Category: Media Ethics
Joining up the dots in a multi-media environment
- Details
In a lecture to students at Brunel University (27.1.2009) Nicholas Jones set out the challenges which journalists will face as newspaper groups expand their audio-visual online output and compete head on with established broadcasters. Newspapers like the Sun and the News of the World are showing how the Murdoch press is joining up the dots. News International’s purchasing power for exclusive video material – and the skill of its journalists in manufacturing news – can dictate the running order of newsrooms across the multi-media environment. Newspaper groups are determined to maintain their influence in a digital age and are demonstrating how they can command the agenda not just in the press but in television and radio and online journalism as well. The infamous Prince Harry video – in which the third in line to the throne chose to identify “Ahmed, our little Paki friend” – was a memorable scoop for the News of the World (“Harry’s Racist Video Shame” 11.1.2009). It was also a spectacular example of how the world’s leading newspaper publisher, Rupert Murdoch, is changing the media landscape here in Britain. What we saw was a graphic example of how our biggest-selling Sunday paper was able to command the agenda not just in the press but in television and radio and also across online journalism as well. Murdoch is joining up the dots, showing how his group’s enormous purchasing power – and the skill of his journalists in manufacturing news – is able to dictate the running order of newsrooms across a multi-media environment. Harry’s home video, filmed three years ago at Sandhurst military academy, which was leaked -- or more likely sold – to the News of the World provided the front-page splash and a double-page inside spread in the paper itself; it was given star billing on the News of the World’s website; and was re-broadcast extensively on television news programmes, with the News of the World’s red logo there in the right-hand corner of every shot. Just a few years ago the News of the World’s ability to exploit a purloined video tape like that would have been much more limited in comparison with the opportunities available today. Yes, the tape would have provided still pictures which could be reproduced in the paper and the Prince’s damming commentary would have been reprinted. But today’s rapidly changing media landscape has opened up new platforms for newspapers, which explains why the leading groups are investing so heavily in their online output. Not just the News of the World but other leading tabloids are buying up exclusive audio-visual material for their websites and they know that mainstream broadcasters like the BBC and ITV will end up falling over themselves to get access to the footage and rebroadcast it themselves. So the ability of newspapers to expand into audio-visual journalism via their websites is changing the dynamics of public service broadcasters. There is a new competitor in their midst with a seemingly bottomless pocket to buy up sensational videos and other audio-visual material…and they are going online first with their material, not waiting for next day’s paper. These videos are available on websites which -- like the newspapers themselves -- are self-regulated and which are outside the control of the broadcasting regulator Ofcom. In fact newspaper websites are entirely free of many of the restraints which apply to broadcasters – like the need for political impartiality. Strict rules have always been in place to moderate what can be said and transmitted on radio and television. But the broadcasters are now having to compete with a new generation of video and audio journalists who can be as opionated as they like and who are subject to few if any of the standards over intrusion or fair dealing which apply to radio and television. Broadcasting standards and ethics are being changed by the back door and what I am particularly concerned about is the impact this might have on political reporting. This is all the more important because newspaper groups like News International and the Daily Mail are vehement critics of the European ideal; they campaign vociferously against attempts by the European Union to raise European standards. For the first time we are about to see how far this Euro-sceptic vitriol is going to extend into the world of online broadcasting via the rapidly-expanding audio-visual output of the newspaper websites. My own admittedly limited monitoring of these sites – especially during Parliamentary by-elections – has shown that the online video reporting of politics is distinctly partisan on newspaper websites and ignores the long-standing conventions on political impartiality which apply to mainstream broadcasting. The question is going to be whether this matters? Would anything be lost if through the convergence of broadcasting and the internet, newspapers were able to challenge the traditional broadcasters and provide an opinionated audio-visual news service? We should be able to learn some lessons because campaigning is about to begin for the European Parliamentary elections on June 4. Our biggest selling newspaper the Sun is yet again campaigning hard for a British referendum on the “hated European constitution” – a referendum that was first promised by Tony Blair but which Gordon Brown has so far avoided. We must not forget that it was in the face of continued demands by papers like the Sun that Blair conceded a referendum, against his better judgement. And now with the Sun giving its full support to David Cameron’s pledge that a new, incoming Conservative government would immediately honour that undertaking and give the British people a vote on the constitution, it is clear this is an issue which will figure highly in the European elections and also in the way the anti-European newspapers and their websites report the contest. This is an illustration of the way newspapers can apply pressure to the government of the day on key issues and it gets right to the heart of what is different about British newspapers. The British press is highly politicised; the national newspapers are great political campaigners – and they have been for a very long time – and they can have an enormous influence on political life and the wider news agenda. A free press is one of the great strengths of British democracy and although our politicians do not like it, once the government of the day loses the support of our popular national newspapers the days of that administration might well be numbered. So the ability of the papers to influence and even command the agenda is something which ministers fear, which explains why through their spin doctors they put so much effort into trying to influence political journalists and their editors. It is the intensity of the competition between our media outlets, the sharpness of the spin doctors and the brilliance of our public relations industry which helps give the British news media the edge when compared with the news media of our nearest neighbours like France or Germany. When I talk about the national press manufacturing news that is precisely what I mean: the papers can literally conjure up stories which can dominate the media scene in Britain and create headlines around the world. Two of my top ten such stories are classics of their kind. Let’s begin with The Sun’s world exclusive in May 2001: “The End – the moment justice caught up with Ronnie Biggs thanks to the Sun”. (Sun, 8.5.2001) Here is the Sun creating its own news: after the British police spent 35 years failing to catch Britain’s biggest train robber, he was “apprehended” by the Sun in his Rio de Janeiro bolthole, flown back to Britain and handed over to the cops. Another classic is the Daily Mirror’s scoop in November 2003 with the headline “INTRUDER” splashed across a front page picture of Buckingham Palace. (19.11.2003) A Mirror reporter had spent two months working undercover as a Buckingham Palace footman. His story was published the day after President George Bush spent the night there with the Queen. And that is why an exclusive like this can cause so much trouble for the authorities. The fact that a Mirror journalist could work for the Queen for two months without being detected became what the paper said was “biggest royal security scandal ever”. Immediately you get a feel for the sense of mischief which characterises our tabloid press.But the pop papers can also deliver a knockout punch. Once they begin campaigning on what they believe is an issue of public concern, they can stir up public disquiet and if that takes off, their campaigns can and do change government policy. I am often asked why I single out the tabloid press rather than newspapers like The Times or say The Guardian. Of course the comment and opinion columns of our serious quality newspapers have an impact on government. But it is the tabloids – the red tops as they are known – with their massive circulations, which through the verve, and yes brilliance of their journalism, can get people signing petitions, which can whip up feelings and which can, on occasion, inflame tensions. Political spin doctors and public relations consultants are rightly fearful of finding themselves in the firing line. Perhaps the most sustained and unsettling campaign has been the one waged by the News of the World in support of Sarah’s Law – the demand that parents should have the right to know if paedophiles are living near their children or having contact with them. “NAMED SHAMED” was the News of the World’s front-page headline (23.7.200) which kicked off the campaign in July 2000. The paper took the law into its own hands and started printing pictures of paedophiles. A petition was launch, “Sign here for Sarah” (News of the World, 30.7.2000) and a year later the paper claimed its continued publication of the mug shots of paedophiles has the support of Scotland Yard. Occasionally the campaign veered out of control: “The paedo hate mob” (Daily Mirror 12.12.2006) was the headline over a story about a child sex killer being hounded from his home. In November of that year the government policy began to change and a Police website began to name wanted sex offenders. “Perv.Com” was the unbeatable headline for the Sun (17.11.2006). Finally, in February 2008, the News of the World declared: “It’s Victory for Sara”. (17.2.2008) (Sara is the mum of Sarah Payne, the little girl who was murdered). The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, revealed in an exclusive article that the government would allow parents access to information about people who posed a risk to their children. Then at the New Year on honour for Sarah’s mum – predicted exclusively of course by the News of the World: “Sara gets a gong”. (28.12.2008). And now Sara is going to become a government adviser or “Minister for Victims” according to the News of the World. Here we see a classic case of where a newspaper campaign builds up so much momentum that the politicians have to jump on board. The Prime Minister Gordon Brown is no slouch himself when he sees an unstoppable press initiative. Early in 2008, the Daily Mail caught the rest of the news media on the hop with this front page “Banish the Bags” (27.2.2008) It devoted the first ten pages of the paper to graphic pictures and reporting in support of a campaign to ban plastic shopping bags. Next day the paper declared on its front page: “M&S banishes the free bag”. (28.2.2008). And guess what, on day three of the campaign: “Brown: the bags will be banished” (29.2.2008). The Prime Minister had wasted no time in giving his support to the bid to stop the “blight of plastic poison”. There could hardly be a more telling example of a Prime Minister clambering aboard a popular cause. But the Daily Mail is nothing but tenacious and Brown is well aware of the paper’s appeal in middle England. Let us take the ill-fated plan to open up Las Vegas style casinos in the UK. Once the Daily Mail got its teeth into that, the government was in trouble. “Gambling with our Futures” was the opening salvo (15.10.2004) and Tony Blair’s ministers were soon having second thoughts “Labour retreat over super casinos” (Daily Mail 25.10.2004). Guess what, one of Gordon Brown’s first decisions on becoming Prime Minister was to scrap the compromise plan for a super casino in Manchester. “A very moral victory” declared the Mail (12.7.2007) which hailed Brown’s decision to “kill them off at a stroke”. Given the power which the tabloids can wield, you can understand why the proprietors are so determined to ensure through their websites that they can continue to command the news agenda and retain that influence over the government of the day. What helped to arouse so much concern over the fate of Baby P – the little baby murdered in Hackney in London – was the Sun’s campaign for the social workers to be sacked. It is not clear how precisely it was obtained, but the Sun was first newspaper to get a photograph of Baby P and in contrast to previous exclusives, it did not hold the picture back until the first edition of the paper but published it immediately on the Sun’s website. The Sun knew other news outlets might get the picture and it wanted to be in the lead, to be claiming ownership and use that picture to drive its petition for the sacking of the social workers who failed to detect Baby P’s suffering. Within eleven days the Sun had collected 1.2 million signatures – and triumphantly handed in their petition to No. 10. Ed Balls, children’s secretary, wrote in support that the Sun’s petition had shown the “huge strength of feeling across Britain”. The Sun wasn’t satisfied…not only did it want the social workers sacked but it said their boss Sharon Shoesmith should be axed without a pay off – and she was. No minister would have dared to do otherwise. But the campaign does have echoes of mob rule and a public lynching. What we saw with Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, working hand in glove with the News of the World and the children’s secretary, Ed Balls, keeping in step with the Sun over Baby P was a degree of closeness between government ministers and the media which can be pretty scary. What was so effective about the creation and promotion of the New Labour brand was that it had critical support from Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers. News International – publishers of the The Times, Sunday Times, News of the World and the Sun have a 42 per cent share of the national newspaper market. These papers were courted assiduously first by Peter Mandelson when he was the Labour party’s director of publicity and then by Alastair Campbell who became Tony Blair’s press secretary in 1994. The culmination of their efforts was the final confirmation – a couple of months before the 1997 general election – the Sun had abandoned the Conservatives and would back Tony Blair, the new Labour Party leader. It represented a complete about turn by Murdoch. Throughout the 1980s his papers had been the staunchest supporters of Margaret Thatcher. But Murdoch saw which way the wind was blowing. He knew Labour would win and he wanted his newspapers to be on the winning side – which would of course benefit his media business. Once Blair was elected and Alastair Campbell was installed in Downing Street, he went round the world creating exclusive stories for the Sun which were designed to build up the Prime Minister’s image as an international statesman. In January 1998 Blair visited Japan and Campbell with the help of the Sun’s political editor Trevor Kavanagh cooked up this world exclusive: “Japan says sorry to the Sun – for what happened in World War Two”. (Sun, 14.1.1998) Subsequently, perhaps not surprisingly Premier Hashimoto denied he had said anything of the kind. But the Campbell-Kavanagh duo were not at all daunted. When he visited Argentina the following October, the Sun produced what it says was another historic apology: “Argentina says: We’re sorry for Falklands”. (Sun 23.10.1998). President Menem denied ever using the word “sorry”. Spinning stories like this cannot just be dismissed as tabloid nonsense: the Sun does have an impact. The line it takes can have a powerful effect over time. A record of telephone conversations between Blair and Rupert – finally released last October under the Freedom of Information Act – confirms the collusion that we know took place – and is still taking place – between the Labour government and the Murdoch press. In a conversation in January 1998 – less than a year into the Labour government, Blair told Murdoch he was “instinctively sympathetic” to Murdoch’s plans to introduce interactive systems on Sky TV. Britain would support this within the European Union. Here were see Murdoch’s commercial agenda and the advantage he can gain from offering Blair the support of his newspapers. We got critical confirmation of that in a conversation in July 2002 – in the long lead-up to the Iraq war and the American-led invasion. Murdoch praised the Prime Minister for his stand on Iraq and said his newspapers would “strongly support” the use of British troops in support of a possible US attack. In recent years no newspaper proprietor has enjoyed a fraction of the power exercised by Murdoch and just look at the unflinching support of the Sun for “Our Boys in Iraq and Afghanistan”. The headlines say it all: “Watch It. Our Boys off to Battle Zone: We beat Napoleon, Kaiser and Hitler…It’s just another job” (25.10.2004); “The Sun takes on the Taliban” (9.10.2006); “Our Boys’ Heroics Revealed: The Lions of Basra” (4.9.2007). No-one can ignore the cumulative effect of this coverage. The Sun, selling three million copies a day, claims a readership of nine million. Many of those will be the young squaddies drawn to the Sun by its sports coverage and page three topless girls who of course are sent out at Christmas to deliver seasonal cheer and free copies of the paper for the boys on the frontline. When asked the question how could Tony Blair get re-elected in 2005 – after his popularity had been hit so badly by the aftermath of the Iraq War – we cannot ignore the continuing support of the Murdoch press. Yes one million, two million people might have marched in London against the War, but all four Murdoch papers recommended their readers to vote Labour. This was the Sun’s front page on the eve of general election. “Why Size Matters” (4.5.2005) – a titillating account of his 25 year love life with Cherie Blair. Now see how the Sun handles polling day: “Come on You Reds” (5.5.2005) Even a totalitarian state with total control of the press could have hardly delivered more sycophantic coverage. What is so important to the spin doctor is the ability to set the agenda, to come up with a story which so grabs the headlines, that it dominates the news. The most prized moment is to capture the agenda at a weekend, at the start of a new political week, and it is the Sunday newspapers which provide a prized vehicle for the exclusive story handed out to a sympathetic journalist. Orchestrating – I should say manipulating the media – is a skill and there is no doubt Alastair Campbell was a master of these black arts. A classic illustration was early on, well before Labour won the 1997 general election, when Campbell delivered a text book example of how to do it. The defection of a Conservative MP to Labour is big news…it is even more sensational if it happens on the eve of a Conservative conference. So the defection of the Tory MP Alan Howarth in October 1995 – his exclusive interview – went to the Observer. His stinging attack on the arrogance of the Conservatives blew the preparations for the Tory conference out of the water. Obviously the spin doctor has got to be sure that the newspaper getting the exclusive will give it the right treatment. In the 1980s, when Peter Mandelson was trying to prove that the Labour Party was modernising itself and turning away from the left, he gave exclusives to the Sunday Times. He knew that if the Murdoch Sunday Times had been convinced and gave a good show to the reforms it would carry more weight. The Conservative Party under David Cameron are equally astute. Cameron is wanting to prove that the Conservatives are now a caring, progressive party and has turned its back on the nastiness of the Thatcher years. So when Cameron wanted to announce that the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher had made a mistake in regarding Nelson Mandela as belonging to a terrorist organisation, it was leaked exclusively to The Observer. This was the paper which had been the strongest support of Mandela and which had been so critical of the Conservatives. “Cameron: we got it wrong on apartheid. Tory leader dumps key Thatcher legacy” (Observer 27.8.2006). Cameron did the same when he announced plans to improve maternity care – another exclusive for the Observer: “Tories plan nurses at home for all new babies” (3.2.2008). So there is a hidden relationship behind the headlines: the politicians are in league with newspaper proprietors and political journalists to a far greater degree than many people might believe. My criticism of the Blair and Campbell is that they have encouraged this trade in information. Stories are often handed over exclusively on condition there is no attribution. There is now a network of ministerial special advisers – or spin doctors – who leak government announcements and data in the hope of getting favourable coverage. Only a few weeks we saw what happened when the spin doctors tried to take advantage of government statistics on knife crime. This was blatant manipulation which appalled the statisticians. This week a House of Lords select committee has issued yet another report calling on Gordon Brown to clean up his act and rein in these unofficial sources who have institutionalised the leaking of government information. Journalists are only too happy with the arrangement – the more leaks and off-the-record comments the better but it has damaged both trust in politics and the standing of political journalism. END (27.1.2009)