Nicholas Jones | ukwatch.net

Televised lobby briefings

Alex Doherty — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:52:34 +0000

In evidence to a House of Lords’ inquiry into the government’s spin machine, Nicholas Jones says televised lobby briefings would introduce a new sense of discipline and accountability. If Downing Street had a publicly-identified spokesperson who appeared on camera, it would set a new standard for attribution within the rest of the government.

The House of Lords Communications Committee is conducting an inquiry into whether the government communications system is “open, impartial, efficient and relevant to the public”. In written evidence to the committee Jones said:

There could hardly be a more opportune moment to consider an overhaul of the government communications system and to chart a new sense of direction for civil servants working in the information service. The forthcoming general election and the installation of a new administration will provide an ideal opportunity for a fresh start. What is needed is a change of culture and a new presumption that the flow of information from the state to the media should be de-politicised and that all news providers outlets should have equal access.

The practice of trailing government announcements in advance — almost invariably on an off-the-record basis — has now become institutionalised within Whitehall departments. To all intents and purposes it has become the state-sanctioned leaking of official information and it is the widespread distribution of confidential data on an un-attributable basis which has done so much to weaken the neutrality of civil service information officers and undermine the credibility of what is being said by the government of the day.

As a first step Downing Street lobby briefings should be given in public by an upfront spokesperson and the proceedings should be available for live broadcast on television, radio and via the internet. A lead has to be given from the top: if daily briefings on behalf of the Prime Minister were given on the record, by a publicly-identified spokesperson, it would set a new standard for attribution for the rest of the government.

The Phillis review recommended that lobby briefings should be “on the record, live on television and radio and with full transcripts available promptly on line.” (Phillis Review 2004). Despite its acceptance of the Phillis recommendations, the government made only a half-hearted attempt to persuade lobby correspondents to accept on-camera briefings and it was no surprise that the lobby voted to maintain the status quo, anxious to defend at all cost the un-attributable and anonymous briefings which have become the lifeblood of modern political journalism.

Nonetheless if the leading Downing Street spokesperson had the necessary confidence and authority to speak publicly, that individual would inevitably be accountable for what was being said on behalf of the government and if there was a greater degree of accountability it would help curb the uncontrolled activities of the much-enlarged cadre of special advisers. It is these political aides who are responsible for many of the anonymous briefings which in recent years have caused so much mischief for ministers and civil servants and undermined the credibility of official information.

On-camera briefings would introduce a sense of discipline and reinforce the repeated recommendations by the Civil Service Commissioners that special advisers should be required to speak on the record. Greater certainty about the government line would also assist departments and agencies. Senior civil servants in the UK, like their counterparts in the USA, would then come to realise that if needs be, the practice of speaking on the record does have many advantages.

Political correspondents prefer to be briefed un-attributably because it gives them a greater degree of journalistic licence. They maintain that being able to get information from politicians and officials on an off-the-record basis results in more exposure and serves the public interest. But the growth in the number of anonymous sources in Whitehall and Westminster — and the freedom this has given journalists to embellish and even fabricate stories — has become a cancer, eating away at the authority of the government of the day and eroding trust in the political system.

The rapid expansion in online journalism and the growing impact of alternative news providers has opened up an opportunity for the Whitehall machine to re-think its strategy. Significant political stories are now being researched and delivered by journalists outside the Westminster lobby system. Websites, bloggers and reporters using the Freedom of Information Act are increasingly challenging — and beating — the established political correspondents and the government of should encourage this trend, not least because of the greater openness of on-line journalism.

The aim of the state should be to be even handed in the supply of information and in view of the immediacy and commendable transparency of most on-line journalism, there is nothing to be gained by perpetuating the divisive practice of continuing to give exclusive access and information to favoured political journalists.

Trading exclusive stories with selected national newspapers, television and radio programmes is seen by the administration as the only way to influence the news agenda and gain favourable publicity. But this practice has always been divisive and the House of Lords Communications Committee could give a lead by reviewing the evidence since the Phillis Review and by recognising that a new approach is needed.

Perhaps the clearest exposition of the mentality which persists across Whitehall was given by Tony Blair’s former director of communications, Alastair Campbell. In his diaries, The Blair Years(2007), Campbell said that his policy when it came to the news media was to “divide and rule”. (see page January 31, 200, page 441).

Campbell’s first act on becoming Blair’s Downing Street press secretary was to rewrite the rule book for government press officers to ensure that the Whitehall publicity machine raised “its game”. (See report of Mountfield working group, November 1997). Press Office Best Practice was revised and civil servants were instructed to “grab the agenda” by promoting government announcements by means of a selective “ring round” of newsrooms in order to start “trailing the announcement during the previous weekend”.

Campbell’s edict of “divide and rule” became the norm and is deeply ingrained in civil service psyche as illustrated by the text of confidential government media plans. (See Trading Information: Leaks, Lies and Tip-Offs by Nicholas Jones, Politico’s 2006)

For example, the lead up to the announcement that the government had purchased the London Heart Hospital for £27.5 million in 2001 was a textbook example from the pages of Press Office Best Practice. A leaked copy of the Department of Health’s media plan indicated the importance of advance, off-the-record briefings when implementing a media policy of “divide and rule”:

“We are trailing the story with David Charter at The Times. In addition we will brief the Today programme…Once the story breaks in The Times this evening, the duty press officer will ring round all broadcasters and picture desks to let them know of the morning photo call…A press notice will be issued at 9.30 a.m. (Department of Health media plan, 8 August, 2001)

The unedifying spectacle of the state competing in the media market place — rather than serving the public interest by supplying all media outlets with information at the same time — reached its nadir in April 2007 when two members of a Royal Navy crew captured by the Iranians were allowed (encouraged?) to sell their stories exclusively to the national press (Faye Turney was paid £100,000 by the Sun and Arthur Batchelor received £20,000 from the Daily Mirror).

There was a public outcry over what happened and considerable criticism of the failure of the Ministry of Defence to deal fairly with the news media as a whole by failing to present the released crew members at a press conference open to all news outlets.

Tony Hall, who conducted an inquiry for the government, found there had been a “collective failure of judgement” over the affair and officials within the department “simply didn’t understand how it had been allowed to happen”.

Perhaps Hall should have done more to acquaint himself with media practice within Whitehall and he would have understood that the strategy of supplying exclusives to two of the biggest-selling popular newspapers — Sun and Daily Mirror — is precisely the kind of strategy which has become the norm within the civil service.

Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, was so appalled by what had happened that he made sure that all media outlets were dealt with even handedly when Prince Harry served in Afghanistan. A news black was arranged with the Society of Editors and equal access for newspapers, television and radio was assured when the story finally broke in February 2008.

Another illustration of what can be achieved is the success of the Crown Prosecution Service in providing a legal spokesperson to give on camera reaction at the end of controversial court cases. Sir Ken MacDonald, the DPP, deserves credit for this initiative. At the conclusion of trials which have a significant public interest, the Crown Prosecution Service provides a spokesperson outside the court. Here we have a demonstration of the openness which can be achieved.

I have long argued that journalists are unlikely to put their own house in order and it is the state which should make the first move. I do hope Lord Fowler, chairman of the Lords Communication Committee, will look at the transcripts of the Westminster Media Forum which he chaired earlier this summer (1.7.2008).

One of the contributors to the discussion was David Hill, who succeeded Alastair Campbell as Blair’s director of communications. Hill told the forum he believed the twice-daily Downing Street briefings should be televised. This would open up the lobby system to wider scrutiny and force political correspondents to ask their questions in public. Hill believed the lobby briefings as presently constituted were counter productive and if they were on camera he hoped that whenever possible a senior minister would attend to answer questions.

In conclusion I would argue televised briefings would not be a mere cosmetic but could become an important constitutional safeguard. American news services keep their recordings of White House briefings and if a story suddenly changes, or there are suggestions subsequently of a cover-up, radio and television stations can replay the original answers and draw attention to any alterations or discrepancies in the official guidance.

Televised extracts from White House briefings during the lengthy proceedings involving President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky became part of the montage of material which was shown as pressure mounted for impeachment. Mike McCurry, Clinton’s press secretary, resigned in October 1998 in protest at the way he felt he had been used unfairly to perpetuate a deception about Clinton’s sexual relations.

My point is that televised briefings would not only help the government of the day by allowing ministers to get off the back foot and explain their policies but would also herald a new era in openness which might help restore trust in the process of government and also make life harder for the journalists who make it up. There are far fewer hiding places for on-line journalists. They can get challenged within an instant and do have to adjust and correct their reports. Not only might there be more transparency in government, but also a greater level of attribution by reporters and less reliance on the use of anonymous sources.

Nicholas Jones, political journalist and author, is a council member of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom. Contributor to www.spinwatch.org.uk Archive of articles and speeches: www.nicholasjones.org.uk (In 2003 Jones gave evidence to the Phillis Review team and participated in its seminars)

The Future of Spin

Ellie Keen — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:26:36 +0000

Conservatives would perpetuate New Labour control freakery

Hand to hand combat between the government and political correspondents would continue if the Conservatives were elected because an administration led by David Cameron would be just as determined to try to control the news agenda. This was the conclusion of journalists and press officers at a seminar held by the Westminster Media Forum (1 July, 2008). The two sides felt that the politicisation of civil service information officers, and the likelihood that any future government would find itself on the defensive, meant that further trench warfare was inevitable.

There had been a fundamental shift under New Labour because Tony Blair’s government realised that unless it imposed control over the flow of information from the state to the public it would be “torn apart” by the media.

Opening up the Downing Street lobby system to televised briefings was put forward as one option for improving the government’s relations with the media. David Hill, who was Alastair Campbell’s successor as Blair’s director of communications, said the existing structure of lobby briefings for political correspondents had become counter-productive.

He proposed that the twice-daily briefings should be opened up to public scrutiny and whenever possible a senior minister should attend to answer the key questions of the day. Guidance given by the Downing Street spokesman would not only be on the record but televised. And, by forcing senior political correspondents to ask their questions in public, the government would be adding another element of transparency.

Hill, now a director of the Bell Pottinger group, said the problem with the existing system of briefings was that they had become “almost wholly defensive” and rarely gave the government the opportunity to get on the front foot. Because of the frisson caused by the briefings within the Whitehall machine, government departments were only asked to supply defensive information for the rebuttal of questions and civil servants found the process was entirely negative.

A description of how the civil service was politicised was given by Eben Black, formerly political editor of the News of the World and now a director and head of media at the public affairs practice DLA Piper. Black said that soon after Labour won the 1997 general election he telephoned the Department of Education and asked for a county by county breakdown of school class sizes.

With ten minutes of the call he was rung back by Conor Ryan, special adviser to the Secretary of State, David Blunkett, and asked why he wanted the information. A Labour spin doctor was checking out the reason for his request in a way which would never have been done by a civil service information officer.

“Given the intensely political way in which the Whitehall information machine has to operate under Labour, I think a Conservative government would behave in precisely the same way. The days of an impartial relationship between the civil service and the news media have gone and given that Whitehall is no longer above the political fray, I think there will never be anything but war between government spin doctors and journalists”.

Tony Collins, executive editor of Computer Weekly, said he had detected an increasingly aggressive mentality on the part of government press officers. “We often get supplied incorrect information. We know ministers are given incorrect information…the Prime Minister has even been given incorrect information about the NHS computer system”.

Collins claimed that another ploy used by government press officers was to tell Computer Weekly that news conferences were full and there was no more space. “I was told one press conference would not be of interest to Computer Weekly…at another a press officer barred my way. I have seen manipulation of information and control of journalists which I have never seen before”.

Although David Hill was not optimistic about the chances of any future government establishing a more stable relationship with the media, he was still convinced that the government would like to be more open and transparent. But given the fiercely competitive nature of an increasingly fragmented media, all governments would continue to be under pressure.

It would be harder for governments to respond if there was no incentive from the media to offer a calmer analysis. Whitehall press officers were ultra cautious because they feared they would get into difficulty.

“There should be confidence in the government to field officials who have detailed information and who could answer questions but Whitehall falls down and fails to deploy them because they are fearful of being identified and personally attacked in the media”.

Gordon Brown Should Opt for Transparency

tim — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:27:02 +0000

Gordon Brown’s formative years as a politician were spent in opposition fighting the Conservatives. Once Labour were in power and he became Chancellor, Brown was in effect in “opposition” again, promoting himself at the expense of Tony Blair. For the first time the Prime Minister has found himself continually on the defensive. In a speech at Coventry University (22.5.2008), Nicholas Jones argued that the only way Brown can deal with an avalanche of negative publicity is to face up to the news media head on and adopt a far more open and transparent communications strategy.

Voting is taking place today in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election and all the signs point to a significant by-election victory for David Cameron; the Conservatives certainly have the momentum, Labour are struggling. Obviously at the heart of Gordon Brown’s disastrous showing in the opinion polls and the recent council elections are the current economic woes. He is taking the brunt of our combined angst over the credit crunch. “It’s the economy stupid” is what it is all about. As British Prime Minister, he has no control over world events. Who knows how deep the recession will be.

But disenchantment with Labour — and with Gordon Brown in particular — runs much deeper than that. All Labour seems to be offering is the line that they will continue to be more competent than the Conservatives. But where is the vision? What — as the political propagandists ask — is the narrative? What is Brown trying to achieve? While it is true to say that Brown has become the victim of events outside his control, he is nonetheless partly architect of his own misfortune.

I believe that in the face of an avalanche of negative publicity he does need a new strategy when it comes to communicating with the public, not only for the government but also on his own behalf. Before setting out how I think he should face up to a hostile news media, I have to explain how the Brown of today has been shaped by his experiences. His formative years in Westminster were spent in Opposition. He became renowned for the brilliance of his attacks against the Conservative. And once he became Chancellor he could rarely be faulted on the way he promoted himself.

But in a way, during the decade he was Labour Chancellor, he was in effect in opposition again, this time seeking to project himself at the expense of Tony Blair. What Gordon Brown had not previously had experience of was being continually on the defensive, unable to steer the news in his direction and unable regain command of the news agenda. Perhaps the Northern Rock calamity was the start of it, the moment when his own track record as chancellor began to catch up with him. And from then on, of course, it has been downhill all the way culminating in the in the fiasco over the abolition of the 10pence tax rate and then, when it was clear five million were losing out, the cobbling together of a £2.7 billion package of tax cuts.

Whatever we think of the wider economic picture and the political fortunes of the Labour Party, there is no doubt that Gordon Brown has real form when it comes to spin and the black arts of media manipulation. When he announced last July that he was turning his back on spin — that he wanted a more open approach to communication, that he was going to rein in the political spin doctors — I was encouraged. I thought he really meant it. For the first few months his administration really was a breath of fresh air. But the more desperate the events have become, the more dependent he has been on the discredited spin routines of the New Labour years and they have hardly done him any favours.

What has to be remembered about Brown is that from his introduction to politics he has been an avid student of how to manipulate the media. After his student days, Brown joined Scottish Television working as a presenter and editor. He became an MP in 1983. By the time I returned to political reporting in the late 1980s — when Labour were still in opposition but beginning their fight back under Neil Kinnock — Brown had already made his name. He seemed to have an unerring news sense and a sharp turn of phrase. Indeed in one of my earliest books, Soundbites and Spin Doctors, I named Brown as being one of the most responsive and co-operative Mps I had encountered.

Indeed it was already becoming clear that he had a slavish dedication to the daily news agenda and as the years went by, as he rose up through the shadow cabinet, he regularly left the Labour Party’s publicity department trailing in his wake. Frequently the party’s public relations team were unable to keep up with his press releases, newspaper articles and non-stop television and radio appearances. After John Smith’s first heart attack in the autumn of 1988, Brown was propelled to the forefront of the shadow Treasury team and began to be seen as the heir apparent.

On one occasion, after the 1989 Wall Street crash, I remember how he turned down my request for an interview. He felt he had to defer to John Smith. The slot was immediately taken by another of Labour’s political opportunist, Bryan Gould, then trade and industry spokesman. Later, when I pointed out to Brown that the main news bulletins on Saturday and Sunday evenings have some of the largest audiences of the week, he thanked me for my advice and never missed another such opportunity.

To this day, time and again you can see Brown popping up on the weekend news bulletins. In that respect he is a news junkie and the question of how he can stand back from doing all these immediate responses and have the space and time to think more clearly about his media strategy, is one of the issues I want to address. What happened after he became the shadow trade and industry secretary and finally shadow chancellor was that Brown just could not say no to any opportunity to publicise himself. Attempts to lighten his load were frequently rebuffed and it was only after repeated warnings that all his efforts were becoming self defeating, that he finally began to wean himself off the need for a daily dose of publicity.

Coming up alongside Brown — advised and assisted by Peter Mandelson — was none other than Tony Blair who had a much more thoughtful and engaging approach when being interviewed. Instead of the staccato-like delivery of Brown, framed in the kind of sentences which only journalists tend to write, Blair emerged as a smooth and much more accomplished communicator. I wrote a piece for the Media Guardian pointing out that Mandelson seemed be giving more assistance to Blair rather than Brown and it provoked a torrent of abuse. Mandelson’s putdown was classic: “I feel such hurt…What an incredibly clever, tendentious and distorted piece of writing…You have abused trust and friendship, all because you want to make yourself a media star…You have done a hatchet job…I hope I never have any contact with you ever again.”

Of course the rest is history: Mandelson was on the point of switching his support to Blair and the feuding continues to this day between the Blairites and the Brownites. But that was the great tragedy: Blair attracted the division one political operators of his generation and Brown was left with division two. And I am afraid it shows to this day: Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, Philip Gould, Lord Levy — all the manipulators and fixers who served Blair so well — have gone and Brown’s team of replacements are nothing like as effective as their predecessors.

What happened after the landslide victory of 1997 was that Brown remained the ultimate control freak. In opposition he had micro-managed the work of his aides such as Ed Balls and Charlie Whelan and he continued to do so in government. Behind the scenes they briefed assiduously on Brown’s behalf, distributing leaked documents and trailing future announcements. When it came to the micro-tactics of deciding which story to leak and identifying those journalists who would be briefed, Brown has always been hands on. And if we look back on the decade Brown was chancellor you can see how successful he was not only in promoting himself but also in planting those news stories which sowed doubts and ill feeling about Blair and the Blairites. It was Ed Balls who was singled out by John Prescott in his memoirs for briefing un-attributably on Brown’s behalf. Prescott said: “He (Balls) was part of the Gordon group, running around, spreading stories.”

The damage that can be done by uncontrolled spin was all too evident in the reckless way the Brown’s acolytes talked up the possibility of a snap election — only for the Prime Minister to call a halt at the last moment and in the process do himself incalculable political damage. Ever since then the Conservatives have made sure the word “ditherer” has been hung round the Prime Minister’s neck, just as Labour pinned “sleaze” to John Major. Brown did so well to begin with and won plaudits for the way he handled the terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow, the floods and the foot and mouth outbreak, calamities for which he could hardly personally be blamed. His serious if rather dour manner suited the occasion and he proved most effective in keeping the country informed.

But the aborted snap election and the dithering over what to do about Northern Rock — and then the eventual bail out — marked the start of what has become an ever steeper decline. Brown’s response in communication terms has been to rely on the routines of old:

*He has increased the number of political spin doctors, known as special advisers. Their un-attributable briefings and uncontrolled spin have continued to be a cancer eating away at the probity of the government.

*He has continued to authorise the leaking in advance of government decisions, trailing the announcements with favoured journalists.

*He has peppered the pages of the national press with signed articles by himself and his cabinet colleagues. But they are nothing more than sticking plaster on gaping wounds. My file of Prime Ministerial articles is packed already.

Just look at the trailed stories, the decisions leaked in advance in the hope of getting publicity. Many are nothing more than dog whistle politics: they seek to re-assure voters that something is being done. But in fact they rarely live up to what was promised. Journalists find the tactic divisive : one newspaper gets the announcement as an exclusive and the rest are expected to follow up their opponent’s lead. Alastair Campbell always favoured this policy of divide and rule but it produces cynicism not just among journalists but more importantly among voters.

The promise of a ban on plastic bags is a classic example: “Banish the Bags” was the Daily Mail’s front page splash on Wednesday 27 February 2008, the start of a fourteen-page special demanding that plastic bags should be banned. Next day the Daily Mail hailed the success of its campaign: “M&S Banishes the Free Bag” (Daily Mail 28 February, 2008). Just guess who piled in next day: “Brown: the bags will be banished.” (Daily Mail 29 February 2008). There could hardly have been a clearer example of the Prime Minister pandering to the Mail agenda. And he did it again earlier this month: “Bin Tax will be dumped” (Daily Mail 5 May 2008) — another exclusive claiming that the Prime Minister intended to woo back middle England by ditching plans to burden families with a tax on rubbish.

There has been a similar flurry of exclusives over Booze and Blades: “Brown blitz on blades” (Sun 14 January 2008) and “Blitz on shops peddling booze to kids” (Daily Mirror 3 March 2008). Brown has always made an art form out of trailing in advance whatever is to be announced in the Budget and this year has been no exception: “2p petrol hike is frozen…for now” (Sun 12 March 2008). The leaks were all as predicted:

“Tax hikes on booze and 4X4s” (thelondonpaper 12 March 2008)

And Brown — never one to miss a front page — was happy to endorse the Evening Standard’s campaign to persuade people to drink tap rather than bottled water: “Brown loses his bottles!” (Evening Standard 6 March 2008).

Notwithstanding all I have said, articles by a Prime Minister can be of significance and help guide and shape the politics of the week. The Observer’s exclusive last weekend “Brown says embryo research is key to life” (Observer 18 May 2008) was an important curtain raiser. The Prime Minister could not be accused of dithering: he used the article to make it abundantly clear that he supported the use of hybrid embryos and would vote in favour of the current upper time limit of 24 weeks for abortion. The majorities achieved, all on free votes, backed the line Brown had laid out and this did help steady the government’s nerves ahead of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. What was important was that Brown’s article was timed with precision; it had something to say; and it did set the news agenda. But the embryo and abortion article is the exception.

More often than not Brown’s micro-managing of the media has been confused and counter-productive. I think he needs to stand back, stop giving instant responses to every news story, and think long term about the government’s key objectives for what shows every sign of being a two-year run-up to the next election. He is in desperate need of a convincing narrative. If he had that, if he could demonstrate conviction and commitment about some specific and identifiable goals which the electorate could grasp and understand, then the spin might work.

Let us look back at two examples, under Thatcher and Blair. There was no doubt in the 1980s that curbing trade union power and dismantling the nationalised industries were over-arching objectives for Margaret Thatcher. The Conservative spin could not be faulted: unions were undemocratic, out of touch and too powerful; nationalised industries had forgotten how to serve the customer. There was equal clarity in New Labour’s assault on the Conservatives in the lead-up the 1997 general election: the country had had enough of the sleaze of the Tory years.

What Brown has to grasp is that such is the depth of the government’s unpopularity there is little likelihood of him being able to regain the news agenda. He is being abandoned even by the newspapers of Rupert Murdoch and his only chance of fighting back is to challenge a hostile news media head on. What I think Brown needs is an official spokesman — or spokeswoman — who is capable of promoting government policy, preferably by holding televised news briefings. He should think of something along the lines of the briefings for journalists at the White House by the presidential spokesman.

These briefings are on the record; they’re televised; they help shield the President from the immediate cut and thrust of the 24 news agenda; and they are far more transparent than our hole-in-the-corner system of lobby briefings. If Brown could only delegate the task of providing immediate responses to an open and upfront spokesperson, he could then devote more time to preparing himself for far fewer and more effective news conferences and interviews. I thought, for example, the careful and considered way he prepared for the embryo and abortion debates proves my point.

By opening up the process of communication rather than continuing to put so much emphasis on the micro-management of individual stories, Brown might find he spends less time fretting about the daily headlines and develops a programme which would command far more attention.

The culture of supplying un-attributable briefings to trusted journalists is deeply embedded in Brown’s psyche and as events have shown it is the off-the-record spin which so often has spiralled out of control, damaging Labour’s political fortunes and causing deep resentment within the party. During each successive drama there has been repeated appeals for the Prime Minister to halt the vicious cycle of briefing and counter-briefing which has so injured the feelings of those senior Labour politicians cast adrift during the Blair-Brown handover. By appointing an official spokesperson who could be upfront and open, Brown could begin to break free from the spin and subterfuge which dogged the Blair years.

Now that most of the press has turned against him, the Prime Minister has nothing to lose and nothing to fear by encouraging full transparency. Any advantage which the government once enjoyed from doing deals with individual newspapers has been lost in an avalanche of negative publicity. Instead, if all journalists and media outlets were provided with the same information at the same time, ministers would be able to steer clear of the quick fixes and perhaps find it easier to isolate and neutralise damaging un-attributable briefings.

There is a well rehearsed argument in Westminster against having an authoritative spokesman capable of giving televised briefings on the lines of the President’s press secretary at the White House. It is always said that ministers, not officials, should speak in Parliament on behalf of the government. But that convention hardly matters when ministers have so many opportunities to promote themselves whether by television, radio or on line. What is needed is an up-to-the-minute spokesperson able to fight the government’s corner and promote and explain its policies. Alastair Campbell tried for a few months to be upfront in his briefings, arguing the government’s case, but his “openness” was exposed as a sham when political correspondents found they were being double crossed: Campbell gave one line to the lobby and another to the select group of trusted correspondents to whom he was prepared to supply information on an un-attributable basis.

Brown has no hope of squaring up to the hostility of the press if he still thinks it is still possible to divide and rule. The instant access offered by televised briefings, websites and email mean there is no longer any excuse for not putting all sections of the news media on an equal footing. If the whole operation was fronted by an official spokesman who could be held publicly to account, the Prime Minister would not only refresh his relationship with journalists but might also begin to start restoring trust in his government.

Will a decline in reporting European news result in more paid-for journalism?

tim — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:20:46 +0000

Like other powerful but controversial institutions the European Parliament is stepping up its investment in what amounts to paid-for journalism. Contracts are about to be awarded for funding programmes to be broadcast by local and international television channels. But, with editorial budgets for investigative and analytical journalism in steep decline, are the European Parliament — and also the European Commission — faced with no alternative but to buy news coverage in the media market place in the hope of gaining some favourable exposure?

If the initial reports are correct, and if the contracts likely to be awarded for programmes on CNN and ITV are to be controlled by script and even post-production approval, the European Parliament could be in danger of repeating the worst examples of embedded journalism during the Iraq War and might well end up financing nothing more than blatant propaganda. Nicholas Jones examines an initiative which is already producing some agonised soul searching among Europe’s journalists.

Journalists trying to wrestle with the complexities of the European Union pose a difficult dilemma for both the European Parliament and the European Commission: How are these two institutions going to overcome an appalling information deficit among the people of Europe? And, perhaps more alarmingly, is the news media about to be manipulated?

Having spent the last five years meeting and talking to reporters in many of the newer and most recent EU member states, I know how irritated they can become in their dealings with the Parliament and Commission. Not only are there language problems but all too often they say that in their search for reliable facts and guidance they come up against a seemingly impenetrable bureaucratic barrier.

Such is their frustration they tend to fall back on reporting the facts and opinions relayed to them by their national governments and politicians rather than do their own investigation. As a result, there is little analysis and their reporting is stuck in the rut of pre-determined agendas.

Nowhere is the communications gap more apparent than in an accession country like Turkey. In its south-east corner, on the borders with Syria — and what might finally become the EU’s ultimate eastern frontier — the plight of local journalists was all too evident when their representatives met to consider how to improve coverage of European affairs.

Although anxious to learn more about the implications of Turkey’s proposed membership of the EU, the difficulties which the journalists faced seemed insurmountable. At a seminar in Gaziantep (28.3.2008) to discuss the response so far by media organisations in south-east Anatolia, Murat Gures of the Gaziantep Journalists’ Association, painted a bleak picture.

The Association represents journalists on seven television channels, fifteen local newspapers and twenty local magazines but he readily acknowledged that negotiations for Turkey’s accession to the EU have sparked little interest. There was not enough understanding of European issues to generate an adequate level of reporting.

Nor was any solution forthcoming from the newspaper owners. Orhan Kizilaslan, president of the Gaziantep Anatolian Press Association, freely admitted that the local press did not have the economic wherewithal to provide the kind of journalism that would inform the local people of the EU accession process.

“Local newspapers are the most important instrument for providing the people of Anatolia with information about the EU. But although the local press could be used as a tool for providing news and comment we do not have the economic means to inform the public and support the EU process”.

What compounded the difficulties faced by the Anatolian news media was an equally frank acknowledgement by Ms Ulrike Hauer, a counsellor and head of section in the European Commission’s delegation to Turkey, that its communication strategies, especially in accession countries, were woefully inadequate.

Surely the right answer is for the EU to do much more to disseminate information in an accessible form to media organisations in the 27 member states and those countries hoping to join. As a first step it could invite journalists to Brussels at the Commission’s expense so that they could be instructed on how best to extract information on EU policies and how to follow the Parliament’s decision-making process.

Instead of reaching out to the journalists themselves, the Parliament seems to think the only realistic solution is to invest in collaborative projects with local media outlets in order to help them finance the production of more informed reporting of its proceedings.

Rather than opt for what could turn into some pretty blatant product placement, another more imaginative solution might be to fund an arms-length television and radio service along the lines of the BBC or even a channel like Al Jazeera, which has transformed news coverage in the Arab world thanks to the foresight and generosity of the Emir of Qatar?

When facing the twin pressures of strained resources and increased competition, journalists realise they cannot turn their back entirely on the reality of media economics. Subsidised reporting comes in many different forms: without an agreement to accept advertisements there would be no way of sustaining both BBC World and overseas access to BBC News Online.

What seems to be missing in the plethora of documents about the development of the European Union’s media strategies is a clear-cut statement on the need to protect journalistic independence and an assurance that subsidised reporting and collaborative programming will not undermine the financial viability of existing hard-pressed media outlets.

Awarding prizes to journalists for the most informed reporting of the European Parliament will alarm some MEPs who fear this will encourage sycophancy. The test of any such contest will be its independence from the donor of the prizes and the degree to which it can reflect differing national agendas.

Perhaps there will have to be prizes in each member state which might make the cost prohibitive but so great is the lack of understanding among journalists about EU affairs and so few are the opportunities to learn more, that an awards system might at least generate some interest.

The Power and Patronage of the British News Media

Ellie Keen — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:37:15 +0000

Does the power and patronage of the British news media constitute a democratic safeguard?

Any attempt to try to understand what is so different — dare I say unique — about the relationship between British politicians and the news media, has to begin by acknowledging the impact of campaigning journalism. Unlike the press in so much of the world, British newspapers are quite prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to expose wrongdoing and to promote what they believe are popular causes. Once a newspaper puts its full weight behind a chosen campaign, the news of the day can take second place to the propaganda. Over the years, the popular newspapers have claimed many a scalp: they can — and quite regularly they do — force policy changes to be made by the government of the day.

Editors of mass-circulation tabloids like to stress the importance of their role. They believe they are on the side of the public, against the might of the state, and they use their power and influence in ways which we don’t often see in the press of other leading countries. British politicians do acknowledge the significance of campaigning journalism and although they are often ridiculed and damaged in the process, they do grudgingly defend the freedom of the press. This leads on to other important questions: Does the British news media, despite its trivialisation and sensationalism, serve the democratic process? Is Britain governed more effectively because the media — and especially the newspapers — exercise the power of political patronage and support, especially during general election campaigns?

There is nothing new in the way the newspaper owners — the press Barons as they were once described — have used their papers for propaganda purposes. It has been happening for years. Nor is there anything new about the close relationships which have developed — and sometimes foundered — between Prime Ministers and media proprietors. Rupert Murdoch is the latest in a long line of media bosses who have chopped and changed in their political allegiances in order to protect their commercial interests. But we should not under-estimate the power of the press in the British context. I have long argued that a Prime Minister with a large Parliamentary majority and the support of the press can be all-powerful.

In the 1980s, the then Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had an overwhelming majority at Westminster. But it was the near-unanimous support of the press which made her nigh on invincible in the early years of her Premiership when she succeeded in virtually smashing the power of the trade unions; when she pushed ahead with privatisation by breaking up the state-owned industries and selling them off; and when she introduced the flexible employment laws which gave the British economy such a boost in comparison with European neighbours such as France, Italy and Germany. Equally powerful was the Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair who went ahead in 2003 in committing British troops to support the American invasion of Iraq despite widespread public opposition.

What has to be remembered was that despite the unpopularity of the war against Iraq, Blair still retained widespread support in the press for military action, especially in the newspapers of Rupert Murdoch. So here we see a clear illustration of my belief that for good or for ill, the newspapers of Britain do play a significant role, they do exercise considerable influence when governments seek to act decisively. We do not see the same degree of interaction in many other European democracies, where the press is not so powerful and where there are weak, coalition governments. So a strong British government, working hand in hand with a sympathetic press, can bring about significant change within the country.

The question that has to be answered is whether you think this constitutes a democratic safeguard, whether you think it leads to better government. The power of the press explains why Britain is one of those countries — again for good or for ill – which is at the cutting edge in the development of media manipulation, most recently through the use of spin doctors like Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell. Britain has always been strong on advertising and public relations and that is why the communication techniques used here — especially when it comes to the government trying to influence, even dictate the news agenda — attract so much interest.

The point which we have reached is that the state — and especially the opposing political parties — believe they have to compete in the media market place if they are to stand any chance of securing public attention. No wonder that in 1997, once he was installed in Downing Street as Tony Blair’s press secretary, Alastair Campbell’s first task was to re-write the rule book for government information officers, instructing them to "grab the agenda" by leaking new policies and decisions even before ministers had made their announcements to Parliament. But first let me put the work of the spin doctors in context, to explain why they are considered so necessary.

If there is one characteristic which marks out British newspapers from their counterparts around the world it is their ability to command the news agenda. Indeed the British press is by far the most inventive and perhaps the most sensational when it comes to the art of manufacturing exclusive stories which are often very effective in grabbing the headlines. And, more often than not it is the news media which has the upper hand. Editors of mass circulation newspapers and producers of popular television programmes believe they are serving the democratic interest by exposing the inadequacies of government administration.

It is in this way, by forcing British politicians to answer the questions posed by the news media, that journalists believe they help make the government of the day more accountable to the public. British newspapers are quite prepared to manufacture their own news: no investigation or publicity stunt is off limits; and such is the lack of respect and deference for the national institutions of the country that nothing is sacred when it comes to challenging authority. Officials working for the state, whether at a central or local level, are always a favourite target. Indeed anyone in British officialdom is well aware that exposure in the media for wrong doing can be extremely embarrassing and can often result in their dismissal from employment.

If journalistic endeavour fails to deliver a story there is always what is known as cheque-book journalism to fall back on. British media companies are among the most profitable in the world and certainly have some of the deepest pockets when it comes to buying up sensational information, pictures or interviews. Such is the strength of the competition between media outlets, that it is exclusive stories which command the highest price. While the popular papers delight in printing dramatic and often intrusive disclosures, especially about the private lives of footballers or celebrities, the serious press have their own distinct preferences.

Stories based on campaigns and investigations; exclusive interviews with politicians and prominent public figures; and the findings of opinion polls and surveys provide a regular supply of editorial material for what is known as the quality press. British newspapers are often outrageous and irresponsible but they do have the knack of treating important issues in popular ways and because the daily readership of the press is far higher in the United Kingdon than in many comparable countries there is a high level of public awareness on topical issues. Because of the impact they can achieve, newspapers in the United Kingdom exercise a considerable degree of influence over the way stories are covered on radio and television.

Indeed the front pages of next morning's papers are often news items in themselves and the varied press coverage is discussed regularly in late-night and early-morning current affairs programmes. But the desperate desire of the media to try to dictate the news agenda has become such an overpowering addiction that it has opened the door to all sorts of influences which are not always understood by readers, viewers and listeners. Perhaps not surprisingly British journalists are not at all keen to discuss the behaviour of the hidden information pushers who have become so successful in feeding their habit by supplying exclusive stories. It is difficult to know where to start in the hit parade of "world exclusives" which have filled the front pages of the popular press.

Perhaps I should begin at the top with the Queen and Buckingham Palace. Under the red banner headline "Intruder" over the picture of a palace flunkey, the Daily Mirror published its scoop about the "biggest royal security scandal ever". It was the story of how a Mirrorman, reporter Ryan Parry, had been working as "a palace footman for two months….and was able to prepare the Queen’s breakfast and take pictures of the bed which President George Bush slept in" the previous night. ( Daily Mirror 19.11.2003) The aim of the story was to expose the lack of security at Buckingham Palace but using a reporter to invade the Queen's privacy was not a tactic which would have been permitted in many other countries.

For example, such is the respect for the office of the American President and the sanctity of the White House that such an escapade would have been unthinkable in the USA. But the trick of asking a reporter to fool the authorities so as to expose weaknesses in security and highlight potential dangers to the public is hardy perennial for British newspapers. The Sun used the same technique two years later in another world exclusive on the eve of Prince Charles’ wedding to Camilla: "Gatecrasher in the Castle: 72 hours before the wedding…Sun man drives fake bomb up to the Queen’s apartment" (Sun 7.4.2005).

We see the same ploy again in the aftermath of the row about whether Muslim women should be asked to remove their veils and the news report that a terrorist suspect had left the country disguised as a woman in Islamic dress. "Wearing a burka and carrying a handbag, bomber at bus station" was the Sun's headline. The temptation was irresistible: "Hidden Danger" was the subsequent headline on an exclusive story about the "veiled Sun girl waved through UK airport" in a security shambles which revealed that airport staff had failed to ask her to lift her veil. (Sun 9.10.2006). What was so troublesome about this particular stunt was that the Sun knew full well that it was not only being alarmist but was also perhaps making life uncomfortable for Muslim women who choose to wear veils.

Whenever the popular papers are challenged about the ethics of their reporting the editors insist their job is to reflect public opinion. Some British people do fear that Muslim extremists might be terrorists and no doubt the Sun would claim vindication with its headline the following year "Bomber in a Burka" reporting precisely what it had claimed. (Sun 16.1.2007) The issue of veiled women excites the tabloids. One picture used again and again is of a group of young Muslim mothers in Birmingham, all veiled and one of whom gives the V sign when they were stopped in their tracks by a newspaper photographer. The headline says it all: "Raging against decadent Britain. And hungry for the harshness of Sharia law." (Daily Mail 3.2.2007).

But the tabloids do make a stand against racism, especially in sport. "Lewis in Racism Storm" was the Sun’s front-page headline (4.2.2008) when it broke the story about racists at the Barcelona circuit blacking their faces to taunt the Formula One racing driver Lewis Hamilton. No expense is spared when it comes to some of the imaginative stunts which take place. "The End: Moment justice caught up with Ronnie Biggs thanks to the Sun" (8.5.2001) was the headline over the exclusive story about how Sun tracked down the Great Train robber Ronnie Biggs at his hideaway in Rio de Janeiro, hired a private plane and flew him back to Britain where reporters handed Biggs over to the Police.

The News of the World was equally enterprising when one of its reporters was told to get a job as a warder at Woodhill Prison. Using the access he gained, he took photographs of the Soham School murderer Ian Huntley languishing in his cell. (15.6.2003). This behaviour would not be tolerated in most countries. More likely than not a deception like this would result in a journalist going to jail. But the British newspapers are so powerful and so strong is the belief that Britain needs a free press, that the authorities dare not retaliate. This gets to the heart of campaigning journalism: politicians who find themselves in the firing line often have no alternative but to give way or at least appear to do so. It explains why Prime Minister Gordon Brown is often only too keen to dance to the tune of the tabloids.

Let us look at the example of the humble plastic carrier bag and a campaign by the Daily Mail which had the Prime Minister falling over himself to give his support. "Banish the Bags" was the front-page headline (27.2.2008) and the following nine pages told the ecological damage that plastic bags were inflicting on nature. On day two of the campaign, the Daily Mail claimed its first victory: "M&S banish the free bag" (28.2.2008) and on day three the Prime Minister was rushed in to give his support: "Brown: the bags will be banished" (29.2.2008). Day after day the campaign continued culminating in the pre-Budget exclusive and one word banner headline: "BANISHED". The storyline was triumphant: "Budget will introduce a law compelling every supermarket to end the scourge of free plastic bags." (Daily Mail 11.3.2008)

However much we might be amused that the country’s second largest daily paper can devote so much space to plastic bags, what one cannot deny is the brilliance of the campaign and the dramatic effect it had on government thinking. Some campaigns take years rather than days to affect government thinking. And when it comes to awarding the accolades, I suppose the News of the World has to be the newspaper that remains head and shoulders above its competitors. "Named, Shamed" was the front-page headline eight years ago when it published the photographs of fifty "highly dangerous paedophiles". (23.7.2000). It was this edition of the News of the World which itself became headline news. It triggered a political storm by provoking a witch hunt for paedophiles, although in one case protestors mistook a paediatrician for a paedophile.

The newspaper justified its campaign for what it called "Sarah’s Law" on the grounds that Britain needed an equivalent of the American legislation known as "Megan’s Law" which provides parents in the United States with access to information on sex offenders living in their locality. It took a long time but in the face of continued pressure the government gave ground. In December 2006 the Home Office finally agreed that parents would be allowed access to some limited information about sex offenders residing in their neighbourhoods. It was the police who finally made the first move. They agreed to publish on the Internet the names of known sex offenders who were not obeying compliance orders. The Sun's headline could not have been more explicit: "PERV HUNT.COM" (17.12.2006). Several of the paedophiles identified on the Most Wanted Website have now been caught. No wonder civil liberty groups are so concerned about possible witch hunts. Just look at the Daily Mirror headline "The Paedo Hate Mob" (12.12.2006). But a couple of months ago the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith finally accepted the News of the World’s argument and agreed — that at least in certain parts of the country — parents can be told whether there are paedophiles living in their neighbourhood. "It’s a victory for Sara" was the inevitable headline. (17.2.2008).

There is, it seems, no limit to the ingenuity of the British press when it comes to whipping up pressure for instant action by the authorities. We saw again in October 2006 how the News of the World demonstrated that same flair for exploiting public fears by launching its "Devil Dogs Campaign" (1.10.2006). It demanded that dog owners should be made criminally liable for attacks by dogs like Rottweilers. That campaign was just a foretaste of the tabloid fury unleashed a couple of months later after a pitbull terrier savaged five year old Ellie Lawrenson on New Year’s Day. Merseyside Police have now rounded up dozens of pit bulls amid demands that the Dangerous Dogs Act should be strengthened and properly enforced.

Another government scalp for the Daily Mail has been the campaign it waged against government plans for a whole series of Las Vegas style casinos. One memorable front page said: "Gambling with out Futures" (15.10.2004). Ten days later the government backed down — there would not be a gambling free-for-all: "Labour retreat over Super Casinos" (25.10.2004). Only one Las Vegas style casino was approved — for Manchester — and the story continued to cause ministers grief. Finally, after Tony Blair resigned and Gordon Brown became the new British Prime Minister in July 2007, one of his first acts was to abandon the plan for a Las Vegas style casino in Manchester. "A very moral victory" said the Daily Mail (12.7.2007). Another successful media campaign, helping force a U turn by the government.

While it is the mass-circulation papers which can force ministers to dance to their tune, we must not forget the power of the serious, quality papers. National and local elections, party conferences and other fixtures in the political calendar provide a peg for one of the sure-fire ways for political journalists to create news. Opinion polls are a regular feature in most newspapers and as the date of their publication is entirely at the discretion of the editor, they can be timed to cause maximum embarrassment for the political parties. What always infuriates the politicians is that it is the journalists who pose the question and they do it in a way that allows the newspaper to keep control of the story.

Opinion surveys provide a rich harvest for the press because for an outlay of a few thousand pounds the questions — and results — can be tailored to address the burning issues of the day. "Stand up to US, voters tell Blair" was the Guardian's front-page lead (25.7.2006) over a survey which showed that 63 per cent of the electorate believed Blair had tied Britain too close to the White House. "Ten million want to quit ‘over-taxed’ UK" was the finding of a poll for the Sunday Times (27.8.2006) which revealed that one in five Britons was considering leaving the country. The pro-Conservative Sunday Telegraph pre-empted a clutch of polls about the need for a separate English Parliament. Scotland has its own Parliament and it is the Scottish Nationalists who are in government. Talk about breaking up the UK so that Scotland achieves full independence is a regular issue for the opinion pollsters. One poll was decisive: "End of the Union? England wants its independence" (Sunday Telegraph 26.11.2006).

Religion is not sacred as far as the newspapers are concerned and in a pre Christmas jibe at the churches, an opinion poll in the Guardian showed that 82 per cent of people think faith causes tension: "Religion does more harm than good" (23.12.2006).

Another illustration of how the newspapers can create talking points for the people was a poll for the Independent last December which showed that 80 per cent of us plan to cut our carbon footprint in 2008. "Britain demands a greener Christmas" was the seasonal front-page headline. (Independent 23.12.2007). So the newspapers believe that by commissioning these opinion polls they can influence government policy. The Times had a poll a month ago indicating that 76 per cent of us want the surgeries of family doctors to be open for longer (23.2.2008)…and that is precisely what the government announced a couple of weeks later.

Consequently with so many weapons in their armoury you can understand how difficult it can be for the state to compete in such a crowded media market place. The competition is so great that governments have been forced to employ the smartest communicators — the political spin doctors of today — to put across their message. Sometimes unpopular governments are fighting a losing battle. In the long run-up to the 1997 British general election — which ended in defeat for the Conservatives after 18 years in power — there was no doubt that many journalists were doing all they could to excite the public interest in the prospect of a change of power. The journalists were in effect voting for change. They knew that if the Conservatives were defeated and Tony Blair became Prime Minister it would be in the journalists self interest. It would be good news for the news industry as a Labour government would seek to bring in new and perhaps controversial policies.

You can see this same process underway in the US Presidential elections. Long before Super Tuesday when Barak Obama came from behind and closed the gap between himself and Hilary Clinton, the British newspapers were already right behind him and castigating the Clintons. "The dangers for Britain if this poisonous pair triumph" (Daily Mail 2.2.2008) was in sharp contrast to the page after page of favourable coverage for her opponent. "My America: By Barak Obama" was the front page of the Independent Extra (4.2.2008). Much of the coverage in the states for Obama has been so positive that the Clinton campaign has complained that he has been given an easy ride.

But it is because managing the media is a such a fickle business that Tony Blair went to great lengths to ensure that he had the best possible team around him. Alastair Campbell, a former Daily Mirror journalist, was appointed Blair’s press secretary and the new Prime Minister doubled and then trebled the number of what are known as special advisers. These are largely politically-appointed spin doctors. They are committed Labour Party supporters and many were formerly journalists who were sympathetic to Blair. The first thing Campbell did was change the rules for the civil servants who work as information officers. They were told that they had to "grab the agenda" by trailing announcements. That is the art of official leaking: supplying information exclusively to certain journalists in the hope they will give the government favourable coverage.

Trailing is important: it helps the government set the agenda, it creates a favourable impression, that something is being done, and as with the Budget yesterday, it helps calm the financial markets. So over the weekend there were plenty of official leaks: Yes, there would be more on alcoholic drinks, the tax would be increased on 4×4s and other gas-guzzling cars. But on the eve of the Budget the Treasury confirmed that the 2p a litre increase in the duty on petrol would be postponed. That provided a good news headline for the Sun on Budget morning: "2p petrol hike is frozen…for now" (12.3.2008). Obviously the Chancellor Alistair Darling wanted to sweeten up the public ahead of the bad news that was to come: "Tax Hikes of booze and 4×4s" (thelondonpaper 12.3.2008).

The art of trailing announcements is all too apparent in the Sunday newspapers. They thrive on speculation, on stories which look ahead to what the government is proposing which explains why Tony Blair’s spin doctors were so determined to seize the agenda.

The biggest selling quality Sunday paper, The Sunday Times was the favourite, hence a string of exclusive previews, all dominating the front page:

"Blair to toughen rape laws" (15.10.2006)

"Blair wants super-Asbos for violent thugs" (14.1.2007)

"Blair crisis summit on teen gangs". (18.2.2007)

Gordon Brown and his ministers have been equally assiduous in supplying exclusive agenda-setting stories to the newspapers. The government’s campaign to stop binge drinking among young people produced a front-page exclusive for the Daily Mirror:

"Blitz on shops peddling booze to kids" (3.3.2008). The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith floated a similar initiative on gun crime with the News of the World: "War on Guns – government launch amnesty" (26.8.2007).

These are calculated attempts to influence the news agenda and in what is now a mirror image of Labour’s strategy, we see the Conservative Party promoting its new leader David Cameron in precisely the same way. Soon after his election as leader, Cameron moved to distance himself from the legacy of the Thatcher years and he has often used The Observer as the platform to signal that his party is changing. Here we see a typical trick in media manipulation. By giving the story exclusively to a newspaper that traditionally might be hostile to the Conservatives, Cameron has achieved the maximum possible prominence.

The Observer was the Sunday paper which protested the loudest about the Conservatives’ support for the apartheid regime in South Africa. So when the moment came to dump the Thatcher legacy, that paper was the ideal vehicle and its front-page lead story demonstrates the point: "Cameron: We got it wrong on apartheid" (The Observer 27.8.2006)

Here was Cameron securing the front-page splash for his declaration of support for the ANC leader Nelson Mandela, whom Margaret Thatcher had denounced as a terrorist leader. Another objective of Cameron is to persuade voters that a future Conservative government could be trusted to support the National Health Service. It helps explain why The Observer was the chosen recipient for another exclusive: "Tories plan nurses at home for all new babies" (3.2.2008)

The biggest prize of all for the Conservatives would be to win back the support of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers which deserted the Tories under John Major and switched Tony Blair in the lead-up to the 1997 general election. Two months before polling day, New Labour was celebrating: " The Sun backs Blair — give change a chance." (18.3.1997). The importance of the support of the Murdoch press should not be underestimated. Despite the unpopularity in Britain of Blair’s support for George Bush in the war against Iraq, The Sun remained steadfast and in fact all four of the Murdoch’s newspapers urged readers to vote Labour in the 2005 general election.

Two front pages illustrate the closeness of that relationship. On the eve of the general election The Sun declared that it had got "deep down and personal with the Blairs" and the front-page headline, "Why Size Matters" (4.5.2005) led on to an inside spread which showed a tanned Prime Minister in his torso alongside some intimate quotes from his wife Cherie. In return for granting this titillating interview, The Sun repaid the compliment on polling day with a front page that urged readers to "Vote Labour Today"(5.5.2005). It showed the Prime Minister and the Chancellor dressed in red strips like Manchester United footballers and the headline said it all: "Come On You Reds" with Blair in the No.10 shirt and Gordon Brown as No. 11.

Where The Sun’s support was so critical has been over the Iraq war and its consistent support for "Our Boys" or "The lions of Basra" (4.9.2007) as they tended to be dubbed in Sun-speak. The supposed invincibility of the British troops was encapsulated in the report over the arrival of the Black Watch regiment in Basra: "Watch it: Our Boys off to the battle zone. We beat Napoleon, Kaiser and Hitler…it’s just another job." (25.10.2004). When the action switched to Afghanistan, there was the same Boy’s Own style of coverage when a reporter was sent to join troops on the front line: "The Sun takes on the Taliban" (9.10.2006).

So the closeness of the link between politicians and media proprietors should never be overlooked and while there is no doubt that newspaper sales are declining at some speed, the owners are doing all they can to ensure they retain their dominant position as news and information providers. Their first significant victory has been to ensure that not just text but also all audio-visual material on their websites has escaped regulation by Ofcom and will instead be subject to self-regulation by the Press Complaints Commission. This means that newspaper websites can take full advantage of the growth in internet television.

The Daily Telegraph is ahead of the pack and has begun streaming its own programmes via its website. Right On is Telegraph TV’s weekly political programme and unlike the traditional mainstream broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Sky which have to remain politically impartial, the newcomer is blatantly partisan. It is the "show that’s politically right, not politically correct". Right On is chaired by the Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe and she is joined by a trio of right-wing journalists, Simon Heffer, Andrew Pierce and Jeff Randall.

The Murdoch press is concentrating most its push on the internet into developing the websites of The Sun and the News of the World which regularly feature full length videos of topical and exclusive interviews obtained by the two papers. "Burrell: I lied to Di inquest" was The Sun’s front-page headline (18.2.2008) over a report about a secretly-filmed video in which the former royal butler Paul Burrell was said to have admitted perjury at the inquest into the death of Princess Diana. "Amy On Crack" was another of The Sun’s secretly-filmed videos which provided a world exclusive (22.12008) and boosted the number of hits on the website. Footage of the "troubled Amy Winehouse plumbs the depths" provided exclusive after exclusive: "Cops Seize our Amy drug film" (23.1.2008) and "Cops grill Amy over crack video" (6.2.2008). Within a month the Amy Winehouse video had secured nine million hits on The Sun Online.

The scramble by the newspaper owners to protect their businesses is underlined by the fact that the total spend on online advertising has been doubling every year and by next year is likely to exceed the amount which UK advertisers spent on television. What has yet to be established is whether the media proprietors will continue to exercise the same degree of political influence which they achieved with their newspapers. I believe they will: the power of political patronage of the press barons is moving into the electronic era.

Alastair Campbell: making a mockery of the memory of Hugh Cudlipp

Ellie Keen — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:00:03 +0000

After a cynical betrayal of the idealism which every journalist should strive for, Alastair Campbell finally tripped himself up in the mire of his own double-speak.

His utter contempt for the journalists of tomorrow and the challenges they face was underlined by his choice of title for the annual Hugh Cudlipp lecture, “The media: a case of growth in scale, alas, not in stature”. (28.1.2008).

At the heart of Campbell’s reheated diatribe was his assertion that he and Tony Blair went the extra mile to improve the reporting of politics but it was rebuffed by the “relentless negativity” of political journalists who “culturally and collectively present an utterly one side view of political debate”.

Instead of trying to inspire the numerous media students in the audience at the London College of Communication (there were so many they filled an overfill hall), Campbell traduced the profession which gave him his own career break: “I don’t think there are many journalists left who take their responsibilities seriously…My experience on the political side of the fence has meant that any idealism I had for journalism has been extinguished to zero”.

After his lecture, Campbell tossed aside a few ineffectual questions but when asked to justify the leaking of ministerial announcements in order to gain advance publicity, he did momentarily let his guard down. Yes, he admitted, as Tony Blair’s press secretary, he had continued to brief journalists once the official lobby briefings had finished but his aim had been to have an input into any speculation.

“I think a legitimate communications function (for New Labour) was to try to create a framework in which a major speech or political development would land”.

Here we got the briefest acknowledgement of Campbell’s modus operandi and, as so often in the past, he skated over what he meant by the “techniques” which he said the Blair government had developed, first in opposition and then in office in order to secure favourable headlines.

Yet it was these self same “techniques” which accelerated the decline in the standards of news reporting, which Campbell blames on journalists while conveniently disregarding his own culpability.

Against each of the ills which Campbell identified, there was an alternative explanation and instead of journalists being the perpetual target, an accusing finger could have been pointed just as firmly at the control freakery of the Downing Street press office.

Take for example his condemnation of “every exclusive which is not an exclusive”. It was Campbell’s practice of providing exclusive stories and access to favoured journalists which did so much to heighten the amount of political speculation. Correspondents who had been left out of the loop retaliated with speculative and often negative stories, so desperate were they to challenge New Labour’s attempts at agenda setting.

When castigating broadcasters for failing to differentiate between speed and accuracy, Campbell omitted to mention that most of the stories which Downing Street supplied on an exclusive and off-the-record basis were supplied to newspapers rather than to television or radio and in such circumstances it was hardly surprising that news bulletins found it difficult to catch up.

Likewise with his assertion that it was “a devotion to impact which is unravelling standards” along with a failure to make greater use of the initiatives which the government had taken by instituting on-the-record lobby briefings and Blair’s televised news conferences. But again Campbell told only half the story.

While defending the need for New Labour’s “media handling plans” he did not own up to the fact that when trailing government decisions in advance of ministerial announcements it was his policy to help only selected news outlets and other news organisations would be purposely excluded, again an approach that was hardly like to drive up editorial standards.

Here was Campbell, himself a winner of the Hugh Cudlipp award for student journalists, refusing to offer even a hint of an apology for his abject failure to at least defend the best practices of journalism by ensuring equal access for all journalists. Perhaps it was no surprise that among his many boasts he did not repeat the line from his diaries, The Blair Years, about not minding if journalists were fearful of falling out his favour because he “wanted to undermine them, divide and rule”.

Lady Cudlipp congratulated Campbell on what she believed was the greatest speech which had ever been delivered as a Cudlipp lecture but I could not help thinking that the former editor of the Daily Herald and News Chronicle columnist would have turned in his grave at the thought that a former prize winner had been allowed to make a mockery of journalistic ideals.

Brown hires a fixer: back to the control freakery of the Blair years?

Tim Holmes — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:43:12 +0000

All the lofty rhetoric about Gordon Brown restoring traditional civil service values has finally been dissipated with the appointment of Stephen Carter as chief political organiser in Downing Street.

Quick fixes aimed at driving the media agenda became the hallmark of Tony Blair’s decade in Downing Street and the cumulative damage which they inflicted on both the authority of Parliament and the standing of the civil service caused widespread unease within the Labour Party.

Early last summer, as he outlined a vision for his Premiership, Brown and his aides did much to promote the idea that the new administration would rein in unaccountable political advisers and put the levers of power back in the hands of civil servants.

Indeed, the new Prime Minister kept his word: his chief of staff Tom Scholar and Michael Ellam, his director of communications, are both civil servants and together with the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, who was previously Brown’s permanent secretary at the Treasury, it seemed, at least to begin with, that the Whitehall mandarins were beginning to regain some of the confidence and authority which they had lost under Blair.

By appointing Carter to the new post of chief of strategy and principal adviser to the Prime Minister, Brown has given the clearest possible signal that he is finding it impossible to survive politically without the kind of control freakery which was exercised by the likes of Alastair Campbell.

Although Carter will be unable to instruct civil servants — a power which was exercised by Campbell and Blair’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell — his brief will be as all embracing as that of his two predecessors. Carter will be in charge of political strategy, communications and research and will also be in control of the No. 10 policy unit.

Carter brings with him his experience both as chief executive of Brunswick, the city public relations consultancy, and formerly that of chief executive of the broadcasting regulator Ofcom.

While Carter’s immediate task will be akin to that of chief progress chaser, making sure that the government’s initiatives are both co-ordinated and delivered, his lead role as principal political adviser will put him in a commanding position when it comes to controlling the rest of the Labour-appointed advisers and spin doctors whose uncontrolled spin over the election-that-never-was caused Brown so much damage last autumn.

Brown’s belief that he could somehow roll back the spinning of the Blair years and restore civil service authority was always wishful thinking.

When looking back on the Blair decade the former cabinet secretary, Sir Robin (now Lord) Butler said that what stood out so clearly was the way the media were driving modern politics.

Because politicians had convinced themselves the only way to deal with their ongoing struggle with the media was to try to control the news agenda, the Blair years had proved that political advisers were better at creating headlines than civil servants.

Therefore Butler had concluded that no future government could survive without the assistance of the Alastair Campbells of tomorrow. When he made that prediction in December 2007, there was already speculation that Brown was desperate to find a fixer who could shake up Downing Street after the disaster of Northern Rock, dithering over a non-election and the loss of personal data discs.

While Brown’s aides are insisting that Carter will not be another Campbell and will instead be a behind-the-scenes strategist and adviser, his work will be highly-political and will draw on the slick world of financial public relations.

Brown seems to have come to the conclusion that there is no alternative: unless the No. 10 machine can impose some order and control on the government’s affairs, continual Labour re-launches will be as ineffective as they were under John Major.

Murdoch's Imminent Demolition Job

Tim Holmes — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:56:48 +0000

If ever there was a harbinger of an imminent demolition job it has to be Rupert Murdoch’s demand for an easing of the rules which require radio and television services to be politically impartial in their news and current affairs output.

Murdoch knows he is pushing at an open door: newspaper websites are already free to be as partisan as they like in what they report and now that the broadcasting regulator Ofcom has thrown in the towel, the same goes for the burgeoning audio-visual output of press proprietors.

Internet television will soon be available at the flick of a remote control and my fear is that political parties struggling for support will rue the day that the Blair government failed to ensure action was taken to protect balanced reporting on television and radio during general election campaigns.

In private evidence to a House of Lords’ communications committee, Murdoch said he wanted Sky News to have the same political freedom as his American channel Fox News so that Sky could become “a proper alternative to the BBC”.

Murdoch insisted that when it came to deciding the political line to be followed by the Sun and the News of the World he was and would remain a “traditional proprietor”. He would take the decision, in consultation with his editors, and he was still undecided about which party to support at the next general election.

What so far has attracted little attention is the potential political impact of the television news bulletins which are now available on the websites of national newspapers. Whether the choice is Telegraph TV or Sun TV, what has happened is that press proprietors rather than established broadcasters are now at the cutting edge in testing the rules on impartiality.

Murdoch wins either way: internet tv news will change the face of political coverage and that will inevitably effect the output of mainstream channels like the BBC, ITV and Sky which eventually will find they have no alternative but to compete on equal terms.

Two largely unreported but related developments support my fears. A year ago, to the delight of the media proprietors, Ofcom backed off and agreed that the Press Complaints Commission would be allowed to widen its remit and adjudicate on any complaints about the content of audio-visual material on newspaper websites.

Self-regulation for internet tv was followed in June by Ofcom’s report, New News, Future News which discusses the case for relaxing the rules on political impartiality for mainstream tv services. It argued that the requirement for due impartiality “may become less enforceable” and it is now suggesting that to begin with “small niche channels” should be given this freedom.

Unfortunately Ofcom is so remote from reality, and so determined to be a light-touch regulator, that its highly-paid staff have failed to wake up to the fact that politically partisan tv is already alive and well on websites like www.18doughtystreet.com

For some months the Conservative blogger Iain Dale hosted Vox Politix, a nightly televised discussion programme which was the brainchild of the site’s owner Stephan Shakespeare. Having been a guest several times, I have no complaints and was free to make whatever point I wanted, but the two-hour programme could hardly have been described as a balanced platform offering an equal share of time to Labour or the Liberal Democrats.

Likewise with its television attack advertisements 18 Doughty Street is breaking new ground and broadcasting the kind of propaganda for which American election campaigns are infamous.

By far its most controversial offering was the two-minute attack ad broadcast on 18 Doughty Street in March which sought demolish the record of Ken Livingstone, the Labour Mayor of London.

It contained hard-hitting lines about how London was “less safe than New York”; how as “London’s problems mount Ken Livingstone is enjoying himself and found time to visit Cuba”; and how Ken had the support of the rail union leader, Bob Crow, “Bob the striker”.

My concern is that come the next general election, unregulated attack ads could be broadcast on the websites of the Sun and News of the World and become powerful new political weapons in the hands of the Murdoch press.

With rapid media convergence viewers will soon have set top boxes which at the click of a remote control will give them a choice of websites on their television screens. How will the BBC respond to the political freedom exercised by Sun TV or 18 Doughty Street?

I am convinced these unregulated sites will become the Trojan horse which erodes long-standing election safeguards which have protected not only the opposition of the day but also guaranteed a voice for minority parties.

News coverage of election campaigns is a classic British compromise: we have a free press and newspapers can be as unscrupulous as they like in promoting whichever party they choose but the broadcasters cannot not be politically partisan.

Over the years candidates from across the political spectrum have been the beneficiaries of an arrangement which ensures them access to television and radio and allows them to promote their own individual policies within news and current affairs programmes which, despite their limitations, most observers accept are generally fair to all sides.

But websites will have the freedom to promote whatever political line they choose without having to respect the traditional rules on party balance and established broadcasters like the BBC will be at an immediate competitive disadvantage.

Another tried and tested feature of British general elections — the party political broadcast — might also be threatened. Parties are allocated broadcasts on a formula based on the number of constituencies which they are contesting but that arrangement too could disintegrate if the previously banned attack advertisements are allowed on British screens.

Whenever I voice my concerns at seminars on political blogging I am greeted either with silence or derision. Out in the blogosphere the unanimous view seems to be that such is the diversity and competition between websites, bloggers et al, that come the next general election, political balance will sort itself out.

I am afraid we have heard it all before. When the press switched from hot metal production to computerised technology, journalists were assured there would be almost limitless opportunities for diversification and expansion. In the event newspaper ownership has been concentrated into ever fewer hands, especially in the provinces, where much of the regional and local press is a shadow of what it once was.

So it is with the internet. On the one hand the opportunities for political expression seem limitless but on the other it is already the case that the big media groups are muscling in on the most popular sites.

Newspaper proprietors are out in front seeking to protect their interests in a crowded market place and in pursuing their commercial agendas, they will be anxious to retain any influence which they can exert on the government of the day.

At a recent seminar (24.11.2007) on the impact of political blogs at Goldsmiths, University of London, my dire warnings did not impress the assembled bloggers. The general conclusion was that the more competition the better.

Paul Staines, otherwise known as Guido Fawkes, whose blog www.order-order.com is regarded by political journalists as being perhaps the most adventurous and outrageous, believed that political video blogging, which is still in its infancy, will eventually be huge.

Convergence between mainstream and internet tv will open up vast new audiences and this is certainly the hope of Stephan Shakespeare whose site www.18doughtystreet.com is to be re-launched in the New Year as a political news site offering political junkies the kind of service which Bloomberg provides for the financial community.

Shakespeare is a passionate advocate of a new approach to political reporting on tv. “Impartiality as practiced by the BBC doesn’t work. Giving equal time for the Conservatives, Labour and so on doesn’t engage with the audience. What is needed is a diversity of voices”.

What is not in doubt is that video-rich political websites are going to drive a coach and horses through the stop-watch political reporting of the past. In view of the many disasters engulfing Gordon Brown it could be 2010 before Britain votes again and by then the lack of a coherent regulatory framework and the government’s lamentable failure to protect public service broadcasting might well have resulted in yet another demolition job on Britain’s democratic safeguards.

Political Blogging

Ellie Keen — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:58:14 +0000

Iain Dale is to be congratulated for highlighting the woeful failure of the left of centre in British politics to exploit the blogosphere. Of the top twenty political blogs featured in the Guide to Political Blogging 2007-8 , fourteen are from the right of centre and only two from the left.

Of even greater concern is the absence of any defining figures on the mainstream left to bridge the gap between “blogging and the traditional media”.

Dale’s guide ranks the top 500 political blogs and as he observes with some justification, the “right of centre blogosphere” is in “a rude state of health” with not a single left wing blog having a mass readership anything like the size of the top seven or eight on the right.

While Dale admits that the political blogosphere in Britain lags far behind that in the USA, where blogs have broken “huge media stories”, he perhaps does not go far enough in acknowledging the importance which the mainstream media now attaches to blogs on the right because of their ability to reach a wide cross section of the Conservative Party.

Dale (Iain Dale’s Diary), Tim Montgomerie (Conservative Home) and Guido Fawkes (Guido Fawkes) have established themselves as high profile political pundits whose views are regularly sought by newspapers and radio and television programmes because, as they can rightly claim, their blogs have become part of the political dialogue on the right.

Although the right of centre blogosphere is “more diverse, radical and influential” than its left of centre counterpart, Dale detects signs of it “coming to life” and he predicts another three or four blogs from the left might make it into the top twenty next year.

In one of the essays in the guide, David Osler, whose blog (Dave’s Part) is ranked ninth in the top 100 Labour blogs, says he accepts that “sitting in front of a keyboard is no substitute for political activity” but the blog audience is now considerably larger than the attendance at any public meeting the left is capable of organising and he thinks the left is “foolish not to try to engage with it”.

Jon Worth (www.blog.jonworth.eu), who was web manager for Harriet Harman’s deputy leadership website, highlights the lack of any defining figures in the Labour blogosphere with a degree of integrity and Conor Ryan (Conor’s Commentary), former political adviser to David Blunkett, finds that his blog allows him to make a far stronger personal statement than he achieved with any newspaper article or ministerial minute.

Guide to Political Blogging, Iain Dale, Harriman House Ltd. £12.99

Alastair Campbell: The Superficiality of The Blair Years

Tim Holmes — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:31:58 +0000

After all the pre-publication hype that Alastair Campbell’s diaries would provide “a fuller and more complete truth” about political life in Britain, the upshot three months later seems to be the reverse: his book’s superficiality has been equalled only by its apparent irrelevance.

Campbell was likewise wide of the mark in his over-blown claim that The Blair Years would become “part of the historical record of a fascinating period in British and international politics” and his belief that “millions of words will be published and broadcast…about TB, his leadership and his legacy”

Again the opposite seems to be the case. Apart from the ongoing nightmare over what to do about the tragic trauma of the Iraq war, the relevance of the Blair decade appears to be disappearing over the political horizon at a rate of knots. When contrasted with the repercussions of the far-reaching changes of the Thatcher decade — whether their impact was ultimately thought to have been for good or for ill — the checklist of achievements for Tony Blair during the ten years he was in office bears no comparison.

No wonder at his first televised news conference in Downing Street (4.9.2007), Gordon Brown avoided any reference to the legacy of his predecessor and declared instead that he admired Margaret Thatcher for having seen the need for change and for having been “a conviction politician…I am a conviction politician like her”.

Perhaps it was the ultimate shallowness of New Labour, the lack of conviction in the Blairite elite and the doubts now about the durability of their accomplishments which explained why Campbell’s diaries were subjected to so little detailed scrutiny.

A sense of disenchantment, even indifference, might explain why so few journalists could be bothered to take Campbell to task over the ethical stance of his media regime in Downing Street or the trail of damage which he left in his wake.

On the odd occasion he was probed about his role in hastening the creeping politicisation of the government’s information service, or when he was asked to justify why he had cashed in so promptly after promising not to publish his diaries during the lifetime of the Labour government, he was able to brush the questions aside with effortless ease; follow-up challenges were even rarer.

And, despite having consistently condemned the media for being obsessed with personality politics, there was no hesitation on his part in lacing his book with gossipy asides and private, even intimate, information. Surprise, surprise, as he knew full well, it was the trivia which dominated most of the coverage and grabbed the headlines.

If I had been given a chance to try putting him on the spot during his round of promotional interviews, and if, which is even more debateable, he had deigned to given me a reply, the issue I would have wanted to return to was his assertion that when it came to the dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, his role had simply been to “help” prepare the document for publication. Time and again he had insisted that John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee, had always retained ownership of the contents of the document.

What Campbell has purposely skated over, and the point on which he failed to get challenged, was whether Blair should have ever given him the authority in the first place to chair meetings in Downing Street to oversee the presentation of intelligence material.

To his credit, immediately after succeeding Blair, Gordon Brown promised in his constitutional statement, The Governance of Britain (3.7.2007), that he would legislate to make sure that never again would a political appointee like Campbell be allowed to have the power to give instructions to civil servants.

On a visit to Baghdad the previous month (11.6.2007), the Prime Minister in waiting went even further, giving a pledge that future analysis by the security and intelligence services would be kept independent of the political process; party spin doctors would not be allowed to get involved; he would ensure that the assessments of the joint intelligence committee were reported direct to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, rather than to the Prime Minister.

However, nothing further has been heard from Brown about how the undertakings he gave in Baghdad are to be implemented and his failure so far to take action underlines why the chance to highlight Campbell’s culpability was such a sorely missed opportunity.

Another point on which he should have been held to account was the way in which his unprecedented power had the effect of encouraging similar excesses by the other political advisers under his control.

Their ability to pull the strings and politicise the work of civil service information officers was exposed in Jo Moore’s infamous email telling staff in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions that 9/11 was “a very good day to get out anything we want to bury”.

Again, to be fair, Brown was on the ball in his constitutional statement promising that in his first Parliamentary session as Prime Minister he would bring in legislation to enshrine in law the “core principles and values of the civil service”.

Here again was another missed opportunity to test the corrosive influence of the Downing Street press office. Tucked away in the odd diary entry in The Blair Years, Campbell has provided, perhaps unwittingly, some chapter and verse illustrations of his Rambo-like behaviour towards senior civil servants and his disregard for the code of conduct for special advisers.

Sir Richard Wilson, cabinet secretary for most of Campbell’s stint in Downing Street, was effectively sidelined both by the Prime Minister’s and his director of communications. In a series of gloating asides Campbell describes how he stamped on Sir Richard’s wretched attempts to claw back a degree of control for the civil service.

Campbell’s unprecedented power to instruct civil servants, which he shared with Blair’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, was authorised by an order in council approved by Wilson’s predecessor, Sir Robin Butler. Amid the euphoria following Labour’s 1997 general election victory, Butler was anxious to be as accommodating as possible towards the new Prime Minister, believing that over time the civil service would regain any lost authority.

In subsequent years Butler has had the good grace to admit, at least in private, that he made a mistake, an error which rendered his successor powerless in the face of Campbell’s flagrant abuse of all the supposed safeguards against the politicisation of the Whitehall machine. The Blair Years constitute a compelling charge sheet for the way Campbell’s media strategies contributed to the steady erosion of trust in the political process.

While making no attempt to explain or even justify his behaviour, his insights give an indication of how it was that he and the Downing Street staff were able to get away with their misleading dossiers on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction; how he and the other political advisers had no inhibitions about leaking government decisions and other confidential information; how they paid lip service to the concept of parliamentary accountability; and were quite prepared, through their use of anonymous briefings, to spread poison about Labour Party members or public figures who fell foul of the Blair regime.

If confirmation was needed of his utter contempt of the ground rules for a special adviser like himself, a post which has the status of a temporary civil servant, the former Labour MP Oona King provides the evidence. In her recently published diaries she recalls the moment in November 1998 when she was summoned to No.10 and asked by Campbell to write an article saying that Ken Livingstone could not be trusted to become Mayor of London. (House Music, The Oona King Diaries).

Another insight into Downing Street’s skulduggery in attempting to block Livingstone’s attempt to win the Labour nomination for the Mayoral election leaps out of the pages of the diaries of Lance Price, one of Campbell’s assistants, who relates how No.10 were “hitting him quite hard” but “AC thinks we should go a lot further”. (The Spin Doctor’s Diary).

What has to be factored in at this point is that Campbell’s orchestration of the anti-Livingstone campaign was in direct contravention of the personal undertakings he had given both to the Cabinet Secretary and the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration. He had assured them that he would not use the Downing Street press office for party political purposes and that he could do his job of presenting the government’s case, “without frankly briefing against anybody”.

Even before Oona King had her unnerving experience with Campbell and refused to get involved in blackening Livingstone’s reputation, Sir Richard Wilson had expressed his first doubts about Campbell’s disregard for civil service rules and regulations. After an earlier diary entry revealing how Wilson thought Campbell had been “brilliant” in putting Harriet Harman and Frank Field in their place (March 30 1998), Blair’s spokesman reveals that the Cabinet Secretary was “worried about his profile and how he was seen to be clearing everything we put forward”. (September 18, 1998).

Wilson saw the 2001 general election as an opportunity to claw back the authority he had lost and rein in the political appointees. On election day Campbell discovered that the Cabinet Secretary had been “up to a few tricks” and had sought to reverse the order in council giving Campbell and Jonathan Powell their unprecedented power to instruct civil servants. “We would have to sort that”. (June 7 2001).

Blair was resolute in insisting that the order in council remained in place but Campbell had marked Wilson’s card for “trying to retrench” and for having “wanted to clip our and my wings in particular”. (June 8 2001).

Sir Richard Wilson’s feebleness in standing up to the likes of Campbell was pitiful to observe but for No.10’s media supremo it was opportunity to gloat. Shortly before the Cabinet Secretary’s retirement, Campbell observed that Wilson “seemed pretty down” and was concerned because of the way the government’s information service had “withered a bit” under Campbell’s weight (March 4 2002). An understatement if ever there was one!

Within weeks of Wilson’s departure, Blair and Campbell were deep into preparations for the Iraq War and in view of the demoralised state of the Whitehall mandarins, it was no wonder that John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, rolled over so easily when Campbell got his hands on the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction.

What was Scarlett supposed to do when asked by Campbell to attend a meeting in Downing Street and when told that the Prime Minister’s director of communication was there to “help” with the preparation of the dossier? The Blair Diaries provide the answer: the Cabinet Secretary had failed to redress the balance, it was Blair’s spin doctor who was issuing the instructions.

Much was made by Campbell when promoting the diaries that Blair was the first Prime Minister to face the “relentless scrutiny of a 24-hour media”. While it is true that the Blair decade coincided with the growing dominance of the continuous television news services, the pressures imposed by the media were not dissimilar to either the Major years or the Thatcher decade.

What so struck me about Campbell’s time in Downing Street was his failure to embrace the opportunities provided by the 24-hour news culture and the more open and accountable approach of online journalism. Instead of pioneering new ways to communicate via the internet and websites Campbell’s preferred channel of communication was the un-attributable briefing and his off-the-record conversations with newspaper editors and journalists.

So far Gordon Brown, like Blair and Campbell before him, has shown every sign of following the New Labour routine of doing all he can to maintain the closest possible relationships with newspaper publishers like News International and even, it seems, the Daily Mail group.

I am sorry to say it, but yet another missed opportunity…I would loved the chance to have cross-questioned Campbell about the importance of on-the-record, televised briefings and the desirability of using the internet to ensure all journalists receive the same information at the same time. That chance has come and gone, but what Campbell has done, however inadvertently, is provide a checklist of the abuses which need to be corrected if the flow of information from state to public is not to be politicised again in the way it was during the Blair era.

(Speech by Nicholas Jones to the National Union of Journalists, press and public relations branch, London, October 3 2007).