´óÏó´«Ã½

Steve:
Public conversations are a on-going thing in Politicans lives...

Whereas I agree that sometimes converstations between individuals may be published. When it revolves around politics, I often have to question the integrity of the journalist. Ideally I would like to know which side of the Red / Blue / Yellow fence he / she sits, in order to ascertain whether there were additional motives for bringing it to the masses.

Yes, 'Publish and be damned'.

And ask Miliband to state categorically whether he denies making the statement, or stop banging on about 'hearsay'.

Put Up or Shut Up.

I guess if you only reported politicians making tangible decisions and actions then there would be no news. Why not move this to the entertainment/features section and only class it as news if they actually make a change?

Steve

Why do ´óÏó´«Ã½ editors ask 'should we' questions? There's not a recorded example of any feedback on this blog altering the way you report things, the accountability of ´óÏó´«Ã½ news is no more than that of commercial operators.

I have no idea if Milliband made the comment but it seems the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are desperate to try and report a leadership rival, Jon Sopel must be spending about 80% of every interview this afternoon asserting that the 'novice' line in Brown's speech was a dig at Milliband just as he yesterday wanted to makw something of Milliband not filling his speech with repeated words of loyalty.

All this is fine when it's clearly labeled as comment and opinion and when it's outside a formal news bulletin but as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ dives ever more downmarket it's becoming more and more obvious.

No doubt next week we can look forward to claims that David Davies is briefing against Cameron or that there are tensions between Cameron and Osbourne.

Half this stuff is untrue and little of it is of interest to anyone outside the media.

Of course MrMawhinney is not a relative of the former Tory MP and Lord, no bias there then, its a shame that this is more important than any policy, whichsadly depicts level f debate in the media when itcomes to policy. It is now far more imprtant that someone looks good and says nothing.

Maybe I'm giving Milliband to much credit, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there was nothing accidental about being overheard in a lift - it's not as if your journalist could have hidden somewhere.

They were in a very small space where they were fully aware that someone else could hear them.

The real question to ask is how long Milliband rode the lift waiting for a journalist to get in.

Considering that all our telephone calls and e-mails are monitored by Cheltenham GCHQ and the NSA listening station in North Yorkshire with the active encouragement of the political establishment (past and present) then the editors are completely justified in the action that they took.

"Surely politicians are owed a right to privacy as much as anyone else?"

Are you disingenuous or nuts?

This is nonsense. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has been anti-government ever since Blair and the Iraq shambles. So they look for every little opportunity to spike them. They are no longer impartial in their views.

Some years ago I was at the Brighton Labour Party conference. Alaistair Darling (the one from the Archers!) walked passed saying to a colleague 'Its the first day and I am already bored' I reported this to a diary on a national newspaper and it was duly published.

In any public arena if politicians do not want their comments reported then they should keep their moouths shut. A public lift in an hotel is a public place. Silly Milly!

Did it ever occur to you, given that the majority of people in this place at that time were known journalists, that this new chappy put on a quite deliberate private show for you? He would be rather silly not to assume you are some form of conduit for media output. Regardless, net result, he has made you paint a pretty picture of him, how he really doesn't want to tread on any toes, push things to far etc etc, but is just so frustrated he has to wait before he gets his chance to make things better, for the party, for the people, for this great nation etc etc. Better yet, he has made you apologise for intruding on this very private moment and now has you questioning your integrity! Bit like the last one really. All theatre and dramatics. But quite slick all the same.

David Miliband has obviously decided to throw his hat into the ring. This will certainly add to the discomfiture of Gordon Brown. Alas there are so many other Cabinet ministers who would like the coveted prize. But do they have Gordon's financial and managerial skills? Of course not! All the back-biting could ruin Labour's chances at the next elections. The Conservatives could enter through the back door!

The question, of course, is, having heard this conversation, should we have reported it?

Unless he had been talking directly to you and stated beforehand that this was an off the record comment then it was fair game.

What, exactly, are you apologising for here?

Ever since Hutton you've been terrified of any comeback from government on any story you produce. The harm done to democracy by that episode can only be undone by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ standing up and speaking for itself.

If you mean it, say it, and take the flak. Occasions when the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is definitely wrong, when you definitely thought you were right, will be rare, and will be a fair price to pay to restore what was once the world's most independent voice.

David Miliband has never opened up to the media - until now. Why, he was even featured in a sunday supplement talking about his family - normally completely off-limits for him. If he isn't getting media advice to promote himself as a leader in waiting , then I am a monkey's uncle. Sadly for him, it won't be a Heseltine moment so much as a Kinnock moment (thank goodness for the rest of us). Did you see him grinning away on question time a month or two back? Sorry mate, your time will never come. Not very bright really, is he? I mean, he is one notch up from a school prefect as far as foriegn policy expretise goes.

When I hear a speech and then listen the reports it often seems that the reporter heard a different speech. They put words and meanings into peoples mouths. I therefore have no confidence that this report is verbatum - you can say what you like and who can argue?

If this person is a ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalist why can they not be named? I find it incredibly unlikely that David Miliband would be stupid enough to say this in front of Labour delegates, nevermind a journalist. To be frank, I think this is in one way or another misinformation. Maybe they heard something as the lift door opened or closed, maybe it wasn't a ´óÏó´«Ã½ source, I don't know. But a ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalist listening happily in the lift as Miliband natters away about a leadership contest to come? Come on.

I just loved what Hestletine said on question time a few months back- "He who wields the axe doesn't always become king."
Miliband would do well to remember that. He may well be being encouraged to keep chipping away until the dam breaks but he may well end up getting swept away himself, only to see one of his "friends" end up with the job he wanted.
That said, he is either an intelligent man who is well aware that such conversations are best had in complete private and knew exactly what he was doing, or is an idiot for not keeping his mouth shut in a lift with a complete stranger in it......
For what it's worth I have absolutely no sympathy for any of them- Brown deserves what he gets after all the briefing he, sorry, his friends, sorry, unnamed sources, did against Blair and if the best that the rest of them can be doing with all that the rest of the population are facing with fuel price rises, job losses etc. etc then they don't deserve to be in office any longer.

Of course you should report on it - it was a conversation that took place in a public environment...if the reporter in question had been asked not to repeat anything, or there was an inference of privacy at any point then it would be different.

I also think, in this case, it was in the public interest, to know what a high-ranking cabinet member really thinks!!!

There can be no objection to reporting facts, if you think they are newsworthy. But I do object to these 'facts' being reported with no caveat ("This is what I think I heard him say, but it was a crowded lift, he wasn't actually talking to me, and I didn't hear any earlier part of the conversation that could well have conditioned what I did hear - so I could have mis-heard or misunderstood"); and with an interpretation that you can't be certain is correct without making it very clear that you are making big assumptions about what he actually meant. For example, in this case I might well want to assume that he was saying: "As you know I'm not interested in mounting a challenge to Gordon, but the media is convinced that I am, so I have to be very careful what I say. I went as far as I could without giving the press the chance to misinterpret me."

In the end, it was a non-story anyway, don't you think?

Considering the Labour Government is quite happy to spy on the general public with gay abandon of our private lives why shouldn't they get a taste of how it feels.
They are not listening when we object.

Having watched ´óÏó´«Ã½ Breakfast on 24 September 2008 at 07:00 the reporter stated that Ruth Kelly was stepping down in order to be with her family. However the Daily Mail's online edition for 24 September 2008 (last accessed on 24 September 2008) states her reason for stepping down was due to being disgusted by Gordon Brown's speech which was communicated to her a friend.

At the surface there appears to be a pro-Labour bias in reporting about Ruth Kelly's departure from the cabinet and the reporter could have stated something like, "Gordon Brown confirmed her departure from the Cabinet due to her desire to be closer to her family. However a close family friend is stating her departure has to do with her feeling disgust over Brown's speech at the Labour conference". How come a vital fact that was covered in the Daily Mail was missed by a reporter for the ´óÏó´«Ã½?

If he's dumb enough to say it in an insecure area then go ahead and publish.

I can understand why journalists find this whole leadership thing 'newsworthy' (in a showmanship, audience grabbing sense) but personally it leaves me cold.

I don't care if its the unelected foreigner as PM or someone else - the big issue is the policies. Which dont seem to be changing.

I would prefer the news to concentrate on the policies that impact daily on us all rather than this distraction.

If a politician says something about work then we, the people, have the right to know - after all they do work for us (supposedly!). Politicians' right to privacy extends only to their personal lives unrelated to government.

Besides, I agree with _marko:4. There was very little news reported on the Labour Party Conference. Brown did not have any ideas whatsoever other than a couple of cheap give-a-ways (cancer prescriptions and PCs for poor). At a time when our economy is going down the pan we really need some substantial ideas to create real jobs and stability. However, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ let Brown get away with it because they were more interested in the presentation of his speech than the substance. Anyone watching the ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage could be forgiven for thinking Brown's job was to win a BAFTA rather than run the country!

Steve -

The weight of opinion on the 'Have Your Say' section on Brown's speech seems to contradict this puff piece:



Reads a bit like Pravda if you ask me.

schnogglemcgee _ think you;ll find that's because everyone but the Telegraph and Mail aren't buying the 'she's resigned after being disgusted' line and here's why:

#15

I agree with your comments about Hutton and the deep scar it left on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and its ambitions to deliver "news" without opinion attached. There are plenty of places politicians go where the media cannot follow and if Silly Milly wasn't such an arrogant little pipsqueak he'd know that only too well.

Before Hutton the ´óÏó´«Ã½ seemed often prepared to take on politicians of any colour or hue at whatever level but now competition with its perceived media opponents appears to be its main priority. Is that why journalists need a code to keep their "secrets" to themselves? Pity no one told Ms Kelly the correct language to use - now that one really got up your noses didn't it?

It seems the Labour party are determined to destroy themselves, we have a speech from Gordon Brown and other Labour politicians that they are going to listen to the people. A couple of days later they announce that they are going ahead with Identity Cards when it is obvious that there is little support for this money wasting scheme. People would much rather see this money being spent on Hospitals, Schools and extra Police.
The government cannot be trusted with the information they already hold on us all so why do they think people are going to trust them with more!!.If they were really listening they would do something about obcene profits made by big multi national companies while letting the price of energy, food and petrol spiral out of control and tell us we have to tighten our belts turn down our heating and wear extra clothes in the house!! while they go off to try and save a capitalist system that has been allowed to run rampant. Big banks that have been ripping people off for years seem to be more of a concern than the ill the elderly and ordinary people of this country.
Maybe what this government needs is hearing aids.
If this is where a Labour government has taken us then God help us if we get landed with the Tories and I think they can write off Scotland at the next election because I think rightly or wrongly the S.N.P. are going to wipe the board.
COME ON LABOUR START LISTENING TO THE REAL PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY AND JUST MAYBE YOU`LL BE ABLE TO TURN THINGS AROUND.

It seems the Labour affair are bent to abort themselves, we accept a accent from Gordon Brown and added Labour politicians that they are traveling to accept to the people. A brace of canicule after they advertise that they are traveling advanced with Identity Cards if it is accessible that there is little abutment for this money crumbling scheme. Humans would abundant rather see this money getting spent on Hospitals, Schools and added Police.

The government cannot be trusted with the advice they already authority on us all so why do they anticipate humans are traveling to assurance them with more!!.If they were absolutely alert they would do something about obcene profits fabricated by big multi civic companies while absolution the amount of energy, aliment and petrol circling out of ascendancy and acquaint us we accept to bind our belts about-face down our heating and abrasion added clothes in the house!! while they go off to try and save a backer arrangement that has been accustomed to run rampant. Big banks that accept been ripping humans off for years assume to be added of a affair than the ill the aged and accustomed humans of this country.

Maybe what this government needs is audition aids.

If this is area a Labour government has taken us again God advice us if we get landed with the Tories and I anticipate they can address off Scotland at the next acclamation because I anticipate accurately or abominably the S.N.P. are traveling to clean the board.

COME ON LABOUR START LISTENING TO THE REAL PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY AND JUST MAYBE YOU`LL BE ABLE TO TURN THINGS AROUND.