he was. I
recall no such media mea culpa when John Major made the same, and more
merited, speech on retirement.
The media have certainly come to occupy a larger role in public affairs under
Blair. But the reason lies with Blair, not the media. There are the same
number of papers as 10 years ago, the same BBC and Sky, the same
proprietors, allegiances and columnists, the same feeding frenzies and
ratpacks and sleaze. The difference is that Blair always claimed to “set his
own agenda”, tell his own “narrative” or, as Peter Mandelson said, “create
his own reality”. The Blairites thought they ruled the world because, for a
while, they induced the press to be far more horrid to Major than it ever
was to Blair. But having deluded the press, they then deluded themselves.
Such hubris always ends in tears.
There is a fantasy that British newspapers were once pillars of journalistic
independence and are now polluted by sensationalism, commercialism and venal
proprietors. This is rubbish. Until the 20th century, indeed through to the
second world war, most papers were owned, produced and written by and for
political parties.
The Times was usually in the pocket of the government. The Westminster
Gazette, founded by Newnes for the Liberals, was duly described by Rosebery
as “a pioneer of clean popular literature”. The Express and the Mail under
Beaverbrook and Rothermere pretended to run politics, their bluff
occasionally called by Lloyd George and Baldwin. The office song of Labour’s
Daily Herald was “We want no party, creed or bias; we want a peerage for
Elias” (their chairman). As for Blair dredging up Baldwin’s “power without
responsibility” quote, surely that was a cliché too far.
Newspaper editorials (and their promiscuous siblings, columns) are probably
more independent than ever in history. This is partly because there are so
many of them and partly because the companies for which they write are far
more concerned with keeping their papers afloat. The 1985 Wapping revolution
gave Fleet Street a decade of soaring profits, which it saw evaporate in a
blizzard of price-cutting, freesheets and internet competition. Even so,
more papers are being read on the streets of London than for half a century.
More front pages are scanned, thanks to the internet, than ever before. More
opinion is being formed, debated and regurgitated, to the point that
arguments not worth a pint in a pub can circle the earth through the
blogosphere.
I recall when a politician’s worst moment was in defending a decision to
parliament or to party colleagues. Blair has so degraded parliament and
party as to leave only the media.
The media are the nearest that politicians have to a mirror on the wall, a
review of their daily performance, the one feedback not within their pay and
control. This mirror fixation has been true of no politician as much as of
Blair and his circle. No predecessor made his press officer his most
intimate aide. The actor was inseparable from his make-up artist, the
embodiment of political narcissism.
As a result, Blair said last week, “a vast aspect of our jobs today . . . is
coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity”.
If this was a burden it was entirely self-inflicted. Having cast aside the
civil service, the Labour party machine and all expert guidance but that of
a focus group, Blair’s government let itself be defined by the media.
It virtually took orders from the Murdoch and Rothermere press. Its total
failure to tackle drug abuse, Britain’s most pressing social problem, was
wholly media-driven, as was policy on the euro, nuclear power, sex crime and
excise taxes.
In the interwar period there would have been some truth in saying that press
barons occasionally dictated policy and could make life most uncomfortable
for politicians. But prime ministers such as Attlee and Thatcher took no
orders from Fleet Street. They did not float their decisions past
consultants, spin doctors and editors as does Blair. No wonder he spoke of
spending so much time dealing with “24/7 media”. He should have craved their
approval less and ignored them more.
Letting the press run the country is a sure route to disaster. Journalists are
not governors but judges of governors as critics are of actors. They are
potent only in so far as power allows them influence. American journalists
are brought up to respond to that status, to be dignified and responsible,
to be “unofficial legislators of the nation” working for a tiny group of
self-important newspapers.
I follow a different star, that of Britain’s more open market press, with the
journalist covering a range of tastes and styles, worshipping only at the
shrine of indignity and irresponsibility. The reporter’s primary duty is not
to “legislate for the nation” but as rat-catcher, setting the traps, laying
the poison and catching the little bastards. It is to make life hell for
those who purport to wield immense power in the public’s interest and so
frequently fail.
The journalist’s duty is not to let Blair off the hook but to ram him down on
it good and hard. He has protection and to spare.
Ministers should not be, as portrayed by Blair, delicate prima donnas,
brooding over their cuttings and spending “vast” amounts of time currying
favour with the press. Britain at present is seriously misgoverned. There is
not a ministerial department that would pass muster in an average banana
republic. Not a day passes without some new computer scandal, budget
overrun, policy shambles or muddled war. These are not political devices.
They are real lives that Blair is playing with. Men die every day because of
his ill-judged, inadequately criticised wars.
Were it not for the press, he would have us think all is well in Iraq and a
roaring success in Afghanistan. Were it not for the press he would present
tax credits, farm payments, child support and out-of-hours doctors as
triumphs of public policy. Were it not for the press he would pretend that
BAE/Saudi was a model of commercial intercourse and extraordinary rendition
was a new budget airline. This is the mendacity with which the press must
daily contend.
It is not the press’s job to pick and choose which policy to approve, which
minister to “lay off” or which manifesto pledge quietly to bury. The press’s
job is to be indiscriminate, hounding and muck-raking. It is the modern
practitioner of trial by ordeal and, as Blair keeps saying, “the innocent
have nothing to fear”. So tear into Ruth Kelly when she lies about localism,
Patricia Hewitt when she invents waiting lists, John Reid when he boasts he
will conquer Helmand without firing a shot. Let these people out of your
sight for a minute and they are behind the woodshed going through your
wallet.
Politics does not give the press an inch except when trying to bribe it. Nor
should the press give an inch in return. All else is corruption and
sycophancy. But we have seen nothing yet. In 10 days’ time Gordon Brown,
that master of obfuscation, comes out to play. What a time that is going to
be.
simon.jenkins@sunday-times.co.uk
Mr Nick Palmer MP, Nottingham.
How very true. You are right on the money. And this reader is fed up with being treated with contempt by the British Press and Media.
RJA, Nottingham, England, UK.
Well said Mr Jenkins. You are only stating the obvious but a lot of people out there haven`t twigged on to this yet. Your article was interesting an on target.
Denver Watt, Osakaj, Japan
This is nonsense. The PM was spot on. The 24 hour sensationalist media are part of "the problem". Very little of any positive value is produced by them. You play your part very well Mr Jenkins.
RA, Lincolnshire, England, UK.
In a Democracy, the rascals are us.
Thanks to government control of education and most of the broadcast media, we elect our slavemasters instead of representatives...Funny that there are actually some people that refer to politicians as "Leaders".
It takes a lot of mental effort and courage to swallow the Red Pill...Keep dogging those thieving fleas Simon!
Mark, Virginia, USA
Sad as it seems you are right, I opinioned yesterday in the blogasphere as a former servicemen that Dave 'the geezer' Cameroon should all over the government like a rash for Afghanistan. There are more open goals there, than can be believed, but like all england strikers he cant score to save his life, great game at club level but cant play internationals.
Sadly as Andrew Marr has so well shown the 70s were dire, that is how we got Thatcher, worts and all. It is sadly going to have to get a lot worse before we get the leader we need and deserve, until then we have to rely on the press. so well done
Mr angry, London, UK
Absolutely.
Think how many lives could have been saved.
But the press in general is never up to this task.
I can't think of a good instance.
It pats itself on the back with high-sounding words and mostly publishes official press releases at critical times.
John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada
One of his best! Blair's speech was only another of his pathetic attempts to shout down criticism and open debate, and Simon Jenkins is one of the few journalists not to be cowed by this bullying. Journalists need to continue to criticise, but also to go further and organise campaigns [sometimes against some of their colleagues] for radical but non-populist policies on fair and just immigration, on solving the drugs problem among our young people, and on rebuilding international institutions which can handle the very fraught question of when humanitarian intervention is justified.
These campaigns should obviously be the province of parliament, but since Blair has destroyed that institution, only the press is left to take up these challenges, however politicians may resent this, hoping that they had orchestrated a situation where challenge and debate were no more.
Iain Hill, GLASGOW, Scotland
I must say, when I first heard about the speech I thought he was joking. Live by the sword, die by the sword I say.
John Miller, Newcastle,
Beautifully put Simon.
Love the line:
"He should have craved their approval less, and ignored them more."
Your insight is essential to me, Mrs Joe Soap, when so much political party funds are at hand for politicians to curtail exposing the inept integrity they put into their careers.
Thats the problem today - its 'their career' they see first and foremost, and not their position of social and political responsibility.
Keep up the great fight on words - your bloggers need you!
Julie Lane , oldham, UK.
Wonderful, wonderful stuff - full of passion as it should be.
I look forward to Simon taking apart the man, Gordon Brown, who makes Blair look a model of truth and light.
eddie reader, birmingham, uk
Re Michael's comment: "This country urgently needs good honest proactive politicians, where are they?"
Too many people think that it is the responsibility of others to breach the democratic deficit. Politicians do not come from the Planet Zog. If you ask why people you would prefer don't stand but you would never consider standing yourself, and know your own reasons for not wanting to stand, then you have probably answered your own question.
After two years active involvement in party politics I know why I would never stand as an elected representative - it's damn tough and I haven't got the guts or the stamina.
But we cannot just ask "why doesn't someone else do this thing that I want but am not prepared to do myself?" That is a valid question for someone incapable of taking on responsibility, like a child, but not for an adult.
H Johns, London,
It’s about time someone spoke in this way Simon. We have never in modern history been governed so badly. Blair wanted power for powers sake then abused it with spin. Worse is yet to come when Brown takes over with his Stalinist ruling ways. If the press do their jobs right, he will be made to answer for his actions, unlike now when he disappears like McCavity. It’s no good relying on any of the current political opposition leaders to act on behalf of the people they are like chocolate fireguards. This country urgently needs good honest proactive politicians, where are they? Hopefully the self imposed position of 1st lady will also disappear with Cherie.
Michael Malin, Sheffield,
Better than a bullseye - it's a full "three-darts-in-a-bed" by Simon Jenkins. As we all know by now, attempting to call Blair, Brown or Cameron to account is like trying to catch eels while wearing greased rubber gloves.
Joseph White, Louhgborough, UK
Simon, your column should be compulsory reading on every school syllabus and accompany every party political broadcast on tv.
John Smith, Manchester, UK
well said, wish we had more like you, this country badly needs it.
fay, valencia, espana
Could'nt agree more!
A very succinct Bullseye!
Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow, Scotland
Excellent article by Simon, as always. Make this man editor again.
Scary, Windsor, Berks
It works both ways.
Were it not for the press both David Kelly and Princess Diana would be alive today.
joner, bristol,
Bullseye.
Guido Fawkes, London,
The UK media seems to be the only "checks & balances" left in the system - the government of Tony Blair has ignored the voters on too many occasions for us to trust them so we expect the newspapers to take up issues on our behalf - they are the only voice left to the people!
Take this criticism as a sign that you (the media) are doing just fine !
Dee, UK,
Rightly you implicate Blair and his spin doctor in the unjustified campaign against John Major. But the Press did go too far in attacking Major and has probably gone too far in attacking Blair, now. Where were the attacks against Blair when they were needed in the early years, before he had done too much harm? He was praised as a constitutional reformer but has left us with an unreformed House of Lords, an undermined judiciary, a pressing problem with Scotland, and a style of government which is not so much presidential as demagogic. Then there are the wars, in part due to a slavish following of America which the Press all too often favours. He was praised for winning three elections but how often did the Press point out that he had less popular support than John Major?
On another point; the country was let down by the failure of the Press to reveal the truth about Maxwell. The proprietors were frightened to attack him because it might have hit their profit
Laurie, Tunbridge Wells,
We need a few feral beasts over here. Our press is afraid they will be slighted if they challenge the Administration. They all want to be on first name terms with the politicos.They let this terrible war happen by letting the lies pass. Our generals are sheep in wolves clothing but get away with five years of failure, concentration camps and torture and are off limits to our media. I guess they are all embedded. Our major publications walk softly and never call anyone on blatant lies. We need a "Simon says" here.
c. perry, Boynton Beach , USA Florida
As an American, I read the British press regularly and only wish that the press at home, who think they are hard hitting, free and holding goverment or industry to count, could be just 20% as good as your worst newspaper.
I have learned over the last 4 years what each British papers particular bias is and understand their stories and how that bias ties into it....but in the end, I know I'm getting the truth as it is, not as some power that be says it is.
Quite often I find myself railing at some columnist or other in the British press for not seeing what I think they should see,but I almost always am made to think in a new way or see something from another angle. That is something I never get from the American press, not from the so-called leaders of the free press. Keep up the good work and the high and mighties feet to the fire.
Joshua, Oxford, UK
"comparing it to a banana republic however seems a bridge too far"
Alistair, this country has now become THE banana republic to which others compare.
Paul, Barnsley,
Get them Simon. Get them all. Whatever their stripe - just get them.
Bruce, UK, Malvern,
Well said.
The dangers are increasing. Once Tony becomes President of Europe then he will be in a position to pull the Eurocratic levers. No doubt the Brusselcrats will be only too keen to train him in how to use them.
Ray, Dartmouth,
You are so so right. Thank God for the press. Thank the devil for Blair. Thank God - literally, that we are finally talking my kind of language. Do not stop talking this way. It is right and proper, it reflects free speech, and most of all it is relevant and right in the sense that it follows logic and speaks to the concerns we have been unable to utter for a decade. Blair, thank God, is history. The rest of us are the future, and between us we can do things to restore some sense of proportion and balance to this distraught country of ours. Good on you.
Mark Stallard, Cardiff,
Sir; Well put.
mushtaq Khan , Birmingham , England
The danger of this piece of cogent criticism is surely of over statement. The prime minister has presided over a supine parliament, a media dominated administration, significant policy failure both domestically and in foreign affairs; his government has exemplified minor corruption and some measure of incompetence; comparing it to a banana republic however seems a bridge too far
Alastair Pettigrew, London,
It is hard not to agree with this and think that the Press (Newspaper or otherwise) in the UK does a fantastic job of not only holding the nation's "governors" accountable, but also in covering a wide range of stories and views.
I currently live in the US and am stunned by the lack of bite that the media has out here. The media fail to hold the administration accountable, preferring to dance (poorly, but sycophantically - NBC) as Rove raps, than really do the job of keeping the administration (and the country's legislators) honest.
There is also the failure to cover the important and (in some quarters) contentious stories out here - ABC news failed on Friday to cover the Middle East/Palestine, instead choosing to focus on some 'dodgy' DA and other trivia in its "World News" program.
So, good for you the British Press and News Media - I think the Times and the BBC do a fantastic job of keeping us all informed... not just in the UK, but in the US and the rest of the world!
FM, Washington , DC, USA
Simon Jenkins has hit the nail right on the head yet again. We have no effective political opposition in England so let the press and broadcast media continue with their work - they may miss the point sometimes and factual accuracy may not always be achieved but they are doing a vital job that the Tories and Liberals are unable or unwilling to do properly. Blair's pathetic moaning proves the point!
john, exeter, england
I say, up the Revolution! About time we had one!
David, Flitwick, UK
Blair, like all politicians, is a public backside we are all entitled to kick. We should do so hard and often.
John Vincent, Christchurch, New Zealand
The problem is that if a government spokesman says anything intelligent, or representing the true state of government thinking on any topic, whether Europe, immigration, even eggs, the press love it. It is then branded as a"gaffe" and a political career is over.
Mr Blair was a master of avoiding controversy. His physical appearance, public schoolboy manners, lawyer's training, all helped. Marketing types usually have contempt for their customers, and New Labour has complete contempt for its voters. Which is a good thing, Mr Blair is clever, whilst Labour voters by and large are not.
Journalists are to blame for simply not teasing out policies. For instance when was the decision made not to go into the Euro? When was the decision made to expand higher education and pay for it by charging students? What is current thinking on unpayable public sector pension commitments? Spin works because journalists let it work, and because it is easier to attend a press conference than find news
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
Tosh. Compliant Commons? Where has Jenkins been given that this has been the most `difficult` (ie for a prime minister )Commons, indeed Parliament for many a year. Equally I assume that he has never ead the vicious personal attacks on both Blair and his wife which started as soon as he arrived in Downing Street. Get real the press in particular has never forgiven Blair for being such a successful election winner for Labour.
Phi, Market Drayton, UK
Well said, Mr Jenkins!
John Flanagan, Singapore,
Since Mr Jenkins calls John Major in aid, he may like to remember Major's memoirs, when he commented that the press routinely set up straw men. from memory, he wrote something like: "A newspaper will claim that the Government is about to do some outrageous policy X. When it is denied, a further story will report that the Government has done a U-turn on X. I suppose it sells newspapers but it does little for the quality of public debate."
The view that "The press’s job is to be indiscriminate, hounding and muck-raking." is destructive of every kind of positive poitical agenda, left, right or centre. It demeans its practitioners and treats its readership with contempt.
Nick Palmer MP, Nottingham, UK