Tony Blair yesterday revealed his despair of the British media, which he
believes has corroded the relationship between politicians and voters and
which regularly demolishes the reputations of public figures for commercial
advantage.
In his last major speech as Prime Minister, 14 days before he leaves office,
he said that the 24-hour news agenda could “literally overwhelm” the
occupant of No 10, while the modern media prioritised sensationalism at the
expense of accuracy.
He suggested that the rules governing the media may have to change because the
internet was blurring the distinction between newspapers, which are
self-regulating, and broadcasters, which are subject to stricter
impartiality rules.
Breaking what he claimed was a major taboo in public life, he said that many
people in the NHS or law and order professions had also become demoralised
and unbalanced through media criticism, and that journalistic “excess”
needed to be reined in.
“The fear of missing out means today’s media, more than ever before, hunts in
a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and
reputations to bits. But no-one dares miss out,” he said in a speech at the
headquarters of the Reuters news agency.
He rejected suggestions that the media had become less trusting and more
hostile because of the media management techniques employed by his
Government, epitomised by the handling of intelligence in the run-up to the
Iraq war.
Instead, the media had become dangerous because of its desire for stories with
“impact” that would allow it to stand apart from the rest of the media.
This, he said, came second to accuracy.
“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.
“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.”
By contrast, he asserted that Parliament had become less important because the
media no longer regularly reported what happened in the Chamber of the House
of Commons, rather than because it had been side-lined by his Government.
He also defended his relationship with Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News
Corporation, parent company of The Times, saying that it was necessary for a
politician “in the real world”, suggesting that other media owners were no
better or worse. He also suggested that commentators and pressure groups
were complicit with the media. “Pundits know that, unless they are prepared
to go over the top, they shoul-dn’t venture out at all.”
He added: “It is my view that the effect of this change is seriously adverse
to the way public life is conducted; and that we need, at the least, a
proper and considered debate about how we manage the future, in which it is
in all our interests that the public is properly and accurately informed.
They are the priority and they are not well served by the current state of
affairs.”
Mr Blair admitted that he had paid “inordinate” attention to the media in his
early years to try to turn around the “ferocious hostility” of parts of the
industry towards Labour. He admitted that this may have fuelled his problems
with the press later on.
He said that the media was overtly conspiratorial – an unintended consequence
of the Watergate investigation that brought down President Nixon, meaning
that in the media view every error must be venal rather than a misjudgment.
“Watergate was a great piece of journalism, but there is a PhD thesis all on
its own to examine the consequences for journalism of standing one
conspiracy up.”
He said that newspapers no longer respected the division between reporting and
comment, surprising many in the audience by singling out The Independent,
the left-of-centre newspaper highly critical of Mr Blair over Iraq, as a
metaphor for modern journalism. “[ The Independent] started as an antidote
to the idea of journalism as views not news. That was why it was called The
Independent. Today it is avowedly a viewspaper not merely a newspaper.”
Suspicions that Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair’s former director of
communications, helped to draft the speech were discounted last night when
he denied involvement. He said that he would have urged the Prime Minister
to be much tougher on journalists.
What the papers say
“ It is good that he has got into this debate because it is something that
Downing Street has been concerned about for a long time. It is good that he
acknowledged that new Labour has some complicity, but obviously there’s a
certain amount of special pleading in the speech.
He talks about how leaders are overwhelmed by the modern media, blaming the
media for that, but its an interesting question whether it is for leaders to
decide how much they want to be overwhelmed. It is important that political
journalists interpret what politicians say as sometimes you cannot tell
exactly what they are saying and the public wouldn’t be served if they
didn’t explain.
Peter Horrocks, head of BBC television news
“ In some ways I regard Blair’s attack on The Independent as something of a
badge of honour . . . as a vindication of our stance on Iraq.
He was wrong, we were right, and I can understand why he has been upset by the
tone and substance of our coverage.
I am completely unapologetic about our stance on the most catastrophic foreign
policy mistake of our time. He seems to be suggesting greater regulation for
newspapers in line with the broadcast media. How does this square with his
avowed belief in a free and vibrant press? But I accept that there has been
a breakdown of trust between the public and politicians, for which the press
and the politicians each have to take responsibility for repairing.
Simon Kelner, editor of The Independent
“ New Labour was very happy to tango with the media until it went wrong – most
spectacularly over the Iraq dossiers and Hutton. I don’t think it’s wrong
for journalists to explore politicians’ motives: indeed, a proposal cannot
be properly understood without a grasp of the motive that underpins it. Nor
do I think that the proliferation of new media is bad for politics: quite
the opposite. It may be bad for the present Government, but that’s not the
same thing.
Matthew d’Ancona, Editor of The Spectator
“ In the past ten years the media agenda has been changed by the speed of the
internet. The news agenda has been changed by the the net, the growth of
citizen journalism and 24-hour news programmes, so now the news agenda
fluctuates hour by hour. The new Labour project tried to control the agenda
and sometimes the headlines were better than the stories; so the media is
the first thing to blame. I think history has told us that certain people
who enjoyed good PR . . . hubris inevitably sets in. There are no simple
answers any more, and the media agenda demands simple answers, and postIraq
and green issues are not going to be fixed by a soundbite.
Mark Borkowski, leading PR
“ While the Prime Minister bemoans the change in relationship between
politicians and the press, he should recall that he has been its prime
cause. It is easy to blame the press for a loss of trust in politicians; a
fairer analysis would point to his own culture of spin.
Hints at the need for increased regulation of the press are deeply worrying.
Politicians may not like what is sometimes written about them, but a free
press is the best safeguard for accountability and against corruption and
hypocrisy.
Don Foster, Liberal Democrat media spokesman
“ Blair’s analysis is not without some merit, but in his main
conclusion he completely, uncharacteristically misses the point. Most of the
British media performed woefully in the run-up to the Iraq war, gulping down
the morsels of misinformation fed to it by Alastair Campbell and others in
the Blair circle. The herd mentality that Blair criticises has more often
than not led to pliant rather than overly critical journalism. Some of the
more hysterical commentary that followed the Iraq War was a lame and belated
attempt to make up for weaknesses beforehand.
John Kampfner, editor of the New Statesman
“ Blaming the media is the modern equivalent of shooting the messenger. But
sometimes the messenger deserves a good shooting.
As a former feral animal, I have witnessed politicians getting increasingly
frustrated that nothing they say gets reported straight. I would scan
government reports and speeches to find the one line that shows it in its
worst possible light. The root cause is that Britain has the most
competitive print media in the world, and the desperate hunt for readers
means we can’t afford detached aloofness.
Anthony Browne, director of Policy Exchange, former chief political
correspondent of The Times
“ What Blair said about the way the media had changed merits serious
consideration by press and broadcasters alike. These days the broadcasters
genuinely seem to believe that viewers are more interested in what political
reporters have to say.
The PM went through some of the many changes that we put in place when I was
at Number 10 to try to improve things. Like he said, they didn’t really
change things because in truth the deeper engagement we were seeking is not
what the modern media really wants.
The question at the heart of all this is whether the public get the media they
deserve? In increasing numbers, the public seem to think not. The
politicians almost all think not. The media seem unable to see it.
Alastair Campbell
“ He’s sowed the seeds for a change in media regulation which is not
government policy at the moment. That’s very worrying. The media, whatever
its flaws, needs to be free. If we can’t be belligerent now and then, we
aren’t doing our jobs. This is a man lashing out in a very uncharacteristic
way. The prime minister, a man who always smiles in adversity, lashes out as
he walks out the door.
Trevor Kavanagh, assistant editor and former political editor of the Sun
“ When I first started in PR it was all about promotion. Now its all about
protection of my clients. It gets worse every year. I would have been
applauding had Blair said it two or three years ago because that takes real
courage. To say it now, when he’s leaving the ring, is less brave, but still
a valid comment.
Max Clifford
“ I’d happily admit to being a feral beast. There are very few things that
would amuse me as much as TB lambasting the media – the same media which he
courted with an enthusiasm rarely seen in modern times. It’s bit late now
Tony, I would say.
Piers Morgan, former editor of The Mirror
