Archive for November, 2007
Heading off shortly to help launch the Orwell Prize 2008.
As of this evening the Media Standards Trust is partnering with the Orwell Trust and Political Quarterly to run the Orwell Prize for political writing and journalism.
It’s an honour to be associated both with such a prestigious prize and, via the prize, to the memory of Orwell himself. We’ve been beavering away getting a website ready (it hasn’t had one to date) at www.theorwellprize.co.uk, which will go live at 7pm tonight.
To mark the opening of this year’s prize we’ve also helped organise a panel debate on ‘Orwell, ID Cards, the Citizen and the State’ – with David Goodhart (editor, Prospect), Jenni Russell (Guardian), Heather Brooke (author, ‘Right to Know’) and Nick Cohen (Observer), chaired by Jean Seaton (University of Westminster).
What would Orwell have made of ID cards? Are his warnings about Big Brother still relevant in our contemporary information society? What would a modern day George Orwell write about?
The event is at the Frontline Club from 7-9pm. If you’d like to come along you’re welcome to email me at email@example.com.
It’s rare to see thoughtful reflection about the media from senior figures in public life. It’s even rarer be able to compare four very different perspectives. But that’s what we got last night (at Media Standards Trust / Reuters Institute debate).
A lawyer, a career diplomatic, a general, and the head of public affairs at Lambeth Palace talked about their experience of interacting with the media – and whether there was any substance to Tony Blair’s claims last June that the media was having a “seriously adverse” effect on public life.
And they didn’t say what you might expect.
All agreed the media was having a serious impact on public life but believed it was simplistic and fatalistic to say it was necessarily “adverse”. Public figures have a “symbiotic relationship” with the media – to use Lord Jay’s phrase – and as such need to figure out how to make that relationship work rather than withdrawing or shying away from it.
Yet from what the four said, it was apparent that each had devised quite different ways of dealing with it.
General Sir Rupert Smith compared himself to an illusionist. “Being a commander is like being [a Master of Ceremonies] in a Roman circus”, he said. “All around you in the stands is a highly factional audience” and it is your job – as a military leader – to produce a larger narrative. This gives the journalist a “line of logic” within which individual stories fit, and and prevents the media focusing on the immediate and the controversial. The General would make sure he kept the tap of information constantly flowing since in his experience “Most journalists are idle, frightened people who will go to my tap.”
Lord (Michael) Jay was more sympathetic to journalists and saw their relationship with public life as critical yet fragile. “It is a relationship of wariness and mutual respect”, Jay said. Yet despite changes in production and technology the ex-Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office did not believe the relationship was qualitatively different from twenty years ago. Seen from within government, the biggest change was not in technology but in legislation. The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act represents, Jay said, “quite a revolutionary change in the way government operates”. Civil Servants now have to assume that “everything is releasable”. This has seismic implications for those within government, and its scale and impact has still not been properly understood by the media or the public.
Tim Livesey, head of public affairs at Lambeth Palace, made a thoughtful plea for both sides to adapt. People in public life should not – as Tony Blair suggested – get better press offices. Neither should they withdraw from public engagement or communicate solely through proprietary media (official websites, podcasts, blogs). They have a responsibility to communicate and should do so as themselves, Livesey argued. Though if they do, the media should accept the corresponding responsibility to represent them honestly, and to humanise rather than dehumanise.
The danger of what happens when the media dehumanises was highlighted by Sue Stapely, the fourth member of the panel, who spoke in detail of the media’s treatment of Sally Clarke and her family. Stapely ran the campaign to free Sally Clarke after her wrongful imprisonment, and then helped her deal with the media interest (pro bono) after Clarke’s release. She described how the Clarke’s nanny was offered £10,000 for her story, and the “disgraceful” media scrum that prevented Sally Clarke’s husband and young son from getting into their own home the day after she died. Journalists are “daily required to compromise their instinctive integrity” due to their demands of their editors and proprietors, and this has to change.
Few soundbites (although Jay’s from “feral beasts” to “paper tigers” was eminently quotable), but some genuine insights into an issue that Blair and others have described as increasingly central to our democracy. A little less heat perhaps, but a lot of light.
The row that exploded yesterday about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments on the US and the Iraq war provides an appropriate backdrop to tomorrow evening’s Media Standards Trust / Reuters Institute debate.
Following an interview he gave to a Muslim magazine the Archbishop found himself splashed across a number of Sunday papers. ‘US is ‘worst’ imperialist: archbishop’ The Sunday Times headline read. ‘Archbishop attacks US over invasion of Iraq’, was the more restrained (and more accurate) title of The Sunday Telegraph’s article. But it was The Sunday Times piece that caught the public’s attention –attracting over 400 comments.
A day later and the commentariat had taken over. In The Daily Mail Peter McKay applauded the Archbishop for ‘Standing up to Uncle Sam’, and in The Sun Trevor Kavanagh said the church leader had ‘excelled himself… by denouncing America as a worse imperial power than Britain in its heyday’.
Yet Rowan Williams did not call the US the ‘worst imperialist’. He critiqued US policy in Iraq, as he has on previous occasions, and he said that American attempts to accumulate influence and control were ‘not working’. But these were similar to comments he has made in the past, and were subsidiary to the main purpose of the interview which was to foster dialogue between Christians and Muslims.
By an unfortunate irony, he also told Sarah Joseph – his interviewer, that “a mutual covenant of religious peoples” could address a media world “very happy with the stereotypes of the other”. That quote didn’t make it into the coverage.
Does it matter that his comments were used in this way? Was it just a case of the press looking for ‘impact’ with its audience? How should the Archbishop respond?
Tim Livesey, head of public affairs at Lambeth Palace, will be one of those discussing how the media and public life interact and what impact it is having at the Media Standards Trust / Reuters Institute debate tomorrow.
With Livesey will be General Sir Rupert Smith (discussing the impact of the media on modern conflict), Lord Michael Jay (talking about the effect of the media on the civil service) and Sue Stapely (describing what happens when a member of the public suddenly gets caught in the media spotlight).
The debate will be held at the Foreign Press Association on Carlton House Terrace from 6.30-8pm. Space is very limited so if you would like to come please do email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Emerging from what feels like an endless series of consultations, conferences and conversations about the ‘future of news’ the one thing I’m now sure about is that people think things are changing an awful lot. Which means, whether they are or not (and I confess to being one of those who thinks they are), they will because enough people think they are.
One of the positive spin-offs of this revolution is a newfound curiosity within the media for academia. Historically people working in media think they have about as much to learn from academia as a car mechanic from a nuclear physicist. But now, because things are changing so quickly, talking to people who think for a living suddenly seems quite sensible.
Indeed Anne Spackman, editor-in-chief of Times Online, looked pleased but slightly astonished at how much she had learnt from her conversations with the academic advisory committee prior to her participation in Goldsmith’s Future of News Conference on Saturday. ‘It’s clear we have alot to learn from one another’, she said, and I don’t think she was just being polite.
The technical stuff is the most obvious. Students emerging from university or journalism school are now almost certain to have greater technical skills and knowledge than the generation above them.
But there’s also alot of sociological knowledge that can help news organisations – seeing how news production and consumption is changing in other countries, understanding the uptake and usage patterns of new technologies, and thinking about how social networks affect communication of news .
Some news organisations, like Reuters, have realised this and invested in academic centres to increase understanding (Reuters Institute for Study of Journalism). Others, like Sky, have dipped their toe in the water (Sky is funding PhD research into citizen journalism).
You never know, maybe DMGT, Trinity Mirror, the Telegraph or even News International might decide a little more thinking about the future would be a good thing and stick their hand in their pocket.