In this section
How to check the Paxman gambit
| Charles Clarke argues that the media are guilty of playing a sterile, repetitive game with politicians – who need to rethink their own strategy, reports Matthew Bell Few Labour MPs are better qualified than Charles Clarke to talk about his party’s often fractious relationship with the media. Clarke’s parliamentary career spans the lifetime of the Government: he won Norwich South in 1997; served as secretary of state for education and skills from 2002 to 2004; and was home secretary from 2004 until he was sacked by Tony Blair last May in the wake of a media storm over the release and non-deportation of foreign prisoners. As chief of staff to Neil Kinnock, he experienced Labour’s media pummelling during the 1992 election campaign. And his reputation as a political bruiser suggested that the RTS early evening event, “New Labour and the media — 10 years on”, could be a feisty affair. Clarke’s speech to the RTS audience, reprinted in an edited version in last month’s Television, was followed by a question-and-answer session chaired by ITV News presenter Alastair Stewart. Stewart, who was deputy president of the National Union of Students while Clarke held the top job, had no intention of giving his old friend an easy ride. Setting out the case against New Labour, Stewart argued that politicians have become “so associated with spin and a slavish adherence to the line” that it had resulted in a syndrome he dubbed, ‘Why is that lying bastard lying to me?’ Clarke rejected this theory. “My experience is that it is the media that determine what my constituents read in the newspapers or comes over the television,” he said. “I am dependent on the professionalism of the media in terms of explaining fairly to my constituents what I do. There was a period in the 1980s when I believe that was completely breached in the most outrageous way,” added Clarke, recalling the media witch hunt against his party. “That wasn’t a question of Labour spinning against the media it was a question of the media, as a matter of policy, trying to destroy [the party].” Stewart changed tack and asked Clarke whether he thought the style of aggressive interrogation practised by Jeremy Paxman on BBC2’s Newsnight and John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme is a valid way for the media to interview politicians. Clarke agreed it may be valid – but argued it is also pointless: “I’ve said to John and Jeremy that those are the easiest interviews of all. It’s ridiculous theatre and it doesn’t tell anyone anything. It’s a jousting game, but it’s not about getting at the truth — it’s a ritualised exchange.” Stewart then asked Clarke whether he thought that broadcasters “perform more honourably and in a more balanced fashion” than print journalists. Or, he added, “are we all to blame?” “I think you in the broadcasting media are more honourable and are genuinely seeking to be balanced,” replied Clarke, noting that “the BBC and ITV regulatory regimes are very tight.” The former minister’s anger was reserved for the “inkies”: “There are things that are utterly outrageous, such as the bugging of the royal family, and I don’t believe it was an isolated incident. I think the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is a totally toothless body, exceptionally poorly led.” Before opening up the discussion to the audience, Stewart turned to the subject of the Labour succession: “How specifically should whoever becomes the new leader of the reformed Labour party differ in their media approach?” Clarke replied: “There has to be a very self-conscious change in the whole approach to the media by the new prime minister. That’s very, very important.” “Is it your honest view that somebody else other than Gordon Brown, whether it be Mr [David] Miliband, Dr [John] Reid or yourself, would be better suited to bring about the changes [in Labour’s relationship with the media] that you’ve been talking to us about this evening?” probed Stewart. “I do think Gordon is capable of changing in that way – indeed I’ve talked to him about it – but the fact is he feels, and he’s been very clear about this publicly, that while Tony Blair is prime minister for him to try and exercise his own personality in this way could be seen as being undermining.” Damaged and twisted – but not bitter University of Westminster professor of communications Steven Barnett noted that Clarke had been “particularly scathing about the PCC. Would you like to see statutory regulation of the press?” Clarke replied: “I’m scathing because it doesn’t act in its own spirit and can be breached in various ways. I think there is a case — although I don’t commit to it – for putting the code on a statutory basis.” Raising the spectre of the 1992 election defeat and the “blatantly biased” media coverage of it, Barnett asked: “Is there a sense in which the Labour party has become a victim of that 1992 defeat and has never really got over it?” “I don’t really think it’s true. I think it has informed people’s thinking, but the whole nature of the relationship with the media has changed fundamentally over the period of Tony’s leadership. It’s a much more close and understanding relationship than it ever was prior to 1992,” replied Clarke. “I’m probably the most damaged and twisted person in the room from that point of view and it does affect my thinking about the [current] state of affairs, but I don’t think that is a general feeling across Labour. I think [the party’s] got a more mature relationship than mine.” A toothless warden for incorrigable predators Returning to the subject of the PCC, ITV managing editor and director of compliance Ian McBride asked: “I find it hard to believe that you really think a Labour Government would go as far as to take statutory steps against the media whom 15 years ago it recognised it had to court?” Clarke replied: “I’m not speaking for the Government and so I haven’t got a proposition to put. And I don’t think a Labour government will do it. I remain to be convinced that it is being enforced on a voluntary basis and so I would certainly contemplate putting it onto a statutory footing.” The Guardian’s veteran social affairs writer Malcolm Dean asked Clarke for his views on the “difference between the specialist reporters at Education and the Home Office and the Westminster lobby?” Clarke replied: “The virtue of the specialist reporters is that normally they know what they’re talking about and that puts them in a different class. There’s some of the Westminster political lobby who are very good, outstanding people who really know the world of politics very well, but I think that’s a decreasing proportion.” ITV News deputy editor Jonathan Munro remarked that when Labour transformed itself from old to new, it had experienced a “eureka” moment when it ditched the party’s Clause 4 commitment to nationalisation. “Does there now have to be another such moment?” asked Munro. Clarke agreed with Munro’s thesis, but seemed doubtful that it would materialise any time soon. “Gordon is talking a lot about this. He’s trying to find theatrical demonstrations of a departure from spin. I don’t know what he has in mind but my worry is that most of them won’t add up to much at the end of the day,” he said. Stewart saw his chance to whip up controversy and asked: “Wouldn’t the real eureka moment be if somebody other than Gordon Brown who had a chance of winning stood?” “That’s an interesting thought, Alastair. I think it might or it might not. It depends on who the person was,” dead-batted Clarke. “Mr Miliband [standing] would be a eureka moment,” riposted Stewart. “I genuinely don’t know if he would in answer to the question raised. Obviously, anyone other than Gordon would be a eureka moment in the sense that it contradicted expectations,” replied Clarke. Spinners, time-servers and the downright evil Nick Crosby, who described himself as a “humble viewer and voter”, agreed with Clarke’s opinion of adversarial interviewing. “As a viewer this has become incredibly boring and there is a real thirst for more exploratory interviews and in-depth discussions. I was wondering whether the mindset of the adversarial interviewer is largely linked to the length of time that certain interviewers have held their positions?” he asked. If the ex-minister had planted a friendly face in the RTS audience, he could not have been served up an easier question. He duly thumped it back for a winner: “I actually thought it was a very simple rule: your name has to be Dimbleby and you get the job,” he said. “The problem about the adversarial game, like the resignation game, is that there is a set of established media games and they are literally that – games. They’re not doing anything positive and it’s got to stop. I certainly agree its boring but I also think it turns people off in significant numbers.” “It seems the advice that you would give to the next Labour leader is to be more selective in the interviews they give,” said Nicola Ford, associate producer of ITV’s The Sunday Edition. “But for every interview that you don’t give, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems would gladly give it. Would that not put a new Labour leader on the back foot?” she asked. Clarke replied: “I wasn’t actually advising the new Labour leader not to do interviews. I was trying to say that government as a whole should try and recast the relationship with the media. Not necessarily doing less, but really trying to say, ‘we are going to do what we think, irrespective of how it will play in the media.’ And I think that is a realistic ambition.” The ex-minister concluded by summing up his message of the evening: “We’re not in business to simply respond to the media agenda every day of the week. I think there’s been a lack of self-confidence in politicians, which has been very damaging to politics. Now, you the media in a sense encourage that but I don’t criticise you for it because it’s your natural position. It’s down to us to get our act together.’ Question & answer session: ‘I Don’t Like Sundays’ Political programme makers rebut Charles Clarke’s accusations that entrapment is their major tactic, says Matthew Bell Alastair Stewart: “We don’t hate politics, we hate not being able to get at it… Many people in this room, say those who do Sunday programmes, like nothing more than to have a good, extensive, detailed and informed discussion about [politics] but that is difficult to achieve.” Charles Clarke: “There are many journalists, and you are certainly one of them, who are passionate about politics… There are also parts of the media for which that is not true and who distort things in a variety of ways… I’m not against the Sunday programmes, though I don’t like doing them. But what you find is that you do your interview and some spin goes out on a tiny part of what you’ve said and it’s put out in a press release… Those Sunday programmes are spinning exercises – there is no genuine discussion.” Fiona Campbell, editor of ITV’s The Sunday Edition: “In defence of the Sunday programmes, I think it’s slightly unfair to say that our agenda is to try and drive things forward in Monday morning’s newspapers. What we would relish more than anything, and I think I speak for my colleagues on Andrew Marr’s Sunday AM and The Politics Show as well as GMTV: The Sunday Programme, is the chance to really challenge a politician in an extended political debate, not only because there are legitimate reasons for doing so for our democracy, but also because people come to those Sunday shows when they haven’t been able to watch the news in the week and they want nothing more than to be able to engage with [politics]. “When we talk to people who are coming on, we primarily want to ask the in-depth questions. On ITV we’re happy to give a good 15 minutes a week… to a legitimate political interview… Equally, if there is a big news story of the day, viewers would be baffled if we didn’t ask about that. So I think our role is legitimate and we are duty-bound to ask news questions. It’s a dual objective.” Jonathan Munro, ITV News deputy editor: “It’s the difference between what you might call, in old language, current affairs and news. News is looking for a development on a news story, as opposed to an in-depth interview. There’s nothing new in that. If a politician chooses to use a platform like a Sunday programme to say something that they have not previously said – to amend, change or imply a different position on a policy – that can sometimes be a news story. What is a trap that all broadcasters fall into is that Sunday can be a slow news day and sometimes they’ll just record the Sunday programmes and turn around a line from whichever programme happens to be more newsworthy… We all fall into the trap of running something which is not that newsworthy simply because it’s there.” Charles Clarke: “It’s impossible for me to do an interview for The Sunday Edition without being aware that anything I say has at least a chance of being of interest to you in a way that is different from doing the in-depth interview I accept your integrity in this completely, but I do think there are some – and Jonathan Dimbleby’s particularly evil at this – who put in a quick little question on something then put out a press story to give a puff to the programme itself.” [“New Labour and the media — 10 years on” was an RTS early evening event held on 28 March at the Cavendish Conference Centre. The producer was Martin Stott, Five’s deputy head of corporate affairs.] |
Login
RTS In Your Area
Media Room
Join us on Facebook
Visit our Facebook page for news about events and take part in debate and discussion.RTS Archive
Are you doing research?
The RTS Archive reflects its history from the present day back to its foundation in 1927. This includes lists of Awards, publications and Television magazine.
-
Facebook
-
Delicious
-
StumbleUpon
-
Digg
-
reddit
What are these?