|
Most Ministers of my acquaintance spend much of their time in an honourable
lather of indecision. They fret privately about the consequences of their
announcements, their expenditure choices. They worry about the wording.
They agonise over the time-scale for implementation.
However, when they address Parliament - and, still more, when they speak
to the media - they must sound utterly certain. They dismiss political
opposition as ill-motivated chaff. They dismiss media questions as insubstantial
piffle. They alone are right.
Part of the problem lies with partisan politics, its instinctively yah-boo
nature. Part lies with personal pride among politicians. However, part
- I am increasingly convinced - lies with a media system which is intolerant
of honest debate, which equates assessing the facts with vacillation,
which describes every factual dispute as a an internal split, which demands
a simplistic "Yes or No" answer to every question.
Is it any wonder the voters are disenchanted with partisan politics?
People, I am convinced, remain interested in the decisions taken on their
behalf about education, health and the rest. They sense, however, that
politicians are offering insincere dogma and valueless inter-party bickering.
They sense, further, that much media coverage of rows and rhetoric is
overblown and of little consequence.
The political system cannot change the electorate - however intellectually
appealing such a concept might occasionally appear to a frustrated politician.
So the body politic - politicians, Parliamentary debate and the attendant
media - must heal itself.
Much has been written about the flaws in partisan politics: would PR
improve matters, should confrontational debate be superseded by a more
consensual approach, is the party system being sidelined by a new system
of participative democracy involving, among other elements, direct protest
action?
Much less has been contributed about the flaws in the media approach
to contemporary politics. We have Sir David Steel's uncharacteristically
harsh denunciation of "bitch journalism". We have Tony Blair's speech
to the Scottish Parliament in which he complained of the "corrosive cynicism"
demonstrated by much of the media.
Now we have - in Open Scotland - a comprehensive, intelligent
and acutely observant analysis of the Scottish media/political web. Indeed,
at times, for those of us supposedly on the inside track, it is almost
painfully observant.
Schlesinger, Miller and Dinan trace the relationships between journalists,
spin doctors, lobbyists and politicians. They pinpoint the small-country
interconnections which, they argue, can tend to work against healthy,
detached reporting. They note the "self-identity" of the Scottish political
press corps, its tendency to view itself as somehow superior, less credulous
than the Westminster version.
They shine a spotlight upon an area which, for me, is foreign territory:
the activity of lobbyists. Finally, they conclude that they were "sobered"
by their analysis of how much the eventual reality has departed from "the
rhetoric of new politics and an open Scotland" which, they confess, they
had taken seriously.
Here, then, is a confession from me. I observed the notion of a new,
consensual politics as occasionally evinced on the margins of the Convention
and the Consultative Steering Group (which drafted the rules for the new
Parliament). I thought this notion was piffle - and dangerous piffle at
that.
Yes, the Chamber and the Parliamentary committees should attempt to
be different, should strive to avoid the ludicrous ranting and posturing
which often masquerades as debate at Westminster.
However, contrived consensus mocks us all. Further, if this consensual
construct is the over-riding objective, it can tend to suppress the argumentative
debate which is the core of democracy. If the parties are all predisposed
to strike a comfortable deal, what place the people?
Fine sentiments, I thought - and I still adhere to them. Mostly. Yet
I confess - this appears to be a peak period for confession - that there
are doubts which I cannot suppress. Doubts which Schlesinger et al have
tended to enhance.
Firstly, as a caveat, it is important to consider that self-regard which
the book identifies in the press. I do not quite subscribe to the view
that the relationship between the media and politics should resemble that
between the dog and the lamp-post. Most journalists, however, are congenitally
disposed to regard politicians with suspicion. The feeling is reciprocated.
This is healthy and good.
Is there, though, a "corrosive cynicism" in the press - as Blair
argued and as a few journalists, notably in the New Statesman, are
beginning to suspect? If there is, is it possible to correct this in the
interests of open democracy without becoming in any way subservient? Is
it possible that the dog may, once in a while, concede that the lamp-post
has a point when it protests at the unremitting stream of criticism?
These thoughts, I should stress, largely go beyond the ambit of Open
Scotland. It is more concerned with a close analysis of the structural
flaws in the media/politics web. Perhaps its greatest value is the immensely
detailed, factual description of the interlinking worlds of the media,
the lobbyists and the spin doctors. Even those who count themselves as
insiders will learn from perusal.
I would hope, however, that Open Scotland may contribute to a
wider - and much-needed - debate about the impact of the relationship
between politics and the media. Given the turnout in the recent General
Election, nothing is more pressing than an examination of any elements
which may be contributing to voter disenchantment.
As a journalist who spends much of his working week in or around the
Scottish Parliament, I would dissent a little from the authors' analysis
of the Holyrood media pack. They indicate their belief that the "clubby
and secretive ambience" of the Lobby at Westminster has been replicated,
at least in part, at the Scottish Parliament.
I do not believe that is entirely true. I worked in the Westminster
Lobby for a newspaper group in the early 1980s. I now cover Scottish politics
for the BBC. The two milieu are not remotely comparable.
Firstly, Westminster itself has changed. The broadcasting of Parliament,
the predominant role of television and radio in reflecting politics, have
transformed the situation. I well recall the earlier generation of newspaper
political editors who resisted television access - and defended the Westminster
Lobby - because it provided a culture of privileged secrecy which enhanced
their own status as sole keepers of the flame of "truth".
Serious Westminster politics today takes place as much if not more in
4 Millbank - the base for the broadcasters - as in Members' Lobby or Annie's
Bar. The Lobby briefings themselves are now on the record - indeed, on
the web - although, depressingly, they are still not on camera.
Secondly, Holyrood is genuinely different. Throughout the discussions
which preceded the establishment of the Parliament, the Oban Times
became an eikon for openness. It was repeatedly stressed that all proceedings
- including Executive and Parliamentary briefings - must be available
to that estimable local newspaper on exactly the same basis as to the
permanent political staff of a tabloid daily or the BBC.
To be fair to Schlesinger et al, I am not sure whether the Oban Times
have availed themselves of this opportunity. The authors note, reasonably
accurately, that it still tends to be a "political media pack" on the
Mound. However, the opportunity is distinctly there. There would be no
bureaucratic hurdles. There would be no frowning faces. Just as there
has been no difficulty when journalists from outside the field of politics
- from other specialisations, for example, or from weekly magazines -
have sought and gained access to Holyrood.
Those same preparatory sessions, incidentally, were adamant that journalists
must not double as lobbyists. I found Open Scotland's tale of the
machinations within the world of lobbying simply fascinating. Since publication,
the authors have been granted their wish that lobbyists should face statutory
registration. The Standards Committee is presently consulting on a plan
to oblige those lobbying on behalf of a third party to register with the
Parliament.
Again, that preparation disclosed that the greatest obstacle to full
television access was not, as might have been expected, the civil service
or the politicians: but sections of the written press who feared that
broadcasters would dominate or might unwittingly show them chatting to
contacts.
A reasonable compromise, permitting TV access, was reached which, I
believe, has enhanced the image of Holyrood as an open Parliament. Interviews
in "the Black and White corridor" on the Mound have now become part of
the intellectual geography of devolution. It is instructive to note that
Westminster is beginning to follow Edinburgh's example.
However, there is concern over retrenchment. As I write, BBC Scotland
is submitting evidence to the Parliament's Procedures Committee arguing
that the guidelines on open televised coverage of the Chamber should be
respected fully - and that "on the record" should in future mean "on camera".
Open Scotland, then, is only the beginning of what should be
a substantial debate. It is, however, a strong and significant start.
Scottish Affairs, No. 38, Winter 2002
|
Articles and Papers online
|
 back to
top
|
