Blair- I got shagged by monkey media

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6744261.stm

The prime minister said relations had always been fraught, but now threatened politicians' "capacity to take the right decisions for the country".

The arrival of web-based news and blogs and 24-hour television news channels meant reports were "driven by impact".

About 5 years too late, at least. Perhaps he feels free to raise the issue with his imminent departure, though the timing isn't too bad, raising the issue which might give Gordon Brown the opportunity to introduce some policies that tighten up the way the media operates.

The problem is that 24 hour news channels rely too heavily on (wait for it) user-generated content in an attempt to reflect what the public are thinking. This has led to the re-introduction on the standard news programs of valueless vox-pops that add absolutely nothing to the story and waste time.

Given that the majority of people receive their opinions from the mainstream media, this inevitably leads to a cyclical process where diversity of opinion is crushed. The BBC in particular suffer, as they try to be impartial, it has the inverse effect- that their illustration of views tend to be unbalanced or unreflective of the general trend of opinion.

This is also Blair's fault as well, by playing the spin-game in order to get Murdoch onside and pandering relentlessly to headlines, which has caused a kneejerk reactionary trend in policy decisions- worst of all in the last part of the 2nd term and the whole of this term. So I think complaining that they were put under unneccessary pressure is a bit rich, as they were complicit at the start, and should've known what they were in for.

He said people in public life, from politics to business, sport, the military and charities, found that "a vast aspect" of their job now was coping with the media, "its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At points it literally overwhelms".

And he said there was increasingly commentary on the news, which could prove "incredibly frustrating".

This is true as well, you have so many channels operating, that a huge amount of broadcasters are needed to fill up the time, that journalists have carved out a new career for themselves by appearing on them, usually to make no sort of contribution at all. But again this has been a complicit decision by politicians trying to spin their own game, with rent-a-quotes like Stephen Pound and Ed Vasey appearring on TV every bloody week to say nothing at all.

I suppose the Madeleine McCann story typifies the approach the media take towards news stories. They quickly lose their grip on all reality and perspective. Hundreds of cameras and journalists in portugal seems like an incredible event, but tragic though it was, it was the story of one girl gone missing. They relented in the end, not because it was the right thing to do, but because there wasn't anything left to report. The parents have met the pope for cock's sake, everything else after that isn't really newsworthy.

Naturally the media are going to react very childishly to these comments instead of taking them at face value- if you remove the context then what Blair is saying is very sensible indeed. Don't expect his targets to be as self-critical as that though, eh?

[P K Duck]

I agree with the content of the idea, but to have Blair commenting on it at all in any way is hypocritical to the extreme. The political language of mass media is now almost exclusively spin, and we can lay the blame squarely at the feet of the architects of New Labour.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I don't know about squarely. The internet and digitial TV were going to happen regardless.

Plus the media are doing a good job of proving Blair right that they are a feral beast by reacting exactly like one.

[P K Duck]

There was an example of a categorical imperative regarding lying: if we decide to lie, we imagine what would happen if everyone lied. Lying itself would become normal. The concept of truth - and therefore lying itself - would disappear. Language, logic, meaning and valid communication would disappear into a nightmarish illogical vaccum.

Now... I'd say that pretty much sums up modern infotainment news, especially the politics section. The reason I find Blair mentioning it antagonistic is that prior to New Labour, UK politicians might well have lied, been economical with the actualité, or got some else to lie for them, but there was content to their lies, and truth wasn't outlawed entirely. New Labour lies when it tells the truth, just like commercial advertising.

As for user-generated/user-directed news, the idea that the public should be given more of want they want regardless of anything they might need has consequences that we are enduring right now. Also, the idea that vox pops is anything other than the illusion of participation was being satirised over sixty years ago by Fibber Mcgee and Molly, not to mention steamrollered by the likes of Victor Lewis-Smith and that bloke Chris someoneorother. So why do they continue with the illusion? More's the point, why do we the public continue with it?

[terminallyrelaxed]

Leaving aside Blair's relative hypocrisy on this subject due to his pursuit of focus group politics, I think its a serious issue.

The problem is a total lack of accountability in the media. There's a difference between this and censorship. Currently if enough complaints are received the offender might be forced into making an announcement. Maybe.
In the world of 24-hour news its becoming increasingly difficult to verify stories in time to publish/broadcast them, so now they are published anyway, shoot first and ask questions later, "oh its the information we had at the time" etc.

What I think is needed is a government body to administer the media. Practically stories couldn't be run through them before going out, and if they did it would open the door for censorship.

Whats wrong though, with a ministry, agency, whatever, that examined the media after the fact, and acted accordingly. So the perpetra- sorry, the editor of the Daily Mail is called in on Monday asked to explain why, if the official release from Brussels merely stated that clauses 418-to-563 of the European charter are to be re-evaluated, he saw fit to splash "VENDORS OF NON-STRAIGHT BANANAS TO BE SHOT ON SIGHT BY FRENCH DEATH SQUADS" and if he can't come up with a reasonable explanation then a fine is in order. An actual fine, you know, one that they feel the loss of.
No-one is actually directly hurt by the french death squad story and it would elicit few complaints, those of us who know what the Mail is like just go "cuh, typical" and its readers go on being misinformed. So the IPCC don't get involved, and the Mail steams on unchecked.
Theres always going to be bias available in all directions, but groundless hysteria isn't good for anyone.
Of course, this apporach would mean the death of tabloid media, maybe they can be reclassified as comics or something. A newspaper could opt out if it bore the tagline "Opinion and Entertainment circular, facts not checked" perhaps.

I don't know, maybe its a dumb idea, I don't suppose we can say the media is out of control as its never been in control, but if its this much of a monster now, whats it going to be like in 10 years?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I find the idea that New Labour invented or seriously advanced the sophistication of public relations a myth really, and one which it likes to get a boner for, even though publically denouncing it. The reason the spindoctors got so much credit is because like other regimes where these people would've been backroom civil servants or faceless soviet drones, these spindoctors have carved a rather sick career gloating over how they fooled the public into voting New Labour. Did I say fooled? I meant convinced.

It's debatable over what their influence was anyhow. Blair was always going to be the blue-eyed boy for the job, with Brown the cast-iron finance foundation, the Tories were about as electable as a pig in a wig; totally on their arse. You can't quantify what effect the New Labour project had on the size of their majority, I know, but I don't think it was any work of genius. It was a successful campaign that spoke to what the public were feeling, and reinforced their views, rather than making them think completely differently.

There needs to be an absolute overhaul of the way the news is reported, particularly on a public service where competition should be the last thing on their minds. Reporting on the reporting of a child abduction is the ultimate lazy media act of masturbation. They don't have to move, they just have to point the cameras at all the other cunts and tut.

[P K Duck]

Okay, I do appreciate the argument you are building there, yet the idea still remains that every political quotation these days is crafted like a commercial, that is, even when it is telling the whole truth, it is lying.


Wider stuff then: this is the documentary Outfoxed, focusing on Fox News around the 2000-2001. It pre-dates a lot of the user-generated bandwaggon, and the theme is very much how Fox News corrupted other broadcasters into following the idea that all news is now opinion and debate. I think perhaps this idea is what drives the "Have Your Say" element of modern journalism, beyond the obvious cost-cutting.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I agree with what you're saying. If you pay attention to politics for long enough you can spot the pre-rehearsed 'sculpted' comments very easily from the non-cabinet MP's who have the freedom to say what they think, within reason.

The trouble with the current Have Your Say and On The Pulse obsession with viewer opinion is it perpetuates this fallacy that everyones opinion is equally valid, and to deny their opportunity to air it on a news program is stifling democracy. Fuck that. This ethos is exactly the opposite of what a debate should be about because it proposes a system where debate is endless, and no conclusion is reached, because everyones opinion is valid.

I watch the news because I want to know what's going on, and to have the context of the story galvanised by people who are very well-informed give an interesting contribution to the story. Democracy still continues in the outside world, people discussing the news round the dinner table or down the pub, and here on the internet.

I appreciate 24 hour news channels have space to fill but they recycle the same 10 stories over the half hour until something better comes along. Surely you're better off instead of devoting air-time to peoples comments as a token gesture of appreciating feedback, debate and user-generated-the-internets-people-power, to follow a deeper range of stories, or devote some time to study one story in more depth, such as they do on More 4. Ah, but that costs. Much easier to sit behind a desk and read what Judy from Wednesbury has to say about the congestion charge.

[The Mumbler]

Spin had been going on for decades anyway. Sure, spin helped make Labour electable ten years ago, but it sure as fuck helped Thatcher get elected too. All that happened was that the British public gradually became more aware of the process.

[Mr. Analytical]

I think perhaps this idea is what drives the "Have Your Say" element of modern journalism, beyond the obvious cost-cutting.

  I think all of that is motivated by money more than anything else.  News agencies have shrun over the years; employing less foreign correspondents and less journalists at home, stretching resources thinner and thinner in the hope of being more profitable.  However, at the exact same time, news has expanded to 24 hours a day AND blogs AND websites.

  Given these pressures for content and the lack of resources, I think it's no wonder that the news channels are turning to Fuckwit of Dunstable.  Regardless of how ill informed and prejudiced fuckwit is, he works for free and if you read his views out on air or put them up on your website then you fill up time and space without that content really costing you anything.

[terminallyrelaxed]

Also, I am a turd.-people-power, to follow a deeper range of stories

Wuh? Is this some kind of mod-hack that replaces words or something?

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

Wuh? Is this some kind of mod-hack that replaces words or something?

It's a filter for pluralising the word 'internet'. It replaces internet$ with 'internet. Also I am a turd'.