Is it not just a little childish?

It is a little surprising that when visiting her Peckham constituency, surrounded by police officers, Harriet Harman felt it necessary to wear a stab vest. In particular when in her defence she claimed she dressed in 'appropriate clothing'. William Hague did not exactly go for the jugular when making the jibe: "Presumably when you go to a cabinet meeting you dress as a clown." Neither did Harman talk about real issues in responding "If am looking for advice on what to wear or what not to wear, I think the very last person I would look to for advice is the man in a baseball cap," such it seems is the standard fare for PMQs even when it is the first time a woman has stood at the dispatch box since Thatcher. It seems that only John Humphreys on the BBC Today Programme felt willing to tackle her on the important issue that the everyday Londoner may consider: "You wear a hard hat on a building site because there are dangers there. There is the danger that something might drop on your head. You don't need to wear a bullet-proof vest on the streets of London, do you?" And that is the issue, one explored further more broadly in the media but not in parliament, it suggests the streets of Peckham are not safe to walk and this is not a good message for a cabinet member to send out when gun and knife crime are prominent in the media. What amazes me is that the professional image consultants and dressers seem unable to give good advice these days.

An absolute sack of shits?

That was Mike Hancock's description of those who he believes ousted Menzies Campbell from his role as Liberal Democrat leader, or at least so Kirsty Wark told BBC's Newsnight audience last night. This was toned down to be 'a right shower' on the AFP report. It is highly telling though that there is a mistrust within the party and a seeming lack of internal communications to allow the perception of their being kingmakers and coups at the top. Also speaking on Newsnight, Mark Littlewood, former Head of Media for the party, described Charles Kennedy's ousting as a 'defenestration', not quite the opportunity to clear himself of his problems as party spokespeople sold it. Campbell seemed instrumental in the ousting, and the allegations that appeared against the two popular candidates Mark Oaten and Simon Hughes may suggest that there was a lot of briefing going on from within the doors of the Cowley Street offices.

This may suggest that, while Campbell was victorious against Huhne is surviving unscathed rival, there may have been grievances that made his position shaky and increasingly untenable. Certainly there has been a lack of any concerted effort on behalf of some sections of the party to play down the age issue, thus they fell in line with the media in questioning whether a man in his sixties would be able to run a high pressure modern election campaign. Whether age is the real issue, or because it became an issue, is the question; or whether there were alternative reasons for wanting a new leader will perhaps be a mystery until the first autobiography appears and tells all.

The big question is though, should age be an issue? Campbell has had health scares so perhaps the intense work of an election could be a strain. But perhaps it is the image thing that is the problem. One reporter mentioned 'sock garters', an Edwardian fashion item, is Campbell perceived as just too old-fashioned? Is it a question of how professional he appears, and that may not be in terms of him looking business-like, but actually looking right when on camera. The recent gaffes say not. The bigger question is whether the Liberal Democrats could make a challenge whoever the leader is. The problem with the voting system and the general perception of British politics is that the next government will be Labour or Conservative, and any vote for an alternative is a waste. Now voters finally seem to want to offer support to the Conservatives again, but have not lost total faith in Labour or Gordon Brown, is there a place the Liberal Democrats can carve out.

The gap is the left, but that means focusing resources on Labour heartlands. Middle England is sown up. So is the three party politics that Kennedy heralded now dead and a new era of two-party politics emerging? If so in the borad scheme of things it may not matter who the leader is, but it might matter to all those who beleive that the Liberal Demcorats are the good guys, not out for power but who are for the 'little guy' if they are suddenly seen as tough guys who need to stab each otehr in the back to try to win a few points in the polls. That seems to be a perception that is rattlign around and may stick to the next leader as much as age has to undermine Campbell.

Stealing the agenda

Driving around Dorset today, through the little village of East Stoke near Wareham I was somewhat surprised to find a notice calling residents to vote in 'The Referendum on the EU Constitution'. When you think you have some sort of handle on what's going on in politics it comes as a surprise. I asked in the village shop, finding a local parishioner I discovered that local members of UKIP have exercised their right to force a local parish referendum if 10 or more local parishioners vote in favour. 18 attended and sufficient voted in favour!

This has been done not because it will have a profound effect on government policy, particularly as the question is not on accepting the constitution but: "Do you want a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty?". The point is to put the issue on the agenda and rally support. It seems to have worked, to an extent. One has to say the timing is wrong however. If they had done this to coincide with a speech on Europe then maybe, but it only made the local BBC News and was ignored by the evening bulletins, but there are a wealth of references on a Google search. But if every parish in the country followed suit...

UPDATE

Turnout in the referendum was 80, out of 350 potential voters; the result was 90% in favour of a further referendum. Not really democracy at work, but as many local councillors, MEPs and mayors cannot gain a similar level of percentage turnout or support it cannot be condemned too much.

The vicious cycle

Nick Assinder wrote yesterday that "If it looks like an election campaign and sounds like an election campaign then it is understandable people believe it IS an election campaign", an he is right, it is an election campaign but he misses a very important point. This is the permanent election campaign, it began as soon as Blair's timetable for leaving began. Why? Because the media have talked up an election campaign since that point also, every reporting of the polls is used to suggest when an election will take place and who will win. Hence Brown and Cameron are both engaged in a permanent campaign for public support as any shift in the poll is reported as an indictment of them as leaders and future prime ministers.

I describe this simply, as per the above diagram, the problem is that this sort of reporting drives cynicism and boredom. Why do the public want an election, because every bored political editor is using this as the hook to make a political story exciting; and around the cycle goes!

Who gives a flying [fig]

Those familiar with the hallowed halls of Bournemouth University Media School will know we have TV screens almost everywhere, every time I have walked passed one today it has shown a nervous looking Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary) talking about the fact that she once smoked cannabis while at University. Shock, horror, gasp, quick expose her to the public disdain and call for her to be stoned (again allegedly).

Is it just me that finds this a non-news story. Students, like all young people, which we all were once (I think I can just about remember being young, lots of times in fact) get drunk, do daft things, sample stuff and on the whole survive the experience to live long and fulfilling lives. This is not to say go and do drugs it is fine, that is not always the case as we know, but is it really appropriate to demonise a politician who once smoked a joint, and make it a front page story that dominates rolling news. If a Home Secretary is mainlining heroin at the desk, or indeed surviving the stress of the day with a spliff and a 'hash' brownie, then fine maybe there is a problem, a toke of a joint at 18 is not exactly suggestive of someone unfit for the role given to her by Gordon Brown. The BBC make the link in the following way: "Jacqui Smith has admitted she smoked cannabis while she was at Oxford University in the 1980s. Her disclosure came the day after Prime Minister Gordon Brown said she would head a review of UK drugs strategy - including reviewing the cannabis laws". They make no moral claim on the basis of this link, but what view are they expecting the viewer or reader to take one need ask?

This all fits within a much larger question about our politicians. Do we want people of high moral fibre, with clean records, immaculate lives, no skeletons in the closet however small, no past; or do we want normal people who have lived. Perhaps the BBC should do a survey of journalists. lawyers, police officers (anyone involved in commenting on and enforcing drug law reforms) and enquire how many of them have taken some illegal substance at some point in their lives, at least that way we would gain some balance on the issue. I don't care if the laws are relaxed, I also don't really care if people are smoking cannabis providing they don't try to drive afterwards, I do feel that making such a huge story out of it is a crime against serious journalism.

That is my rant for July, I don't do many but i enjoyed it, it was a cathartic experience, I can now relax and wait for those by-election results.

Obama: 'share your outrage'

Obama has made a call to his supporters to 'share [their] outrage' at George W's spinning on the Iraq report and the media complicity in not offering a critical perspective. His call is for supporters to write Letters to the Editor.

I often, and perhaps mistakenly, regard letters to the editor in the UK newspapers as rants from the politically engaged. If this is going around is network then newspapers could find themselves deluged, that is if only a quarter or so reply. Will they get published, obviously not, but they may indicate the strength of feeling on the issue. So, theoretically, this could be a powerful tool for changing the media agenda but it depends on whether Obama can mobilise the public; this could be a test for him!

Defining Satisfactory

George W Bush, commenting on the interim report on progress in Iraq, a report demanded by an increasingly hostile Congress, claimed that "Iraq has made satisfactory progress towards meeting eight targets, but has not done so regarding another eight". That progress appears to be that the Iraqi government has managed to pass a series of laws but has not managed to actually gain control of the state; so satisfactory progress is open to a degree of interpretation here. As Bush himself points out:

"Those who believe that the battle in Iraq is lost will likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks. Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism,"

How true. Fox News' headline reads "Progress on Iraq: Officials say 8 out of 18 Benchmarks met". CBS, on a different tack, reads "Bush Optimistic Despite Mixed Report". More dispassionately NBC reports "Bush sees ‘cause for optimism’ in Iraq: White House report cites success on 8 goals, failure on 8, mixed effort on 2". No bias here then!

When the media calls time...

Due to the focus of much of the literature on media and politics, and generally the news that filters to us, we often think that the media-politics vicious cycle is a US-UK phenomenon. This vicious cycle finds what Steven Barnett referred to as Rottweiler journalism, which describes those like Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman who bombard their 'prey', usually a politician, with questions they are reluctant to answer. We also find the conflation by the media between entertaining and informing [infotainment]. These encourage politicians and their spin doctors to hide facts that show them in a negative light and offer news packaged in an entertaining way in order to gain positive coverage and lead the agenda. But this is not simply an isolated feature.

In the run-up to the Japanese General Election for the Upper House (House of Councillors), 29th July, the current defense minister, Fumio Kyuma, remarked that the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "something that couldn't be helped". This was said in the context of the US wanted to end the war before the Soviet Union occupied Japan and expanded its sphere of influence into the Pacific Ocean, but that was not how the media reported his comment.

Kyuma was forced to resign as the media condemned him for justifying the US attack, being insensitive to those families still suffering the effects of the radiation and fallout, and it is argued that it could bring down the Liberal coalition government already in trouble over Japan's the Social Insurance Agency's bungled maintenance of premium payment records. Comments from a colleague who is an expert in the area suggest that the media have decided that the coalition should lose and is dredging up negative stories wherever they can be found. The Kyuma crisis comes as the Social Insurance problem was becoming a non-story and public attention was shifting. So it is not just the UK press that gang up on a government they feel is either going to, or should, lose.

What Honeymoon?

It is common for a new Prime Minister to be given a honeymoon period, where the media and public opinion show support for them. While weekend polls suggested Labour had gained a halo effect, the BBC appear to have launched an anti-Brown/Harman offensive even before they take up their new roles.

Last night's Panorama was an investigation into Brown record on spin. It wasn't exactly revealing or new, just collected little bits of evidence from across ten years to show he was as media-obsessed as Blair, depict him as competitive in gaining positive media coverage, and importantly quite prepared to lie publicly when asked if he was aware that Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone had donated a large sum of money to the party. This all raised serious doubts about the extent to which Brown would usher in a new style of open government that would listen to the people.

This followed on from the grilling Harriet Harman received on the Today programme concerning whether she had agreed, during the Newsnight hustings, that the party should apologise for the Iraq War. She did, yes I checked, say she agreed when Cruddas said the party should apologise but now claims "What I've said is I actually voted for the war on the basis that there were weapons of mass destruction and I was wrong on that... How many times can I say it? I haven't asked anybody else to do anything - I've just explained what my position is." Will all this lead into a back story that argues this government is illegitimate and needs a public mandate? It seems likely that Brown is to get a hard ride and face significant scrutiny over the next months and may well be driven to the early election whether it was in his mind or not. Good for democracy in some ways, but should the media undermine a new Prime Minister in this way, it may be a popular approach for some but it sets a dangerous precedent where any new government could find itself undermined from day zero.

Countdown to the General Election starts here [YAWN!]

On my travels today I noted with interest that a number of headlines predicted an election in nine months, rushing to the stands I was rather disappointed. The Times reports on page 1 "the appointment of an election co-ordinator [Douglas Alexander] in a clear signal that he would like to go to the country next year", though this is later qualified to say "if Mr Brown believes that he can win an election within the next 12 months, he will try and secure his own mandate from voters". So the headline Now for election '08 is not quite the breaking news it seems. It is however the start of the hype to replace the Blair-Brown feud and the when will Blair go saga, so every journalist will probably now be speculating when will an election be called unless some real news passes their desks and even when it does that will be the context for the majority of political stories.

a 'NET' loss

I found Labourhome this afternoon, Labour's answer to Conservative Home a forum "for blogs, discussion and debate in which supporters can meet and consider issues of common concern and interest outside the party", set up early June I think. Now here is a good example of a why David Phillips is absolutely right when he argues that anything posted anywhere on the web can later be potentially embarrasing (all Facebook users particualrly beware!). Browsing the archives I found a beauty!

Commenting on Harriet Harman's Newsnight performance, JR makes a statement that could easily be used by Labour's or Harman's opponents to undermine the party's next election campaign. Perhaps said at a time when her victory seemed slim and of course it could be seen as fair comment; but the implications... The full text is below:

by far the biggest shambles of the night was Harriet Harman. After desperately clinging on to her Cabinet position for all these years, now Blair is going, she decided to stab him in the back and reject all the principles which she herself had backed for a decade. Amnesty for illegal immigrants? Taxing the David Beckhams of the world until their hair stands on end? Going on about people buying £10,000 handbags? She's lost the plot. So Harriet, tell me, by denying somebody the right to spend their hard-earned money as they choose, why does that make the poor better off? Hitting the rich will not improve the lives of the poor - it simply gets peoples backs up that deluded government ministers are attacking them for wanting to earn a good wage and wanting the freedom to spend it how they see fit. She seems to be on a one-woman mission to kill Blairism and everything that New Labour has built up in it's decade of success. It's not an unfair comment to say that she even outflanked Cruddas on leftieness, so much so that even Cruddas himself couldn't help but lavish praise on her. And of course, then we had the charade where she quickly tried to change her second-preference to Cruddas in order to scoop up more leftie votes, but she couldn't quite manage it because she still wants to make out she can win us votes in the middle-class South. Sorry Harriet, but you've failed there spectacularly. No self-respecting middle-class family would give their votes to a party that espoused your views.

At the start of this campaign, I originally considered giving my vote to Harman as she seemed pleasant, was generally loyal to Blair and was moderate enough to win us the middle England votes. She's destroyed all that and now she's going second-bottom after Cruddas. Congratulations Harriet Harman, you've managed to scare stiff about half the British population into thinking Labour is going back to the Michael Foot era - I'm sure that's really going to help come election time against Cameron's 'heirs to Blair'.

Where's the detail?

The Treaty Amendment, or EU Constitution as some would have it, was finally agreed at dawn this morning. This meant that it was just in time for the newspapers to pick the story up for the Saturday edition. Looking across the coverage what seems lacking is the detail of the treaty, instead the focus is on the process by which compromises were reached.

The Sun suggests Blair was ready to surrender until forced by Brown; The Telegraph agreed arguing Blair 'caved-in' until Brown insisted on safeguards for Britain. Similarly The Guardian reported that 'a chastened' Blair returned after being told by Brown to 'stand up to the French'. On a more positive tack, The Times argued that Blair largely achieved his aims but was pressured by Brown to compromise while The Mirror, offering the only positive perspective, hailed the safeguards as a victory for Britain. In total contrast The Mail proposed the treaty as a 'threat to British sovereignty'; even the BBC raised doubts allowing the euro-sceptic UK Independence Party MEP Nigel Farage most airtime during Breakfast News.

So the perspective being offered is that there this was the last Blair-Brown power struggle, that generally the treaty may not be a good thing but, depending on the editorial position, the only evidence presented is one-sided. It has long been argued that the reporting of UK-EU relations has been focused too much on the process as opposed to policy, it is noted as a divisive issue in British politics, and that there is a generally Eurosceptic tone colouring reporting; hence the British tend to be sceptical of all things related to the European Union. The quick review of main news reports offered this morning seems to reinforce these perspectives. Perhaps few would be keen to read much in the way of detail, and to be fair this is offered, however the main news is essentially an editorial selecting the negative and personal aspects as important; independent of attitudes towards the European Union, should there not be more objective information presented by the media?

The other aspect is the way it seems Brown has been able to gain media support from this. Clearly information about 'phone calls' has leaked from the Brown camp, who else would. Thus he has become the saviour of some vestiges of sovereignty. His combination of being anti-Blair and anti-EU in one go was a media management masterstroke and the media acted as his propaganda machine. Bet Brown is feeling quite triumphalist today, just ahead of tomorrow's inauguration!

BBC too liberal: so let's not end world poverty

A report released by the BBC claims that there is insufficient partiality in certain areas of their programming. I would probably agree; at times. Curiously there are two instances singled out on the BBC's website: the Make Poverty History narrative embedded within one Christmas special for The Vicar of Dibley, and their coverage of Live8; while Andrew Marr is described as having an "innate liberal bias". The report concludes, according to the summary, that impartiality is "not necessarily to be found on the centre ground".

I found this report, or at least the bits extracted, as rather odd in a number of ways. Firstly, while endorsement within programming of ideas by favoured characters is persuasive, one does not get the sense that all programming supports the Make Poverty History cause; instead there are a number of narratives that could be called persuasive being run across the board. Having watched Spooks and Judge John Deed, I find them anti-government; Eastenders is often a vehicle for social marketing [highlighting the problems facing parents of babies with Downs Syndrome for example]; should all of these be balanced and how?

On the specific issue of Live8, perhaps news coverage prior to the event gave more time and focus to Bob Geldof than Gordon Brown, Tony Blair or the concurrent summit. But there is also a sense here that it was clear who had some form of mass support. If staunch critics had been given airtime, to say that the UK should keep its money and ignore the Third World, what effect could this have had upon the BBC's image?

While impartiality is a worthy goal, it is questionable whether anyone can be impartial? While BBC Trustee Richard Tait argues in the press release that one of the 12 principles must be that "Impartiality is no excuse for insipid programme-making", is this not actually the likely result of the criticisms? It is claimed that these standards will shape every sort of programme, of every genre, so will this limit the ability of drama writers to tackle controversial topics unless they present a balanced view?

Finally though, the greatest evidence for partiality, which seems unmentioned, is the cynical stance which Tony Blair was talking about last Tuesday; where the journalist simply adopts the attitude that all politicians are lying. While this is not descriptive of all coverage, it is questionable how that type of interview measures up against two of the key elements that those questioned denote impartiality: [Let us hear different people giving their own stories in their own words 80%; Stand back and ask critical and rigorous questions of others 71%]. I can imagine a few politicians would argue that the first element is usually overshadowed by the latter! And for evidence, independent of any ideological position, see this clip!

And have you heard the one...

Picture the scene, a high pressure international summit at the height of the Cold War. US President Ronald Reagan is due to meet then Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme for the first time. To ensure no social faux pas, Reagan asks his team whether Mr Palme had any communist sympathies. An aide quickly explains: "No Mr President, he's an anti-communist", without bothering to process this important bit of information Reagan retorted sharply: "I don't care what kind of communist he is". Get it?? Rolling in the aisles?? LOL??? NO, ah!

Well spare a thought for the various aides following Gordon Brown around the country, and not to mention the numerous audiences of party faithful who have to offer a polite titter. As news has it that this joke has been told at every meeting so far. Clearly this is part of Gordon's attempt to shake off his image as lacking a sense of humour and being too dour and sombre. Is it working, well BBC Radio 4 did a classic piece of political journalism to check out Gordon's delivery. Stand-up comedian Paul Sinha explained his delivery was weak, he appeared bored telling the joke, and the joke is not that good anyway. I'm stunned, I am glad they got an expert in.

However journalists when on to criticise the new touch feely image politicians try to cultivate, discussing the lack of substance and elevation of personality, celebrity and authenticity. I agree, hear hear! However, isn't this just a little rich coming from any journalist. They have suggested Brown would lack appeal as prime minister because he seems too serious, that his personality is flawed. The man is not a comedian, despite suggestions that his calculations are a joke, why should he feel the need to become one? Well because of his portrayal, the perceptions held of him, and what the media claim his personality to lack. Again damned if you do, damned if you don't! It brings to a question that remains central to all studies of the media-politics relations; should the media inform or comment and if both what is the acceptable amount of comment and how should the news agenda be determined - all very pertinent questions!

Democracy: a joyless waste of time?

Nick Assinder notes today that the House of Commons seems 'demob happy' during Prime Minister's Questions. Given that Blair has few weeks left as PM Assinder comments: "The prime minister did his bit as professionally as ever, but there was no fire or vigour - and why should there be?... But perhaps the biggest surprise was that David Cameron wasn't bothered either." What's the problem, well it seems that the media spectacle that is PMQs is not providing the entertainment that journalists want. But do they miss the point? PMQs is supposed to be the prime minister being scrutinised by the representatives of the British people, led by the Leader of the Opposition, not a piece of entertainment. The media blame politicians when they fail to perform for the cameras and then criticise them for being obsessed with image; while a minor example of double standards there are many more!!

Spare a thought for the front line!

A feature on BBC News Online incorporates a range of stories about dissatisfaction within and about the NHS with Tony Blair calling for anyone and everyone to recognise the successes he has made regardless of failure (though the latter bit does not seem to have been part of his pep talk). Parts of the article made me think how tough it must be firstly to manage the NHS, though I am not using this post to support or defend all aspects of government policy, as well as to face constant criticism as the staff often must feel that they do.

It is hard to remember any positive news about the NHS, more than often what may be isolated cases of failure become national news items that are used to signify government failure. Some research I conducted after the last election talked about trust and government delivery within a wide ranging set of focus group discussions. Most participants agreed they had seen improvements locally, and had no bad experiences, but agreed that generally the NHS is failing. What is the truth? Where is this going?

Here is the point I wished to make. Good news is not news, bad news is. Governments of every colour will get negative feedback on how they run public services, oppositions of every colour will use a cause celebre to score points. In the middle, and on the front line, are the public service providers. It is they who are doing the bad job, they are told so by the media. Independent of how well they are doing with the tools and resources they are given, they are frequently told they are doing a bad job. it must be very demoralising to be a pawn in the political game! I do not suggest a solution, particularly not that the media be soft on the running of the public services, but it does seem a shame that good reforms go unnoticed and one mistake damns the whole organisation.