Thanks for all .
I don't agree with those like who say that Tony Blair's view of the media is invalid simply because he invested so much energy initially wooing us. I'm glad he's kickstarted an important debate at an important time. I sense that and may speak for many in complaining about 大象传媒 journalists interviewing other 大象传媒 journalists. It is simply a way of trying to bring a more conversational tone to our journalism but I agree that it's overused.
Now my verdict .
I think it's hard to argue with the prime minister's description of a more and more fragmented and competitive media which places an ever higher value on "impact" and is wary of "missing out" on a breaking story. In this respect we are, as he says, "not the masters of this change but its victims".
I can and do argue, though, with his assertion that 大象传媒 journalists have traded accuracy for impact and policy insights for allegations of misconduct. As I said in we must try harder to focus on policies not just personalities, to resist a constant diet of sleaze allegations and to give context.
Whilst Tony Blair did acknowledge the role of "spin" in increasing cynicism about politics, he would have wrongfooted those journalists who want to avoid self examination if he'd also reflected on the impact of his promise to be "purer than pure" - and of those missing weapons of mass destruction. These surely go some way to explain why the welcome changes he initiated - for example, monthly news conferences and cross examination by select committee chairmen - didn't do more to improve the atmosphere.
I think he may reflect in future on his assertion that governments are overwhelmed by the constant need to respond to the media. We may be about to see this put to the test. We've grown used to a prime minister who reacts to major news stories with a comment or a summit or a visit. Gordon Brown has long adopted a policy of silence interrupted by carefully planned high profile announcements. It is, I believe, an approach he hopes to maintain. It will be fascinating to see if he can do it.
, I've not yet had the chance to fully read his speech on the "feral media" - though, having discussed this with him, I'm familiar with the argument. When I have I'll add my tuppence worth.
UPDATE: Actually, I have a better idea. Why don't you tell me what you think of the PM's speech and I'll then respond to you and him.
Here's , and , if you prefer it pre-digested. And , if you're really a glutton for punishment, is a blog relating to a lecture I gave on the same theme some months ago.
But this is, I think, the key extract from his speech.
"The media are facing a hugely more intense form of competition than anything they have ever experienced before. They are not the masters of this change but its victims. The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is driven by "impact". Impact is what matters. It is all that can distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed. Impact gives competitive edge. Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact.
"It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.
"Broadsheets today face the same pressures as tabloids; broadcasters increasingly the same pressures as broadsheets. The audience needs to be arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked.
"The consequences of this are acute.
"First, scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.
"Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgement. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. Watergate was a great piece of journalism but there is a PhD thesis all on its own to examine the consequences for journalism of standing one conspiracy up. What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct. But misconduct is what has impact.
"Third, the fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no-one dares miss out.
"Fourth, rather than just report news, even if sensational or controversial, the new technique is commentary on the news being as, if not more important than the news itself. So - for example - there will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. This leads to the incredibly frustrating pastime of expending a large amount of energy rebutting claims about the significance of things said, that bears little or no relation to what was intended.
"In turn, this leads to a fifth point: the confusion of news and commentary.Comment is a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is a large part of the media today not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course. In other words, this is not exceptional. It is routine."
UPDATE 2: Just to kickstart the debate, that agrees with Blair (and has a little dig at me). And taking the opposite view.
Well, he did say he'd have a government of all the talents. Gordon Brown has just given a major new job to someone who he tried to prevent from working for Tony Blair and who was the prime minister's point man in some of the fiercest Blair/Brown clashes.
Jeremy Heywood is to take up a new and vital role as head of domestic policy and strategy in the Cabinet Office. Translated this means he'll be the new PM's main domestic policy adviser and progress chaser.
Heywood was principal private secretary to the Prime Minister from 1999 to 2003 - a job that (according to Derek Scott's book) Brown tried to stop him taking. Once in post he had to handle many other Blair/Brown spats - most notably on whether Britain should join the Euro.
He left Downing Street for the City where he is currently managing director and co-head of the UK investment banking division at Morgan Stanley.
Lest you think that Gordon Brown has changed the habits of a lifetime, it's worth pointing out that Heywood hailed originally - don't they all - from the Treasury, where he worked with Gordon Brown and, before that, Tory Chancellors Clarke and Lamont.
Strictly speaking Heywood's been appointed by the Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell (another ex-Treasury man) and not by Brown. This distinction matters because what Sir Gus and Gordon Brown are trying to do is to signal that in the post-Blair years that will be a restoration of proper constitutional processes with government managed by civil servants instead of Tony's chums on the sofa.
