Journalists

Stuart Weir (London, Democratic Audit): We hear a great deal about the BBC's agonising over its liberal bias, or its championing of causes such as climate change or world poverty, or its loss of trust, but I for one would appreciate it if the navel-gazing was directed also at the quality of the journalism. I watched the special Newsnight programme in which four BBC journalists - Gavin Essler, Michael Crick, Stephanie Flanders and Mark Urban - supposedly grilled the Conservative leader, David Cameron, on his political beliefs and policies. I learnt nothing. It struck me that the affair illustrated two major flaws in BBC journalism. First, the main objective seemed to be, as it often is on both Newsnight and Today, to gain coverage in the press and other media, by seeking out weaknesses or even inspiring "gaffes" across a pre-determined media agenda rather than to question Cameron on the substance and coherence of his party's policies. The questions were child's play to Cameron. Worse still was the complacent and narrowing middle-class bias of the "grilling" which had the inconsequential hop, skip and jump manner of a cosy dinner party in north or west London. There seemed to be no wider social grounding or understanding against which to test Cameron's ideas for creating social cohesion. Stephanie Flanders exemplified this with her questions on giving tax breaks to married couples. She is unmarried with a small child. Would the Conservatives like her to be married? Fair enough. But then she said that £20 a week was nothing to her. But who cares, Stephanie? £20 a week means a great deal to most parents, married or not, and the question was and remains, how should benefits and tax breaks be distributed across our fractured society, not whether £20 makes any difference to a highly-paid BBC journalist. It goes without saying that on the shapeshifting agenda of democracy, constitutional reform, national conversations, human rights now set at the centre of our politics by the Prime Minister, and being pursued from the marches by Alex Salmond in Scotland, nothing of any interest whatsoever was asked.

Anthony Barnett (London OK): The ignorance, philistinism and meanness of London’s professional journalists (or ‘hacks’ as they sometimes describe themselves with unusual accuracy) rarely surprises but can sometimes outdo itself. Gordon Brown’s declaration of constitutional intent, opening the way for a “new settlement” is matter of great interest to a population that despises the lies and spin of modern politics and is manifestly disturbed by issues of who is and is not British. Our mediacrats are not so interested. They blame the boredom of “the average punter”. But ‘boredom’ is often code for repression. With few exceptions the hacks love the lies, the personalisation and the informal. It gives them privileged access to our uncodifed political order: sofa politics needs and feeds sensational journalism. They have been twins with a mutual interest in the old regime. Most hacks fear a grown-up constitution that might deprive them of their sandpit, oblige them to stop being childish and even respect the public. To manage this they often pretend it is not really happening. In today’s Sunday papers, the Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley welcomes Brown’s call for a renewed constitution because he regards himself as “an anorak” and thinks we need “consultation” over draft legislation and “a better ministerial code”. The Sunday Times sets out Brown’s programme in 10 points and under “The Conduct of Politics” it puts “honesty in politics” followed by “reform of the constitution”. These are just two examples of a self-induced mental myopia which can't see long-term structural and institutional change except in sofa-style terms of behaviour.