The era of press barons and its harmful effects on British's domestic politics.

Moreover, press barons are, in the words of Colin Seymour-Ure, “often supreme egotists; flamboyant, assertive, idiosyncratic, ostentatious, ruthless” rather intolerant of alternative ideology and may attack politicians or governments not because of their failings, but because of different political orientation or for economic gain. The Sun’s owner Murdoch, a pro-Conservatives used his paper to “campaign  ruthlessly” against Labour and Neil Kinnock and even had a nine page special on polling day in the 1992 elections with the headline “NIGHTMARE ON KINNOCK STREET”.  However, press barons’ political affiliation and ideologies was built on the base of economics, and such relationships proved to be transient. The Sun was extremely critical of the Conservatives after Major’s government and its policies had been largely unpopular with the population.    Evidently, the press had not applied censure in an objective manner, but based it on prevailing popular beliefs, and the public watchdog became privately owned and barked only at its owner’s bidding.

Furthermore, the exclusive powers held by the press barons have also given them privileged access to politicians leading to policy concessions and gave them unfair economic advantages. For instance, Rupert Murdoch made an implicit deal with Tony Blair in 1995 that the Sun will fully support Labour in the 1997 general elections, in exchange for a non-retaliatory policy when Labour was elected, leading Jean Seaton to conclude that “Murdoch liked to extract maximum commercial interest from his newspapers’ political power”. This “political clientelism” between proprietors and politicians explained the government’s reluctance to check the growing power of the press within British polity, and the press barons could further impose their personal political and ideological agenda upon the British public.  

The main determinant of advertising is circulation and a newspaper’s profitability depends very much on the amount of advertisements it attracts. Ralph Negrine observed that advertising constitutes 40% to 70% of the press’s total revenue. Thus, in a bid for higher readership, the press has a tendency to resort to blatant sensationalism, fabrication of the news, and also intrusive methods of journalism, which invades the private lives of public figures and the Royal family, in order to come up with headlines that grab that general public’s attention or imagination. Some of the well publicized absurdities included: inventing an overnight love tryst between Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer on a lonely railway siding in the royal train. (Sunday Mirror); Fabricating a fictitious interview with Mrs Marcia Mckay, the widow the Falkland VC hero (Sun); touching up a photograph of Princess Diana to give a hint of nipples in a low cut dress (Sun). Such sensationalism and distortion of the truth, in the long run, may seriously undermine the message credibility of the press and weaken its position as the fourth estate, especially when its readers start to take the stories it presents with a pinch of salt and potential state abuses or important political information are not given due attention.

        

        The press, in its bid for more “scoops”, has a tendency to invade the private realm of public figures and members of the Royal family, under the veneer of “investigative journalism”. The availability of bugging and telephone tapping devices in the market facilitate the press’s recordings of some shocking private conversation between the Prince of Wales and his close friend, Camilla Parker Bowles and led to the publication of the transcript of the Camilliagate Tapes, though such disclosures has done nothing for the good of British politics. Defendants of the press often point out some intrusions proves the fourth estate is working well. For instance, when the press reported that Cecil Parkinson had an affair with his former secretary, he resigned as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1987; in 1994, Sunday Times revealed that Conservative Members of Parliament (MP) had accepted payments for asking questions in the House of Commons. Eventually, the two MPs were censured, fined and suspended from the House. However, more often than not, press intrusion has not yield any results that contribute to keeping the government in check. Rather, it creates an atmosphere of paranoia, which leads to politicians’ unwillingness to make any spontaneous comments, lest they get taken out of context. The press had indirectly killed the citizen’s freedom of speech and hindered the mechanism of democracy.

In conclusion, the British press, far from being free, is unable perform the dual roles of acting as a public watchdog and providing inert political communications, while under the control of press barons, thereby harming its democracy. Subsequently, there had been calls for regulation and censorship of the press, but it is evidently a catch twenty-two situation. Regulations and censorship of the press will definitely infringe upon the citizens’ “right to know” and contradict principles of liberal democracy, but allowing the press to be free has increased the propensity for it to be abused by its proprietors. At the expense of alternative viewpoints, press barons, with the intention of increasing their economic and political power, come up with biased reports or limit opinions, presenting its readers with either skewed or contrived information. James Curran and Jean Seaton had argued “the press interferes with us; therefore, we have a right and a duty to interfere with the press.” However, to conduct any form of “fair” intervention is easier said than done. As Lord Acton attested “Power corrupts”, the powers which come with the right to interfere with the press will create such a privileged position that those who possess them might be tempted to abuse it.

        At the end of “Tomorrow Never Dies”, Elliot Carver was killed by James Bond and prevented from conquering the world. The day was saved. Unfortunately, this is where reality and fiction diverge. The British public has no one to save them from the press obviously manipulated by press barons. The prospect of the British press facilitating liberal democracy looks bleak unless a policy of press regulations that does not encroach liberal democratic ideals is formulated.                (1498  words)

---

BIBLOGRAPHY

Bennet, W. Lance. News: The Politics of Illusion, 3rd Edition. United States: Longman Publishers, 1996.

Boyce, George, Curran, James and Wingate, Pauline. Newspaper History: from the 17th Century to the Present Day. Great Britain: Constable, 1976.

Curran, James and Seaton, Jean. Power without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain, 5th Edition. Great Britain: Routledge, 1997.

Eldridge, John, Kitzinger, Jenny and Williams, Kevin. The Mass Media and Power in Modern Britain. United States: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Forman, F.N. and Baldwin, N.D.J. Mastering British Politics, 4th Edition. Great Britain: Macmillan, 1999.

Heywood, Andrew. Politics, 2nd Edition. Great Britain: Palgrave, 2002.

Kavanagh, Dennis. British Politics: Continuities and Change, 4th Edition. Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Negrine, Ralph. Politics and Mess Media in Britain, 2nd Edition. Great Britain: Routledge, 1994.

Seaton, Jean. Politics and the Media: Harlots and Prerogatives at the Turn of the Millennium. Great Britain: Blackwell Publishers, 1998.

Seymour-Ure, Colin. The British Press and Broadcasting Since 1945. Great Britain: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.

W. McChesney, Robert and Scott, Ben. Our Unfree Press: 100 Years of Radical Media Criticism. New York: New York Press, 2004.

Wheeler, Mark. Politics and the Mass Media. Britain: Blackwell Publishers, 1997.

---