A free media is indispensable. It holds individuals, businesses and entire governments to account. It goes without saying, then, that we should value a free, investigative and unbiased media, and defend it at all costs. But ironically enough, the integrity of our media is being compromised as a result of its own freedoms or, more specifically, abuses of them. It is the cut-throat competition in the media sector that forces many decent journalists to push the bounds of ethics, responsibility and good reporting. It is true that this has always been a problem, but the advent of 24/7 global news services has expedited the problem- so much so that Tony Blair, in his final days as British Prime Minister last year, described the media as a “feral beast,” and Nick Clegg, in a previous interview with The Globalist, talked of a “deathly embrace” between the press and politicians.

The desperate search for the next and best story has led to countless violations of privacy, as well as scores of incidents, where unconfirmed suspicions have been blown‐up into stories that are taken to be as good as factual. Relatively insignificant issues have been irresponsibly exaggerated into massive front‐page controversies. Truly significant global issues have been abandoned for news stories designed to shock shamelessly. Quentin Peel, International Affairs Editor at the Financial Times, feels strongly that “sometimes we get obsessed by very small and irrelevant stories, when there are really big international stories that I think people would be interested in if they [the media] showed how relevant it is to us.”

Not one to understate the importance of his profession, Peel shares politicians’ concerns regarding the government’s relationship with the media: “I think we do have a responsibility way beyond what we think we recognise, and I feel that the danger in this country is that the Parliamentary debate has moved into the media… no one’s turning‐up for Parliamentary debates, but they’re debating everything on Newsnight, or the Today Programme.”

As Peel puts it, “We as journalists have allowed ourselves to be used and the spin doctors to use us, and we despise ourselves for allowing ourselves to be used.” He notes an often‐used trick that guarantees that the media play the government’s tune. “It’s become a very sophisticated exercise of the ‘selective leak,’ giving to only a favoured few journalists… and then what happens is you think ‘well, I must write something about it because nobody else has got it,’ and the fact that it’s totally anodyne rubbish or a rather bad idea… you’re unlikely to be as critical of it if you’ve got it before everybody else.” As he acknowledges, this covert action is not isolated to the British government. I asked Mr Peel whether he had been subject to this trickery from anyone else: “Take the European Commission, they might do the same, you know… ‘Here’s an exclusive speech by the President of the Commission, you know’ … it’s quite a long time since I’ve been had by that. I was probably had when I was reporting on Brussels in the 1980s, but the whole spin machine was not quite as aggressive then as it is now. But I do think there’s fault on both sides.” For time‐pressed journalists who need their big scoop quickly, spin doctors can provide perfect front‐page fodder that, thanks to the direction of the spin they put on a story, will emphasise good news and inevitably suppress the bad.
The buzz of the frantic 24‐hour media, with many networks vying for punters’ precious time, has also led much of journalism to pursue ever more scintillating stories – not because they are important, but because of how controversial or frightening they may be. Take the intense press coverage of the McCann family’s ordeal. “The Obsession with the McCanns is completely insane and has become, I would have thought, incredibly boring for the readers and viewers… Undoubtedly it was a subject of conversation, but to the extent that the media covered it? – I just feel that part of the problem is that people invested in sending their journalists to Portugal, then they had to justify the expense by using their copy.”

Murdoch and the Media: “Poisonous”

No look at the state of the world media would be complete without considering the greatest and arguably the most infamous of media moguls, Rupert Murdoch. With over 53,000 employees worldwide, his News International Corporation spans divisions of TV, newspapers, radio, websites as well as books and other media. Mr Murdoch has such influence that it is widely believed that he uses it to support his own interests. Mr Murdoch can slant the political coverage of his news media – using The Sun, the News of the World and The Times newspapers, as well as Sky News TV in the UK, and The New York Post and Fox News, together with his recent acquisition, The Wall Street Journal in the US – in the direction of a particular political party or candidate. Consider the run‐up to the Iraq War in 2003; all of his more than 175 newspapers were in favour of the war. Now, Murdoch’s acquisition of The Wall Street Journal will mean that he will have yet more influence in the 2008 US Presidential race.

Mr Peel regards Murdoch as “Poisonous… I think that the Murdoch Empire is far too dominant in certain markets – it’s far too dominant in the British market – and I’m very worried about Murdoch’s takeover of the Wall Street Journal, which depends fundamentally on being above any hint of commercial profit from any of its reporting. Now one of the most insidious aspects of the Murdoch Empire is the way he uses his Newspapers to promote his television and his television to promote his newspapers. If the Wall Street Journal were dragged down that path, it would be devastating for its reputation as an objective newspaper.”
In a world where it is considered wrong for a government to control the media, it is arguably even worse to allow a third party to have such a significant influence on the ‘news’ that people read. It is no surprise, then, that Simon Wilson, the BBC Middle East Bureau editor until just recently, has noted in his blog that some Americans now prefer to consult the BBC for news. That said, despite his opinion regarding the Murdoch Empire, Peel argues the entire US media is at fault, “[in the period before the past 18 months] The US media was cowed by 9/11 into an absurdly patriotic silence. Then, I think, the BBC was very important in being a voice that Americans tuned to to find out what was really happening, because their own media wasn’t giving it to them.”

The BBC: “Scared of its Own Shadow?”

“The BBC is an extraordinary invention which has been successful, and I think it would be an absolute tragedy if it were destroyed. At the same time, I do think the BBC has become a rather monstrous bureaucracy… if you work inside it you find it is desperately bureaucratic.”

It is natural that we consider the BBC separately, given that it does not rely primarily on ratings to survive, and that it is a non‐profit, government‐sponsored but not government‐controlled organisation. But, like the rest of the media, there have been major shortcomings in the BBC’s editorial standards. Last year, the Corporation was to broadcast a full day of programming, themed Planet Relief, intended to highlight issues of climate change; only at late notice was it abandoned due to editorial concern that it was trying to influence opinion on the issue. Veteran anchor Anna Ford resigned from the BBC out of concern that the organisation was becoming increasingly bureaucratic; given their 228‐page “editorial guidelines”, set out in 2005, this ‘protest resignation’ seems justified. Peel agrees: “The problem with the BBC is that it’s an insane bureaucracy, and they do everything over the top, I mean that [228‐pages of ‘editorial guidelines’] is just bloody silly.” He likes the idea of a ‘journalist’s rule book’, though – “I think we should have a book of rules, but not 228‐pages – perhaps 20 pages, maximum.”

But things are not as bleak as they may seem; the BBC is politically neutral and, particularly since the Gilligan‐Kelly affair in 2003, has gone to extraordinary lengths to verify its sources. Moreover, anyone who has seen or heard a politician being interviewed by the likes of Jeremy Paxman or John Humphreys will agree that the BBC goes beyond simply accepting the announcements of politicians; they delve into the details. Moreover, in his 15th January speech, BBC Director‐General Mark Thompson put forward his plans for the BBC to develop the bonds of trust and confidence between it, public authorities and the general public of Britain. The measures he aims to implement intend to “make output which explores ideas about policy and policy choices, rather than simply react to what’s been said, and also try harder to expose serious spin.” If this happens, then moving the Parliamentary debate from the House of Commons and into the news studios may actually be a good thing. It may, at least, save us from having to endure the childish and self‐demeaning political bickering of Prime Minister’s Questions, if ever we want to hear from the government about what they are really doing.

Given the problems we have seen escalate in today’s journalism – a lack of time and attention to important issues, ridiculous exaggeration of smaller ones, disproportionate focus on “personal interest” issues, political bias – Mr Thompson’s pronouncements are long overdue. His measures put the BBC forward as a way of dealing with these problems. The BBC has no private shareholders to satisfy, and so does not need to participate in senseless sensationalism in order to bump‐up ratings and profits. Instead, as a public service, it can, should, and often does look thoroughly at much of the government’s rhetoric. It is good that the plans intend to broaden the scope of this and try to repair some of the problems present. As Thompson put it himself: “… I believe it’s important that someone makes the first move, and that no one is better placed to do that than the BBC.” His support of the “aggressive” nature of some of the BBC’s political interviews is all the more reassuring.

Mr Peel is concerned that regulation of some shape or form may be unavoidable, however: “If we don’t put our house in order, I think we will inevitably face regulation.” He regards the issues of violations of privacy as pivotal, particularly in terms of the recent case of Prince Harry going to fight in Afghanistan. “… we are trampling over questions of privacy, which is why I think the Prince Harry issue is very interesting and, in a way, very important. The papers recognised that they had made his life, and national security, actually impossible.” He discusses the media‐blackout agreement that was made regarding Prince Harry’s deployment. “It is a precedent, and I think it’s a precedent that we may see more of. But it’s one the newspapers will have to take very difficult decisions about…”.

Peel suggests a “Hippocratic oath for journalists, you know… ‘thou shalt not invent things’.” Continuing the analogy, I ask whether a GMC‐esque institution for journalists is not out of the question. “We’ve got the Press Complaints Commission, it’s getting a bit more serious, but I think we have to go further… I think we have to have some basic rules… and if they don’t want to abide by those rules, then they don’t sign‐up, and run the Daily Star, or whatever it may be.” So, it seems Mr Peel is all for internal regulation, but certainly not external. Mark Thompson also rejects tougher outside regulation of the press – it is obvious why this is. A look at the effects of media censorship in other countries is ample evidence to show that government‐imposed restraint of the press would open the doors to manipulation.

In its current state of maturity, the British media faces a grave threat – that of itself. One might even say that the free media is at risk of destroying itself, but that might be a tad sensational.