Taking the questions
Talking , I had to face a few yesterday lunchtime from Michael Howard. I was the interviewee and he was the interviewer at a charity event called , in aid of .
He was pretty kind to me but did put me on the spot one or two times. He asked me whether journalists should allow themselves to be "used" by politicians. That's a kind of "when did you stop beating your wife" question. Naturally, I said that we should not be used but then guessed where this line of questioning was heading; my report about Gordon Brown's pledge - that he never actually delivered - to renew Trident (see blogs past).
The former Tory leader's point was that the chancellor had used me - and others - to issue a totally deniable pledge since he had never uttered the words in question. He suggested that I should have said to Gordon Brown - if that's what you think, come on television and say it. Mmmm. Interesting thought.
The night before I took questions on who sets the agenda - politicians or the media - with David Blunkett and Matthew Parris. The event was staged at the Cheltenham Literary Festival and Parris made another interesting, if alarming, point that journalists and politicians are in a sort of conspiracy to make political news more interesting than it actually is. No doubt a view that will be shared by some bloggers who accuse me of making rather than reporting the news. You will be able to listen to the discussion (though the link isn't there at time of writing...).
I'm 
Comments
I think the things you say on this blog are as relevant as what you might say on TV.
If it's interesting enough then people will hear about it. The Trident furore is an example of this.
Michael Howard's point was well made. It is exasperating to see journalists used by politicians on a daily basis. You should all work together to stop the type of practice used by Brown in this example. Also, when politicians want you to give them a free plug for some event but no reporters or questions are allowed only cameras, don't let them push you around - don't send anyone and don't mention the event. Stop the practice of slavishly reading their press releases. When Blair calls a press conference at 06.30 a.m., with briefings before limited questions, don't turn up. It is clearly arranged for promulgating his propaganda which is not the role of a free media. Journalists are not to be the mouthpieces for duplicitous and often mendacious politicians. They should be seekers of the truth which you must know by now is an alien concept to most politicians.
Nick,
What is the relevance of this.
Yesterday, our leader was full of his usual smiles, seeing the job through etc. I'm rather bored of his speak and pomposity.
Perhaps your next questions are, please can you explain the following:
1. Why are the NHS and Education more ineffective than when he came to power? The spending has not achieved the desired results!
2. Why have the pensions been raided to pay the above? Causing a social problem in the years to come, and a discrepancy between the public and private sector in terms of provision.
3. There are countless other things that are questionable about this government; perhaps you could ask him about the propaganda that is pumped out by new labour to try and distract debate about the facts or the failure of this government.
It's time Blair went, but is Gordon competant to continue? The Tax and Spend Chancellor.
My question to you and your ilk is have you noticed how frequently journalists love to use the phrase 'journalists and politicians' so as to give the impression that these two groups are inseparable and equally responsible and powerful in terms of government and policy making. Not so. Politicians have responsibility and power with effects which can last for years. Journalists are merely messengers whose best efforts last for 24 hours.
It may give you a warm cosy feeling but you don't fool the rest of us.
Discuss !!
Taking the Questions
17 October 06 04:49PM
.....yep Nick....timing is everything!
I find it quite disturbing what the 91Èȱ¬ decides NOT to show on speeches and Q&A's via TV - leaving the viewer with a very labour-biased view. Fortunately, I read widely both in the paper, online and teletext and so get the wider view. For many in this country, we have effective state controlled media. A dictatorship by any other name! Meanwhile the Tories and LibDems get only their idiotic ideas aired for us all to despair at!! I can't wait for the 91Èȱ¬ to break out of their Labour shackles; including the journalists!!!
To be honest, I think happenings such as you described are probably inevitable, and will happen from time to time. What is important is that the media 'give as good as they get'. For example, I seem to remember you and other journalists berating Tony Blair during the previous election at the unveiling of a poster claiming a Tory Government would slash public spending, when this was in fact a gross distortion of the truth. He was forced to admit that these were not actually cuts in current spending, and thus the poster was fairly meaningless. This is the kind of thing we need more of; politicians forced onto the back foot and questioned when guilty of bending the truth. It doesn't even need to be done to their faces - if you and other journalists cast aspersions on dubiously factual statements and speeches and not on what more honest politicians say, a culture of honesty with the media is more likely to develop. I do recognise, however, that this leaves you open to accusations of bias.
Incidentally, you were working for ITN when the event I described above happened. I don't know if you need to maintain better relationships with politicians at the 91Èȱ¬ than at ITV (the continued employment of Jeremy Paxman leads me to think probably not) but it is amazing that a government-funded institution such as the 91Èȱ¬ is not manipulated by the government as much as it perhaps could be, which is to say a lot.