I hold no torch for Hazel Blears but I do find myself very much agreeing with the essence of what she's saying. The press - by which I also include the commentariat, but also mainstream journalism in a broader sense - is absolutely the biggest culprit in poisoning the political atmosphere. Perhaps by extension we could say that readers - ourselves - and capitalism are the bottom line culprits. Either way, I'm more inclined to view the press as damaging than I am politicians.
I find it very hard to disagree with her on this, for instance:
Quote:
|
a 24-hour broadcast media and shrinking, and increasingly competitive, newspaper market which demands more impact from its reporting – not the reporting of facts to enable citizens to make sense of the world, but the translation of every political discussion into a row, every difficulty a crisis, every rocky patch for the prime minister the "worst week ever".
|
When I scour public opinion - as I often do, cringingly and depressingly - it's incredible how closely the presentation of opinion mirrors the language of the most popular press, and how the views are similarly poorly constructed and the people misled. Whether the issue is the government's response to knife crime, or a proper debate on affirmative action, or another instance of data loss, or a cabinet reshuffle, or whatever it is - Blears is absolutely right that the press, for the most part, leave the public shockingly uninformed and in a state of largely unnecessary fear and cynicism, reacting from moral panic to moral panic instead of using their heads. Consequently, platforms of public opinion are filled with the kind of alarmist and unremittingly negative words and phrases that they're spoonfed by the likes of the Mail, Express, Sun, and even, these days, the Indie - SHAME, OUTRAGE, DISGRACE, FURY, FIASCO.... etc. The press
actively encourage this negativity, stoking outrage as much as they can, and leaving people to revel in their cynicism and - in the case of papers like the Mail - spite.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a politician clearly evading an answer because of how the press are quite obviously going to distort it. Any attempt by a politician to say something that isn't within party lines will be plastered over tomorrow's paper as DISUNITY - LABOUR IN CHAOS. Any attempt by a politician to admit they were wrong and change course is lambasted as INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT IN U-TURN. Even though it's completely irrational to expect a politician to make no mistakes, and completely sensible for them to change course when they realise it.
You might say that, in that case, a politician should be stronger and not succumb, they should stick to their guns and rise above it all. I say that's unrealistic. The sheer weight carried by the press in how a politician or PM is "seen" is astounding, despite the denials of Murdoch, Dacre and co. The press IS the prism through which we find out what's going on - and by definition, the popular press is the most influential.
These things say far more about us (readers and press alike) than than they do about politicians. Whenever a public figure makes a statement that doesn't accord with the over-simplistic black and white approach of the press - whether it's the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on integrating aspects of Sharia Law into UK law, or a government-sponsored academic's comments on changes to the classification of murder - it's like it passes through a ridiculous filter by the press and congeals into just two utterly misleading strands of black and white - and the public debate ends up dominated by stupidity.
"Archbishop calls for Sharia Law in UK!!!!!!!"
"Now we go soft on murderers!!!!!"
"Now poppies are banned!!!!"
An effective democracy requires an informed public, a public that gets access to facts, and knows how to think for themselves. Information is most effectively transmitted when it's calm and considered. It's least effectively transmitted when it's hysterical and unremittingly cynical. When that happens, people stop using their heads and resort to their gut. The fact that pompous, bloke-ish, conservative bores like Jeremy Clarkson and Richard Littlejohn would probably beat any politician hands down in an election says a lot about the state of political discourse and the perception of politicians in this country - but that doesn't mean the fault necessarily lies with the politicians. I'd say it speaks more about how uninformed and easily sucked in many people are by the tirade of negative and over-simplistic journalism and commentary. Politicians are caught in a 'damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't' trap.