How does the media affect British politics?

regional radio services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Added to this the relatively new introduction of both the Internet and Sky Digital such a study would be impossible to exert. However, despite inconclusive evidence, it is clear that such vast media presence cannot fail to influence the minds of its audience, who are also the voters. The media is an influential force on the electorate and as a result politicians are utilising it as a means of accessing the constituents and gaining much-needed votes. During election campaigns newspapers are more obvious in their party alliances. Notably in the 1997 general election The Sun (18 March 1997) stated 'The Sun Backs Blair' as its headline. At other times this would have been an unacceptable display of bias because of the unwritten understanding that newspapers are not allowed to state their political affiliations! Newspapers generally portray their views through their editorials, comic strips and the way that they present a story, not with a large partisan headline. Effective political communications has always relied on easily understood slogans and phrases aimed at promoting and justifying the policy decisions of governments and their opponents. As a result of this politicians have become adept at manipulating the media for their own purposes. One of the more recent results of this manipulation is the greater use of the 'Spin Doctor' and the admission of the word 'spin' into our every day language. Although politicians have long been accused of using 'popular' language 'to curry the nation's flavours', it has been the Blair administration which has projected it into a new and powerful being. Nicholas Jones claims that the current government are the 'Sultans of Spin'. Select pieces of political information are announced with the objective of gaining the most public support. The attempt to manage the news has become more professional and more important as news coverage has grown and become more immediate. Such is the power of the media that a mere slip of the tongue can be seen around the world in a matter of hours. It is hardly surprising, then that politicians should appoint spin doctors as a way of avoiding mistakes and the wrath of the media. In our modern society, politicians have learnt from experience how indeed the pen is mightier than the sword. Another tool used by politicians and the media is the 'sound bite'. Since Neil Kinnock's famous phrase, 'When I hear the Prime Minister feeling sorry for the rest of the world, I understand why she has taken to calling herself 'we'', the use of the 'sound bite' has escalated. Its power lies in its simplicity and its ability to reach the majority of the electorate. Never before has the use of such small catch-phrases been so powerful in its appeal to the electorate. There are few who can forget Margaret Thatcher's most memorable utterance: 'You can turn if you want to, but the lady's not for turning'. Nowadays such 'sound bites' are an everyday occurrence, what with Tony Blair's pre- election campaign cries of '14 days to save the NHS' and other such election orientated phrases. There were few who remained uninfluenced by New Labour strategy. Perhaps this is reflected in the landslide victory of the Labour Party. Arguably, Blair has attracted more criticisms than his predecessors for his, in the words of John Major, 'sound bite politics.' In March 1998 Blair was happy to add to the pressure of a rather jocular campaign of 'Free Deirdre Rachid' (Coronation Street), in an attempt to appeal to the 'common people'. Blair's tribute to Diana 'the People's Princess' was both moving and contrived to enhance Blair's image as the compassionate Prime Minister. Even on winning the election the PM could not resist the temptation of another well-crafted 'sound bite': 'We are not the masters. The people are the masters.' In short the Premier of the day has a winning way with words, the gift of the gab one might say. The use of the 'sound bite' is a by-product of a political system which is becoming increasingly dominated and affected by the media. Spin doctors, not unlike Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's media advisor are able to portray their 'exclusives' in a way that will be favourable to the media concerned, the government and, most importantly, the electorate. After all, with about 130 daily newspapers a government can be selective as to who receives their information through the use of the lobby system. It is through this system that chosen representatives of newspapers meet with the government spin doctors twice daily for briefings. It was convention, until quite recently, that such briefings were privileged and any information gained was unattributable. Until November 1997 it was never admitted that the lobby system even existed. However, recent reforms have meant that any information given during the briefings are now attributable to the Government. The lobby system shows just how a powerful media affects modern politics. Even on victory Blairites were only too aware of the media presence. Tony Blair's stage-managed entrance into number 10, wearing a Marks and Spencer suit was no accident but provided the 'perfect' photograph to the eyes of an expectant electorate. Here was the new Prime Minister dressed in the clothes of the people. One might say that such behaviour is merely camouflaging the truth. Tony Blair is not an 'ordinary' man. The implications are concerning. If such methods can be employed to idealise democracy, then they can also be used to destroy it because they distort reality. Democracy is based on an open society, not one that needs to be, and is, manipulated. The use of an image-maker was not a concern for prime ministers like Churchill, Attlee and Wilson. Nicholas Jones stated very clearly that 'in today's media driven age, every aspiring politician has to be able to write a press release or provide a comment column for the local newspaper'. Although Jones has his own political biases, there is an essential truth in what he says. This dependence on the media has had alarming side effects. No where is this more true than in the controversial role of Alistair Campbell as Blair's Press Secretary. As a Press Secretary, Campbell is theoretically a civil servant and should remain an impartial member of the administrative arm of government. However New Labour has contradicted tradition and political convention in allowing Campbell, in his professional capacity, to promote government policies. Furthermore, he has not only been accused of criticising the Opposition but also of misleading journalists, bullying ministers and perhaps worst of all is the accusation that Campbell and his colleagues 'were no longer abiding by the conventions designed to protect the political impartiality of the civil service'. In late March 1998 the House of Commons select Committee on Public Administration announced an inquiry into the allegations that Labour party mandarins had politicised the Government's information and communication service. Although this investigation did not prove any of these accusations, it did create greater awareness of the activities of the Labour Party. Despite the inconclusive evidence, Bernard Ingham, venerable for his role as the impartial press secretary to Margaret Thatcher, maintains that: 'had I been accused of one per cent of Mr Campbell's activities... I would have been drummed out of the Government Information Service within Months'. Campbell's position, it was feared was another step towards a presidential style of Government, in which the press secretary to the President has a supreme influence on his White House counterparts. The expansion of the media has, in effect directed politics into a new era a far cry from Churchill's comforting wartime radio broadcasts which were devoid of such tools as spin doctors and press secretaries. In short, a whole new dimension has been added to politics, whole departments dealing with the power of the media, sound bites and governmental spin doctors are all as a result of the influence of the media on British politics today. However, the non-partisan nature of the media ensures that politicians do not control the media but can merely use it to influence. Not only can the media influence policy in a positive way but its power is such that it can also destroy a minister. Despite the obvious tendencies for media manipulation by the politicians there have been many examples of unfavourable political exposure. These illustrations give an indication of how the speed and consequence of political events has been influenced and even asserted by the way in which they have been reported. 'Leaks' in governmental departments are a vital way in which the media can uphold democracy. Clive Ponting the civil servant allegedly leaked news to the opposition party, concerning the sinking of the Argentinean warship, the Belgrano. Although the jury acquitted Ponting, this incident allowed the media to gain more power in the checks and balances of government. The mistakes of government lead to a greater thirst for knowledge of the people, thus allowing the power of the media to grow still further. Again in December 1995 this extensive power was illustrated when 'News of the World' revealed 'The secret love child ' of Tim Yeo. The weight of media pressure influenced events and consequently, Yeo resigned. Voters base their judgement on the public image of MP's. The power of the media in enhancing democracy and balancing the power of government increased with every negative assertion. More recently, the resignation of Peter Mandelson as Trade secretary was brought about by media pressure. On Wednesday 22nd October 1998, Mandelson resigned dramatically after conceding that he had accepted a 373,000-pound loan from Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, in order to purchase a new home in the affluent area of the Notting Hill district of London. There is no great crime in lending money but Mandelson's mistake was to apply for a bank loan to cover the remaining cost of his 475,000 home. Mandelson and Robinson were both criticised in the Commons for breaching what ministers called the 'procedure' of announcing such matters. After much media pressure Mandelson resigned. The media now has such an influence over politics that a negatively worded story can destroy a budding political career. In previous years 'leaks' where unheard of. In contemporary Britain, however, 'leaks' are the main tool by which the media can trap a minister. The media and politicians are at loggerheads with each other. Newspaper editors realise that political scandal sells their newspapers but on the other hand wish to remain on friendly terms with the politicians in order to gain co-operation. Vice-versa, Politicians are rightfully suspicious of the self-regulating body of such influence. Politicians realise that positive media coverage gains popularity in the eyes of the electorate and therefore election success. However negative coverage can have quite the opposite effect. As a result of these conflicting perspectives there has been much debate surrounding the two. A major theme in such discussions is the freedom of the press in Britain. In America the freedom of the press is seen as an enhancement of democracy. With 'Watergate', 'Irangate' and 'Lewinskygate' there are few that would disagree that the press has uncovered much corruption within government and this can only be a good thing. In Britain however politicians are rightly concerned with the difference between intrusion and freedom of the press. Since the untimely death of Diana- the Princess of Wales there has been much contention between the media and politicians. There is a fine dividing line between 'personal' life and 'political' life. The question must be asked- when does the self-regulatory freedom of the press become intrusive? The laws of Libel in Great Britain are far stricter than, for example, in the USA. In many circles this is believed to be a good thing as private lives are protected, however, there is a belief that these laws are not enough and greater precaution should be taken, in order to protect those citizens 'hounded' by the media. The Official secrets Act of 1911 is still in existence today along with a new Act in 1989, which was established with vigour. These Acts are meant to ensure that journalists do not receive any unauthorised or classified information. Restrictive attitudes are also reflected in the Sus Judice and copyright aspects of British Law. There have been attempts to introduce a Freedom of Information Act but thus far, all attempts have failed. Politicians who have felt the sharper end of the media tongue feel that their personal lives have no bearing on their political competence and are, therefore not relevant for public consumption. Needless to say there is a fear that the media is more interested in the sexual inclinations of politicians such as Cecil Parkinson, Geoffrey Archer and indeed, more recently, Ron Davies than in their political agendas. The rolling camera and the help of a few 'sources close to...' ensured the downfall of these prominent ministers. The Bias of the press, in particular is a concerning issue for many critics. The press in Great Britain is not hampered by the necessity to remain neutral on political issues whereas in broadcasting there is a greater obligation to remain politically impartial. Therefore it is widely accepted that the press of this country is far more dangerous than our other media channels. Politicians are far more concerned with the press than ever before because there are far fewer restraints on the written word which, in the eyes of a politician, is a danger to their reputation. On the contrary, media blocs believe adamantly that politicians are representatives of an electorate and, in light of this, they maintain that it is their duty to uphold democracy. It is only through the identification of hypocrisies within government that democracy will survive. It is possible to argue that the press does go some way to provide an extension of the checks and balances of our government, but this must always be seen in the light of their own personal agendas which is to sell papers and make money. The role of the media in modern British society is huge. Its affects on politics are also vast. Despite all its flaws and political biases, it provides an invaluable service to the nation in that it reminds us that we have a fundamental right to speak our own beliefs and to know what is going on in government. However, this could be described as an idealistic view because the media is as much the tool of the government as the government is a tool of a media. Both are driven by the force of power and money and therefore liable to corruption. What we read is often misconstrued for a certain effect, whether it be to sell papers or to gain support for a political party. As long as the complex relationship between politicians and media is understood, then a valuable service is provided. However, more often than not, people are prepared to be spoon fed rather than to seek the true meaning of what is being offered. Hence the affect of the media on British politics is something of a two edged sword: it promotes and it destroys. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.