From out of the wreckage caused by Hackgate, which has rocked Westminster, Fleet Street, and Scotland Yard alike, it is clear that a long-overdue programme of media reform must arise. What is unknown at this point, at the start of a process that will undoubtedly drag on for years, is how the relationship between citizens, the media, and public figures will change.
Because it has invariably been both too cosy, and too fear-driven, and above all too centralised. I personally experienced this during my time in government, my internship as I now call it, in developing and seeking to launch policies relating to the Big Society. The first time I came across it was when it became apparent that part of the reason that some journalists resisted the idea of Big Society was that it actually meant focussing less on what was going on in Whitehall or Parliament, where it is easier to pick up or blag your way to a story, and more on what is going on in real communities – breaking out of the bubble. The second was when a left wing journalist presented me with two potential stories she would run on me and essentially threatened me with running the worst of the two (for the record, relating to unfounded rumors about my ability to do my job), unless I gave her information which was eventually spun into the story that broke about my work life balance. That fear which all politicians feel at the hands of journalists where you have no recourse or way to correct the first story, led to much pain and difficulty for me and my young family, despite years of charitable service. The third was when I realized that the very business model of modem media itself now makes it almost impossible for new and innovative policy to be understood and piloted well, because resources are too constrained for journalists to get out into the country to find out what is going on and what is working. This is what I have previously called news by press release, where the same story is regurgitated from one news desk to another with lots of opinion and spin heaped upon it, not always sadly backed up by many facts. It too often stops the right ideas being turned into reality and breeds instead sadly cynicism and inertia.
So what now, now that we have arrived at the point when our politicians, media and increasingly even our judicial and policing system have suffered such a loss of trust? Well, we are likely to see increased regulation. I defer to Lord Mandelson on this who has already written articulately on how it needs tightening up. How can we have different regimes for television and broadcast media (which is incidentally more trusted than other forms) from print media which is essentially self/non/un-regulated? But as Mandelson also hints at, there is a role for technology, whether in more models such as iCorrect where people can correct mistaken articles written about them, to a place where media interviewees – whether celebrities and public figures or ordinary citizens – can upload recordings of interviews they have given so the public can compare how accurate articles are that were based on what has been recorded, to a site where individual journalists can be rated (who has the domain for ratemyjournalist.com?) based on how accurate, entertaining, and balanced their articles are (one may need to rate raters as well to avoid abuse). Beyond this there is a need for a different business model, one in which citizens actively help to generate news content, in partnership with professionals, and co-edit that content so the best filters up, and get rewarded financially or reputationally for their stories or receive donations or tips to encourage them to continue their citizen journalist careers. Twitter and blogging in a way is therefore just the start. Models such as blottr, with the right backing from us all, may represent a more sustainable, more humane, and dare I say it more Big Society way of doing media in the future.
UPDATE: of course politicians can be just as susceptible to spinning as well; when I left Labour politicians and their civil society representatives such as Peter Kyle claimed I worked less than a year in government, which is clearly not from the case from my original appointment and resignation letters and the PM’s acceptance letter of my resignation – which I am now putting into the public domain – showing I worked from the 18 May 2010 until the 1st of June 2011 at which point I switched to advising the Community Foundation Network
Why do you think the institution is resisting next generation access? Because once citizen journalists have decent internet access then the news will be the real news, not the regurgitated press releases that as you rightly point out are all too common. I know exactly what you mean. When the bbc came to film our rural broadband project they didn’t want photos of the fibre, they wanted the view, and cute cows. The newspaper journo and photographer wanted a picture of me with a laptop and ‘cute calves’. Sells more copy they said. They had the chance to photograph the first rural fibre to the home and do a real story, but no, they went for cuteness and soundbytes.
Where are the real journos? Where is the truth? How come there is so much spin, hype and deceit? I think hackgate has been a blessing in disguise. We need a clean out, a fresh start, and internet access for everyone. Not this sad excuse for broadband coming through phone lines. More webcams, livestreams of news, local tv from people’s back yards and kitchens. The future. But it isn’t here yet.
Moral and optic fibre in short supply.
chris
I think this post illustrates a danger that the response to the NOTW scandal by politicians is to use this to try and restrict legitimate journalistic activities. The real issue is about how illegal practices were allowed to go on with the police seemingly unwilling to properly investigate and the Prime Minister showing an appalling lack of judgement.
To blame this scandal for difficulties in establishing the Big Society is absurd. We should welcome the fact that in our society all ideas are challenged.
Nat, As a journo who has seen both sides of the fence there is much to commend in your comments. As a former Guardian lobby journalist for over 20 years I was well aware of the cosy relationship between politicians and lobby hacks. When I was first there the secrecy was absurd and the relationship meant politicians were rarely investigated and there was fear on both sides, as Lord Mandelson should well know. Now the atmosphere is different but there is still a tendency for hacks to follow each other and ignore events outside Westminster.
Now I have a foot in both camps as a freelance with a lobby pass through Tribune and a blogger. What you are saying about links between professionals and bloggers is starting to happen. There is an unholy allowance in Barnet between me and local bloggers following events at Barnet Council where bloggers exposed a security firm, which subsequently went bust, after it was caught taking covert pictures of protestors coming to Barnet Council to protest about cuts. Their efforts has led to an internal audit which exposed the fact that Barnet had never signed a proper contract with the firm ,despite handing over £1.3m.to the now bust company, and the security guards were not even vetted by the Criminal Records Bureau. There is now pressure for an external audit, and the auditor has had to meet the bloggers to explain why he is avoiding doing this at the moment.. That is real power to the people who are after all paying for the audits in their council taxes and the external auditor is now very uncomfortable. You can read all about this on my blog david.hencke.wordpress.com and see some of the varied local bloggers work @ mrsangry and @mr mustard to name just but two. (they are 35 in a list called the barnetcrew.
david hencke