Have Damien McBride’s emails, and their exposure by Guido Fawkes, harmed politics in new ways?

April 21, 2009 in Journalism, UK Politics
Tags: alastair campbell, andy coulson, anthony sampson, david leigh, draper, guido fawkes, john lloyd, Journalism, mcbride, politics

The fallout surrounding the smear emails between Damien McBride and Derek Draper has seen much media attention being paid to the role played by Paul Staines and his Guido Fawkes blog.  However some commentary has cast this shameful ploy, which was designed for the anonoymity of the internet, as problematic for politics and society.

‘Once the internet – with its instant response ability, its tendency to destroy secrets and its vast memory – becomes the dominant medium, then scandal, gossip and personality come into the foreground as main elements in the political struggle.’

In the wake of McBride’s resignation over the damaging emails, this appraisal of the political climate by John Lloyd seems familiar.  The contributing editor to the Financial Times uses the plot to advance an old argument, that this is another indicator of how the British media have negatively impacted upon political discourse.

It is a return to the form of ‘What the media are doing to our politics‘, where Lloyd states that the degradation of politics by cynical journalists is harmful to democracy.  His advice on how this could be rectified is counter-intuitive:

‘The goal of developing informed citizens need not be served by acts of constant aggression or attitudes of constant suspicion towards politicians and public officials. It could also be served – and better served – by understanding and taking seriously official and representatives’ stated aims.’

If Paul Staines, or Guido Fawkes, had not adopted an adversarial approach to expose those shameful messages then it is likely they would have remained secret.  Surely the Internet’s ‘instant response ability, its tendency to destroy secrets and its vast memory’ are all wonderful developments that will help to increase the quality of political reportage and should be celebrated at this juncture.

Staines may not be the most moral of individuals, and his libertarian message may not help the reputation of politicians, but in this instance his aggressive endeavours must be acknowledged admirably.

The Guardian’s David Leigh agrees a more combative approach is required by reporters, saying that John Lloyd’s ‘hints that the media ought to hurl fewer rocks and function more as an explanatory transmission belt for politicians point in a thoroughly sinister direction.’

This is especially pertinent when considering the recent pre-eminence of individuals like Andy Coulson and Alastair Campbell, seasoned combatants with incredibly successful communication strategies.  Leigh says:

‘When a journalist asks members of British institutions uncomfortable questions about what is going on, they respond with more or less polished evasions or with downright lies. They employ expensive PR teams to paint pictures that drift artistically away from reality. They try to intimidate with their lawyers. They conceal what they can, and what they can’t conceal, they distort.’

It seems sensible that an attempt to implement Lloyd’s ‘civic journalism’ would be exploited mercilessly by those in positions of power.  Even the man himself concedes that the dynamics between journalist and politician are played out reciprocally.

‘Both sides assume bad faith: the interviewer assumes evasion, at worst deceit; the interviewee assumes concentration on sore points, at worst a fight from which the interviewer would normally emerge the winner.’ As such it needs to be questioned, given the situation, if any fault can lie entirely with the media.’

The journalist Anthony Sampson made the point that ‘journalists must always feel a duty to criticise rather than to praise, and to disclose what those in power wish to conceal.’ This is for numerous reasons – some noble and some base – and more should be done to try and engender change, yet Sampson concedes:

‘It is a conflict which can never be fully resolved, for it is part of a wider conflict between commercial pressures and considerations of public interest which lies behind most British institutions. But the more newspapers can engage in public debate with the institutions they criticise, and the more honestly they can represent their concerns, the more they can safeguard their own relationship and credibility with their readers.’

Lloyd’s belief that the media’s presentation of politicial motivations has eroded trust has to be misplaced.  Partisan reporting and cynical analysis may be contributing factors in adversely impacting upon reputations, but this is not necessarily a negative outcome.

The smear campaign dreamt up by McBride and Draper demonstrates that politics is often an unsavoury business that needs to be challenged to the best of our ability.  Leigh is correct when he states ‘it’s important that the various media behave as countervailing powers in a democracy: in fact it’s absolutely necessary.’ Indeed there should be discussions on how this can best be achieved, especially given the recent questions raised over the close relationship between the Lobby and politicians who seem to thrive in a mutally symbiotic relationship.

Ironically Lloyd provides the definitive words explainin why the abrasive, confrontational and cynical attitudes of journalists can – and must – be excused.  ‘In the end, politics can always trump the media because it has the power – state power – to do so.’

This has to be held to account.