TBH the last thing we need is adversarial journalism. All it will do is make politicians even less likely to say anything meaningful in an interview, and I’m sick of interruptions when they are trying to talk (I make an exception for Michael Gove, who would monologue through an entire interview given a chance). I would rather have someone who can tease out tidbits and ‘mis-speaks’ from their victims to uncover the true meaning while maintaining an air of decorum.
But then I’ve never had faith in politicians, so have no desire to see 'em hang.
Look, Johnson and his cabinet do nothing but nothing except lie. For example that bastard Sajid Javid on NHS stress levels (see below). We need more aggressive journalists, not less.
Geoff, I in most parts fully agree with what is stated, if you noted i did say “there is no decent TV news outlets”. What I will say is it seems from so many of the posts on here that people push one of the most government propaganda newspapers namely the “Guardian” which is mentioned as such in the report as being the gospel, when in fact this report clearly doesnt do it any favours. It doesnt matter what goverment is in power, the newspapers will propagate that governments views because they are the paymasters. So lets agree to disagree.
Couldn’t agree more! So many clips posted from this newspaper supported by poster saying that it is exactly what they think, or, is it actually the Guardian telling the poster what to think?
The sad state of affairs for UK mass media is that although The Guardian is far from perfect, it is better than any other popular title or channel there in terms of offering a range of views and some level of respect for the truth.
The excellent Guardian article today linked by John above is a good example - it goes to the heart of the BBC’s problem, which is that the objective of ‘balance’ is not actually compatible with the objective of telling the truth:
The BBC is less interested in depicting the realities of power in Britain than in achieving what it regards as political balance.
I don’t think it’s true anyway (the idea that Labour’s current weakness is the only or main reason Johnson’s government seems to be getting away with murder).
Indeed, I see Labour’s very weakness more as a supplementary result of other underlying causes. In part, for example, Starmer is intimidated by the treatment Corbyn received at the hands of an overwhelmingly rabid right-wing press and supine BBC, etc - the result of failures in democracy going back at least as far as 1979, which have produced an increasingly sick society.
A difficult and unpleasant interviewer will more likely have the audience on the side of the politician, even if they’re despicable. A smart, polite interviewer can expose a charlatan and liar for who they are without generating support for politician.
As Geof said, people are still voting Tory despite the clear and visible problems within the party and with some of their MPs as individuals. It would not be a surprise for the adversarial journalism that’s been on the rise in the UK to be playing a role in that.
Aside from from the Tory party directly, News Corp or going into business lobbying or directorships I wonder who would make these offers that she obviously could refuse. I’m not sure anything else could ever be anywhere near as high profile. Broadcast journalism is full of people who leave the BBC or ITV for a big payday elsewhere and then regret it in a month when they realise they’re now stuck somewhere with no viewers and so now no influence over the nation’s news agenda, you only have to look at the downfall of Andrew Neil for the latest example of a very long list. Allegra Stratton is a warning about what can happen when you go to work for Westminster, as of course is Andy Coulson. Maybe she could go the Nick Clegg route and become head of lobbying for Meta