On really!

After the avalanche of coverage about Damian McBride and whether or not there is a culture of lying and smear at the heart of New Labour, I think there is actually a far more revealing, although apparently mundane, example of the way that Gordon Brown treats people with contempt in today’s Herald.

In a signed article on p6 to co-incide with the visit of the UK Cabinet to Scotland, the Prime Minister writes:

“Today, we are meeting in Glasgow, for a very different reason – to discuss how we can work to bring Scotland and the rest of Britain through these difficult economic times as soon as possible, emerging stronger and fairer than before.”

Is that right?  Everyone knows that the Glasgow visit is part of a UK wide PR exercise to generate pictures and stories in the local media by bringing the Cabinet to different areas.  There’s actually nothing wrong with that – it’s the government trying to sell its message – but please don’t insult us by claiming that there is going to be some serious discussion about the economy around the Cabinet table.

Are Jim Murphy or Harriet Harman going to bring some new discussion point to Cabinet on the economy to which Brown is going to reply: ”Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I hadn’t thought of that before – now let’s have a round-table debate?” Clearly not.

bloggers versus newspapers

This week’s newspaper circulation figures as reported by allmediascotland.com look disastrous for the Scottish press – which in turn is disastrous for the state of Scottish democracy.

The rate of decline of the Sunday Herald and Scotland on Sunday in particular is alarming – but not that much of a surprise to those who buy, or have bought these papers. 

I badly want these titles to succeed but they just don’t offer value for money.  We can all complain about the content of newspapers (as I do too much) but the bottom line is that neither of these titles have enough content to complain about. The are far too thin for a Sunday newspaper. 

The Sunday Times by contrast has actually put on sales -   for no reason other than it is better value than its rivals. There’s just a lot more of it. Sadly it’s hard to argue that its comparative success has anything to do with its Scottish coverage – those who write for the paper are stuck in the mindset that Scotland is basically crap, that the SNP is an illegitimate government and that anyone who works for the public sector is a useless scrounger.

I guess that many people who buy the paper do so in spite of, rather than because of, its treatment of Scotland. 

This matters because despite the rise of blogs, large-scale daily newsgathering -  the watchdog function much derided by leftist media theorists – is fundamental to democracy.  That means having lots of reporters – something that even the best and biggest blogs are never going to be able to invest in.

This is why much of the recent debate about blogging and newspapers simply misses the point.  Bloggers are in competition with professional commentators and (apart from the occasional spectacular) not reporters. We need both. 

I have some sympathy with Kezia Dugdale’s post on this subject. In Andrew Marr’s book on UK journalism, he describes newspaper columnists as journalist aristocrats. In fact I have always been sceptical of general opinion writers who expect to write with authority about Iraq one day and school reform the next – they may be elegant but can’t possibly have the specialist knowledge required. 

This tradition is not common across the world – in Denmark for example newspapers opinion pages have usually been reserved for genuine specialists – most of whom are not professional journalists.

But Kezia’s post throws up, as she I think recognises, why bloggers are not the same as reporters. At one point, in a reference to David Cameron, she  reveals real misunderstanding of the defamation law (ironically supporting  her own earlier point about some, but not all, bloggers’  lack of knowledge of this area).

Another key difference is this: in a reply to Iain Dale, she guesses at the circulation of The Sunday Herald – something a reporter would never do.  Interestingly in the comments section, someone posts the details (although  now  out of date ) an example of those who say the internet lends itself to fact-checking and correction.

The real point is this: the threat to newspapers (particularly Scottish ones) does not come from bloggers. It comes from under-investment and cost-cutting – a trend  that may now require some form of public subsidy – although I am yet to be fully convinced of this -  in order to maintain the newsgathering role,  something that’s far more important than commentating  - whether on a blog or in print.

Herald ignores Edi Stark

There’s a neat, if small,  illustration of one of the reasons why Scottish papers are struggling in yesterday’s Herald (apologies for not blogging this until today).

The paper carried a story about the nominations for this year’s Sony Radio Academy Awards.  One of the nominations is for the excellent Radio Scotland interviewer, Edi Stark, but this fact failed to interest the Herald journalist who wrote the story.

She did not get a single mention in the piece that accompanied the list of nominees.

Instead the article concentrated  mainly on Radio 1’s Chris Moyles.  Moyles is up against, amongst others,  Clyde DJ George Bowie – but his nomination again attracted no interest. Bowie was just listed, without comment,  in the copy alongside the other nominees.

There are various explanations for this. The most likely is that The Herald just lifted the story from PA, which of course would have led with a London angle, without changing it. 

If indeed it was re-written by a Herald reporter, it seems bizarre that the Scottish angle was  completely ignored.

Either way, it demonstrates one of the big problems for the Scottish national press. They cannot compete with the huge resources of their London rivals – their only hope is to emphasise their key selling point – their Scottishness.

But on this occasion The Herald just ran the same lazy line that could be found in the London papers.  I accept that this is a small item – but readers are being seduced by The Times, Guardian etc, with more pages and supplements because of their massively bigger budgets. If The Herald ignores its number one advantage over these papers (it’s Scottish, they are not) then what hope is there for it?

cricket and football

I have a confession: I’m an England cricket supporter. I want England to regain the Ashes this year.

But on the other hand, I’m less than enthusiastic (that’s as diplomatic as I can get) at the prospect of England winning the football World Cup in 2010, something that now seems a real possibility.

Despite the win against Iceland last week, it’s unlikely that Scotland will make the finals in South Africa. This is doubly bad news – not only will we have failed to qualify for the finals of a major tournament again, but we will also be subjected to that other national pastime – endless, pointless discussion over why Scots refuse to support Engerland.

I am only just recovering from the mass of coverage devoted to this topic during the 2008 European Championships. Remember that item on Newsnight, recording the reaction of Glaswegians to a car festooned with England colours in order to find out just how bigoted we are?

The more boring reality is that we are talking about football here and football supporters do not want their fiercest rivals to win. Hearts want Hibs to lose and Celtic love it when Rangers get beaten. The fact that many Scots cheer on anybody but England is basically the same as Ipswich Town supporters enjoying a Norwich City defeat. It really doesn’t mean that much.

It’s got nothing to do with our self-confidence, or lack of it, as a nation, and it doesn’t say anything about our wider relationship with England. It’s just football.

When it comes to cricket, I have always supported England. I am not quite sure why, but it’s probably to do with the fact that Scotland are not a Test playing nation which means we are not serious rivals. Scots – like the Welsh and Irish – have also played cricket for England so in some sense the England cricket team is a GB team. But that does not explain why I have followed England, because to be honest I am not a big supporter of other British sporting teams.

In truth, this is about sport and decisions taken about what teams people support can often look a little irrational. Many SNP supporters, for example, are Rangers fans, which seems unlikely given the sheer number of Union flags and renditions of Rule Britannia that accompany match days at Ibrox.

When I worked for the SNP, I remember being bemused at a colleague’s support for Tim Henman, when the rest of us in the office were not exactly regulars on Henman Hill. What did that tell us about anything other than which tennis players we liked? Nothing.

Much more interesting and meaningful in this regard, is the reaction in the London media to the troubles faced by the Scottish financial sector.

One of the more demeaning aspects to Gordon Brown’s premiership has been his constant references to British values – liberty and fairness – and the way they are presented as being unique to the United Kingdom. His real motivation, of course, is to convince voters in England that he is not really all that Scottish and that together we have forged what he calls a “British genius”.

Unfortunately some of his more trenchant critics in the so-called national (ie London) press now see the very fact that he is indeed Scottish as legitimate grounds for criticism.

The term “Scottish bankers” is now used as an explanation for the current recession. The fact that politicians born in Scotland were at the helm during the age of irresponsibility only adds to the sense that we as a nation are collectively to blame. Some of the writing in the traditional right-wing press has been astonishing in its invective, but even left-wing commentators have joined in.

After the break-up of the Dunfermline Building Society, the BBC broadcast an item on the ten o’clock news, highlighting the Scottish nature of banking failures. Fair enough, you might say, but I don’t remember a similar piece about Yorkshire following the disasters at the Bradford and Bingley and the Halifax.

Despite this onslaught, the heartening aspect is that very little of this has been picked up by ordinary Englishmen and women. Outside of the minds of excitable columnists, I don’t detect any rise in anti-Scottish sentiment, just as there has been no English backlash over the West Lothian Question or the contested levels of public spending in Scotland.

This gives me great hope that debates over the constitutional future of this country will not be dominated by unpleasantness on either side of the border over identity politics but by sensible argument over the best political and economic arrangement for both our countries.

decisions, decisions…

There were two massive stories for news organisations to cover this week – the G20 and the tragic helicopter crash in the  North Sea.

One of these – the G20 summit in London – would have been the subject of massive preparation – particularly by the BBC and other broadcasters.

The other, the helicopter tragedy, was the kind of news event that  requires quick and difficult decisions – both in terms of how to cover the story and where to place it in running orders.

Looking back over the week I still find it hard to believe that the BBC Ten o’  Clock  News decided to lead on Wednesday night with a long, long preview of the G20 rather than the North Sea disaster.

It seemed a clear case of  ”we’ve done the planning and we’re not changing it now, no matter what.”  But it revealed once again the metropolitan mind-set that can warp news values. 

 Nothing of substance had been announced from the G20 – because the actual summit had not even started – and there had been some demonstrations with limited violence in the City of London.  But this was indeed happening in London – and that surely can be the only reason why news editors decided that this was a more important story at that point  (I’m not belittling the importance of the G20 as a whole) than the terrible events off the coast of Scotland.

I didn’t see it myself but I know that some journalists in Scotland were outraged by the BBC News Channel’s coverage of  the First Minister’s statement on the helicopter disaster – essentially, I am told, cutting away from it to discuss among other things Michelle Obama’s dress-sense.

Last night, when admittedly something had actually happened at the summit, the BBC at one stage seemed to use most of its foreign staff to deliver pointless, mini-reports on the reaction in various capitals around the world: “James, can you explain China to us in 20 seconds?”

The tone of the coverage between the BBC Ten and Newsnight was also instructive – cheer-leading on the main news compared with greater scepticism from Paul Mason.

By the way, for a brilliant analysis, try this from The Guardian’s economics editor, Larry Elliot.

I’m not saying the BBC’s coverage of the G20 wasn’t slick or well-presented, but it seemed to lack substance and ultimately, demonstrated that it wasn’t only the Prime Minister who got carried away by  over-blown talk of the world coming together.

mirror, mirror on the wall…

Sometimes it’s not good for your health – or other people’s – to listen to the radio while driving.

This morning my blood pressure was suffering as I listened to Labour MP, John McFall (who is sometimes treated as if he is some sort of apolitical commentator rather than a party politician), slamming the management of the Dunfermline Building Society for their “reckless” decisions and “folly”. 

Speaking on Good Morning Scotland, Mr McFall also had a needless dig at Alex Salmond, failing to disguise the political capital the Labour Party has been trying to make out of the difficulties faced by Scottish financial institutions.

Of course the Dunfermline has clearly made some poor decisions. But this was all in the context of Gordon Brown’s abolition of boom and bust. Mr Brown, and no doubt Mr McFall, told us constantly that the UK economy was in great shape, record employment, low inflation, with a lot of it due to the financial deregulation engineered by the great leader.

Not only that but Mr Brown had abolished the economic cycle and was rubbishing anyone who suggested that the credit bill was unsustainable.

On top of that the Dunfermline had to compete against Northern Rock and others who were gorging themselves on the lax regime created by Mr Brown’s financial brilliance.

In those circumstances, is it all that surprising that the Dunfermline got involved in commercial property and other areas of business it might regret?

So, Mr McFall might stop to consider who was truly reckless and guilty of folly here – was it the Dunfermline or was it the Labour Party (member – John McFall) who created this massive credit bubble in the first place?

Not quite on the Jonathan Ross scale, but still…

I realise that a political blog isn’t the best place to complain about rudeness but I was taken aback by Andrew Neil’s handling of the discussion between Derek Draper and Guido Fawkes on the Daily Politics.

Iain Dale, rightly points out that the debate between the two bloggers was not the best showcase for political blogging. But, sadly, given their history there can have been few surprises that it degenerated into a petty slagging match.

Much worse, I thought was the sight of a Neil telling one of his guests, in this case Draper, to “shut up”.  There will be plenty of people of course who would have enjoyed that moment. But regardless of who the guest is, I think it is utterly unacceptable for a BBC interviewer to be so blatantly and aggressively rude.

Andrew Neil can be an effective interviewer, but his desire to be a player rather than a mere questioner is inappropriate. His views on Scottish nationalism for example should disqualify him immediately from a role that requires at least the pretence of impartiality.

Expenses and allowances

During and after the Olympics some commentators expressed distaste that politicians were falling over themselves to be associated with various gold-medal winners.

The basic idea seemed to be that these grubby low-lifes had no right to be anywhere near the likes of Chris Hoy, Rebecca Adlington and the rest of the victorious Team GB.

I actually believe  - and I think I can be pretty confident that this isn’t the most universally-held  of views – that politicians are generally at least as good, if not better, role-models than elite sportsmen and women.

The vast majority of politicians put themselves forward because they believe, however wrongly in the case of Scottish Labour, that that they can make a difference;  that they can genuinely improve the lives of  their fellow citizens.

For this they have to subject themselves to a generally unforgiving environment. Imagine in your job having to ask people every four or five years if they want you to continue and facing the prospect of a very public vote of no confidence and loss of employment.

If they do succeed they face routine public scorn and a hostile press. Alastair Campbell can be a hard man to like (especially for an SNP supporter) but his general analysis of political journalism is spot-on.  The obsession with gaffes, alleged humiliations, character assassinations and on-going hunts for resignations make any kind of reasoned deliberation a tough task.

But that’s why the behaviour of people like Tony McNulty is so infuriating. He may not have broken any rules but he’s confirmed so many negative opinions about politicians and makes it  almost impossible for those of us who want to defend them.

In a classic New Labour tactic, Gordon Brown has now called for a review of MPs allowances in an attempt to control the story. But this kind of thing doesn’t work anymore.

Mr McNulty should just hand the money back and issue an apology. It won’t make any difference but at least it would be the right thing to do.

Mr Brown goes to Washington

This pieceby Stryker McGuire in The Independent is brilliant.

The stuff about how the Oscars etc are covered in the UK is spot on.

In some ways the demeaning relationship between British politicians and the US is mirrored by the Scottish cringe in relation to the UK.

Scottish achievement or failure it seems can rarely be celebrated or derided on its own merit  – it’s how we are viewed or measure up to the rest of the UK that is presented as the most important thing.

Where does that lack of self-confidence come from?

Fundamental(ist) mistakes from The Steamie

I’ve written before (ok – quite a lot) about the generally poor level of political  commentary in Scottish newspapers. It’s not that I’m obsessed by this, but I really do believe that we could be doing things a lot better.

Working as a lecturer I’ve now started to become interested in the academic aspect of political opinion – particularly the contribution, if any, that newspapers make to the achievement of a deliberative democracy – the kind of engaged, inclusive democracy that the founders of the Scottish Parliament had in mind.

But for that to happen, we need at the very least to have a greater understanding of the political process.

This post in  The Steamie – a decent enough contribution to the political blogosphere in Scotland -  is an example of real misunderstanding masquerading as insight.

Political journalists were interested, reasonably enough,  yesterday in why Nicola Sturgeon, rather than Kenny MacAskill was chosen to front the launch of the SNP’s drive against Scotland’s booze culture.

David Maddox, in The Steamie, suggested that it was in part due to the desire to present Sturgeon, rather than MacAskill as the SNP leader in waiting:

“ Mr MacAskill …… is the most likely figure that any challenge from the so-called fundamentalist wing may gather around, if things were to go pear shaped in the next couple of years. ”  

I want to say this as politely as I can – but that is just daft.  Having worked for John Swinney during his leadership I would not deny that at that time there were painful divisions within the SNP.  But it was far too simplistic to present these divisions as fundamentalist versus gradualist.  It was really the result of the move by the SNP from being a party of protest to becoming a party of government.  There just isn’t a big fundamentalist/gradualist split anymore.

But even if there was,  Kenny MacAskill would probably be the least likely senior figure in the SNP that the fundamentalists would “gather round.”

After the election of 2003, Kenny wrote some interesting articles about the future direction of the SNP. You can get a flavour of this, by reading this piece in The Times, which includes the line:

 ”Shouting “independence” louder is no more likely to increase the vote than would wearing a darker shade of wode.”  Hardly a fundamentalist rallying cry I would have thought.

In truth SNP has developed into a thoughtful movement – is it too much to ask for political hacks to keep pace?