Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : WAR & CRISIS REPORTING
24 hours media by Nicholas Jones Copyright Henry Stewart Conferences and Publications Ltd. Mar 2003 24 hours media by Nicholas Jones Journal of Public Affairs. London: Mar 2003. Vol. 3, Iss. 1; pg. 27, 5 pgs INTRODUCTION Before we discuss the e-mail nirvana, let us just look at the problem of those of us, myself included, who are trying to come to terms with the demands of the 24-hour news media. There can hardly be a more opportune moment to look at the whole question of the 24-hour news media - we only have to think of what has happened since 11 September - and I say straight away, as someone who has written about spin, that democratically elected governments have found that they have no alternative but to come to terms with that 24-hour news media. We have only to look at the way in which America and Britain are now trying to win the battle of the air-waves, and they have come up against Osama bin Laden, a skilled propagandist. We saw that with President Milosevic during the Kosovo crisis. Bin Laden understands the language of television from his perspective because he is communicating to the Arabs and to many Muslims around the world. So, democratically elected governments cannot ignore the pressures which have been imposed by the 24-hour news media, and should we ask the question: is the 24-hour news media beginning to impose, on Western democracies, pressure for action and for results, which is actually beginning to distort democratic decision making? That certainly is the view of Jack Straw. He has just said at the weekend that the extraordinary demands being made by the 24-hour news media, and their demands for instant results, are making life into some sort of Hollywood movie. So you can see that governments are concerned about it, and one of Straw's predecessors, Douglas Hurd, made the same point during the Bosnia war. He criticised the way in which there was this emergence in the media of the 'something-must-be-done' school, of which, of course, radio and television are the founder members, along with the newspapers. In reality, though, what they are talking about is the tiresome task that governments and other organisations face in coming to terms with the media, and this is something that governments cannot ignore. You only have to think of President Putin, who found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Kursk submarine went down in the Barents Sea. He had to be nearer the scene, even if it was only cosmetic. That was where he had to be, because that was the demand and even in a country like Russia, that is the demand that the media can impose. THE BRITISH MEDIA MACHINE The power of London as a news centre cannot be underestimated because no other democracy can boast the ten national newspapers that we have: five broadsheets, five popular papers on sale throughout the country. Look again at the power of our electronic media; we have the rolling news channels of the BBC, ITV, Sky. We have the BBC, unique, almost, amongst state broadcasters in being an organisation which is fostering competition within itself So, the World at One is in competition with the Today Programme, the 9 o'clock, or the 10 o'clock news as it now is, is in competition with Newsnight. And that internal competition is another democratic safeguard. Not only is the British news media more aggressive and, some might say, has lower standards than the media in other parts of the world, but we also live in an environment where our political parties have developed a degree of expertise in responding to the media that is the envy of administrations in many other countries, and of course we have seen how the pressure groups and the lobbyists here in Britain have, of course, picked up on those skills. The question is whether the development of the 24-hour news media is going to make it easier for pressure groups, for lobbyists, for governments, to actually use the media. That will be discussed below. POLITICS AND THE MEDIA: 11 SEPTEMBER First, let us just think of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell. They have a better understanding of the electronic news media and better ability to use it than perhaps we have seen in any other Prime Minister in the West, and I would take into account America as an example. Remembering 11 September and President Bush's first response, he was in Florida, talking about how he wanted to hunt down and find those folks who committed this act. Now that was half an hour later than Tony Blair, and this was only one and a half hours later, after the first plane went in. Blair was the first world statesman actually to take advantage of this growing worldwide live 24-hour news media, the live television coverage that was developing throughout the world. He was the first world leader to pull it together, to try and explain it in a way that people would understand. His words can hardly be bettered now: `This mass terrorism is the new evil in our world today, it is perpetrated by fanatics who are utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life.' It was later that evening that Mr Blair came out with his phraseology about Britain standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the USA. Those examples do encapsulate Blair's skill in using the electronic media. What we have also seen is Britain's technical skill. When bin Laden's video came out on the Sunday, that was the night after first Bush and then Blair had spoken about the commitment of forces. Then bin Laden comes out with his video in response. The next day, Blair is the first world leader to ask for an interview on al Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite news television channel. Of course, other world leaders, and especially the Americans, have now followed suit. You can see how sharp the antennae are, especially of the current government. General Wesley Clarke, the former Supreme Allied Commander, paid his tribute to Alastair Campbell. This was after the Kosovo conflict, and he described the value of Campbell's advice. Alastair Campbell had been to Brussels to advise NATO. The right way to fight a propaganda offence is not with more propaganda; it is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But you need some smart people who can tell you which bit of the truth you are looking for. You could not think of a better definition of someone whose job it is to provide that bit of information that will satisfy the media. No wonder Mr Blair has Alastair Campbell at his side almost 24 hours a day. 24-HOUR NEWS MEDIA The current concern of this paper is the role of the 24-hour news media. It is surprising and disappointing that we see criticism by the government of the 24-hour news media, because there has been a thirst for information out there since 11 September. One way to combat the faltering support would be to release more information. Take the other parts of this anti-terrorist offensive; we know on the financial side there are many moves to stop the laundering of terrorist money. What progress is being made there? Why doesn't the government actually give us some information? Take the other measures that have been taken on - control of immigration, or equally the need for greater public information about how to spot possible terrorist devices. There are all sorts of ways in which the government at the moment understand the pressures. But it is this sort of knee jerk reaction where the media is criticised without thinking of the way in which governments can respond. And, of course it is also perhaps the role of some of the lobbyists and pressure groups to realise that there is a bit of an information vacuum there, and that there is a great thirst for information on the latest subject, so it is an opportunity, for many of the organisations which have an interest perhaps a side interest, but certainly an interest - in some of the issues which have been raised. The second lesson to understand with the 24-hour media is that it is easier to influence, because we are constantly changing our agenda. It is to the detriment of journalism that it is perhaps easier for governments, lobbyists and pressure groups to influence the 24-hour media, because we understand that we are always seeking new information, we are always seeking new stories, and wise people get wise to that. Certainly during many of the Kosovo conflicts, and again during this present conflict, the government does understand that. That is why they have these daily news conferences - they are anxious always to fill the news vacuum. Another downside is that with the 24hour news media there is probably less balanced reporting, because one of the changes is that instant news is more conversational. We all hear the political correspondent saying, 'Well I've just spoken to two cabinet ministers' or, 'Senior sources have told me.' The viewer is not let in on the secret as to who these mythical cabinet ministers might be, or who 'my senior sources' are. I am taking advantage of anonymous sources, and it is that sort of chatty conversational style that of course is one of the things that has been used by the government so well. Through the growth of the special advisors, they have understood this thirst on the part of journalists, this readiness to accept information, to have exclusive stories. And therefore this constant turning of the agenda, this fact that we have in many cases a less considered form of journalism is something that is opening up new opportunities for people who want to try to influence the media. A further area of course is that public figures have become more exposed because of the 24-hour media and that has led to more control. Wearing a personal microphone became the symbol of the 2001 general election. Tony Blair was often wearing a personal microphone and in his back pocket he had his little transmitter, and the little transmitter was going over to the sound technician in the corner. Now what the sound technician was doing when Tony Blair was out and about was feeding the sound signal of the writer's voice to the television cameras and to the waiting journalists. So let us just imagine this is the tearoom in the Pump Room at Leamington Spa and Mr Blair is having tea with Mr and Mrs Middle England, which he did, and he is here on his personal microphone. This is control. You may think I believe in conspiracies, but this is how control works. The television cameras are over in the corner and they could not hear the conversation except via Mr Blair's personal microphone, and as he talks to Mr and Mrs Middle England and asks if they liked the cut in interest rates, `Oh yes, of course we did.' You can hear that, and the journalists who are seated in the corner are listening to this conversation on earphones, but we are only hearing the sound that is being supplied to us by the Labour Party sound engineer. This is a form of control which political parties would say is necessary because you cannot have a mad scrum with all the journalists piling in - there has to be some order. Think of the two instances in the 2001 general election, when there was no control. Both of them involved those occasions - which are now the most dangerous moment for a public figure and a politician - which is the 30 seconds, the minute or so, when they get out of their car and into the controlled environment. At the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Sharon Storer stopped Tony Blair on his way into the hospital. It just so happens that there were a couple of cameras outside. All the journalists, of course, were locked inside the hospital in the controlled environment. But of course we got in there and recorded it. Think, too, of John Prescott and his lovely left jab. That of course occurred that same evening in the same dangerous moment for the public figure, when they are moving from their form of transport into their controlled environment. GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE MEDIA Let us think of how Labour and governments are responding to this. They are having to understand how to control this media explosion and in return for giving us access inside, they now try to stop us increasing filming outside. They do not like what we call the arrival shot. They do not like what we call the 'cut-away camera'. If you look at an interview there has to be what is called a 'cut-away' shot, which is the editing shot. So you see Mr Blair being interviewed and then there will be a shot from a different direction. Not of him actually speaking, but it can be used as an editing shot. And of course they do not like the cut-away cameras, because the cut-away cameras might pick up Alastair Campbell breathing down the Prime Minister's neck or whatever the problem might be. The other area of attempted control is increasingly to impose on the media what we call the 'pooled interview'. That is where just one television crew and one photographer are allowed to go along and interview a politician. I accept that down the years politicians have been trying to control the media. When you see the President getting out of the helicopter on the White House lawn and Bush says something to the dog, journalists use footage of him calling one of his dogs across, you can hear what he says. But, of course, when the journalists who are a little bit further back are shouting questions, with the noise from the rotor blades of the helicopter, we just cannot hear. And they just walk off and they manage to avoid answering any questions. Here in Britain we have had a new refinement of this technique. For example, in the summer, the Prime Minister was at a summit in Mexico. He came back via the West Country because he wanted to have a holiday in Britain in support of the British tourist industry, and this was strictly controlled. There would be one television camera and one photographer and there would be no questions, and they had to turn up at a mystery location. They took the picture of the Prime Minister having tea with his wife in a teashop, and then they went down to the harbour and Cherie put her arm round the Prime Minister for another photograph, but there were no questions. You would not believe it, would you? But if we think back to those sorts of flickering black and white newsreels, you remember the man from the BBC used to go up the Prime Minister, who had just come back from the summit, or to the foreign secretary, and say, 'Sir, is there anything that you would like to tell the nation?' The prime minister would look and say, 'Well no, no there is nothing I would like to say tonight', and the BBC man says, 'thank you very much, Sir.' With the present degree of control, we cannot even ask the question. Nicholas Jones is a high-profile political journalist who appears frequently on BBC television and radio. He is the author of numerous books, in which he offers his view on subjects including government spin-doctors and electoral campaigns. This paper is an edited version of a talk given in November 2001 at the DLA conference Lobbying in the 21st Century'. These remarks were made in a personal capacity. |