The Rise and Fall of Television Journalism This Page Intentionally Left Blank the Rise and Fall of Television Journalism
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Rise and Fall of Television Journalism This page intentionally left blank The Rise and Fall of Television Journalism: Just Wires and Lights in a Box? Steven Barnett First published in 2011 by: Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3DP, UK and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA Copyright © Steven Barnett 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author. CIP records for this book are available from the British Library and the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-1-84966-611-4 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-84966-646-6 (ebook) ISBN 978-1-84966-648-0 (ebook PDF) This book is produced using paper that is made from wood grown in managed, sustainable forests. It is natural, renewable and recyclable. The logging and manufacturing processes conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. Printed and bound in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group, Bodmin, Cornwall. Cover design: Paul Burgess Cover image: Getty www.bloomsburyacademic.com For the three girls in my life who keep me sane. This page intentionally left blank Contents Preface ix Introduction: The Argument 1 1 Laying the Foundations: Policies, Practices and a Public Monopoly 21 2 Competition and Commercialism: The Early Days 43 3 Competition, Commercialism and the ‘Golden Age’ 67 4 ‘Real Lives’ v ‘Death on the Rock’: Journalism, Terrorism and Accountability 91 5 The Propaganda Model and the 1990 Broadcasting Act 111 6 Competition and Commercialism into the Twenty-first Century 123 7 Tabloidization 141 8 The BBC and the Aftermath of Hutton 171 9 Television Journalism, the Market and the Future 185 10 24-hour News Channels and the ‘New’ Television Journalism 205 11 Television Journalism and Impartiality 227 Conclusions: What is Television? What is Journalism? And Why does it Matter? 243 Appendix 1 Methodology for News Study 253 Appendix 2 Detailed Breakdown of Story Types on UK News Bulletins 1975–99 257 Notes 259 Index 281 [ vii ] This page intentionally left blank Preface uly 4 2011 was a momentous date for British journalism. Within three weeks of a single story being published, the 158-year-old weekly News of the World had closed down, two of its former editors had been arrested along with other senior journalists, the head of London’s Metropolitan Police force and one of his deputies had resigned,J the newspaper’s owner Rupert Murdoch and his son James had been summoned to give evidence to a parliamentary committee, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission had announced her intention to step down, and the Prime Minister David Cameron had set up a judicial inquiry into media ownership and standards of journalism under Lord Justice Leveson. It was a story that left the press, political and police establishments reeling. It was, potentially, a transformative moment not only in British journalism but in British public life. That was the day on which the Guardian published its front-page exclusive that the mobile phone of Milly Dowler, a Surrey schoolgirl who had been abducted and murdered in 2002, had been hacked by a private detective employed by the News of the World. He had even deleted some of her messages, thereby giving false hope to parents and police that she might still be alive. Although the Guardian had been pursuing the story of illegal phone hacking for two years – and several senior politicians and celebrities had launched civil proceedings in respect of their own experience of phone hacking – this was the moment that the slightly rarefied complaints of a few members of the political and entertainment elite were transformed into an all-encompassing national scandal. As each new revelation emerged and each new arrest was announced, the sheer scale of amorality and corporate corruption astonished even the most sceptical observers. It was not just the British public that was scandalized. Along with many other commentators of the media scene, in the three weeks that followed that Guardian story I was inundated with interview requests from astonished foreign reporters. From Brazil and Chile, the United States and Canada through Germany, France, Denmark, Norway and Spain to Russia, South Korea and China came the same line of questioning: how on earth could the British political establishment become so ensnared in the Murdoch embrace? What sort of journalism culture facilitated – even encouraged – the bribing of police officers and eavesdropping on the phone [ ix ] [ x ] The Rise and Fall of Television Journalism messages of bereaved relatives of terrorism victims and murdered children? What did it say about Britain’s tabloid culture that a newspaper editor could parade on its front page heart-rending details of the Prime Minister’s infant son being diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, knowing that this front-page splash would leave the Prime Minister and his family devastated? While international observers looked on in disbelief, some British practitioners tried to rationalize. Let’s not condemn, they said, the great British tradition of a raucous, rowdy, brash and irreverent tabloid press – an honourable legacy which went back over 100 years. Yes, of course, a few rough diamonds had overstepped the mark and no one could condone criminal activity in pursuit of a story. But the Murdochs had acted swiftly, the News of the World had closed and the problem could be swiftly resolved without recourse to draconian regulation. An unfettered press allowed to regulate itself, they said, was the only guarantor of a healthy democracy. They issued grave warnings of Soviet-style State censorship that would inevitably follow any attempt to invoke a regulatory system that might properly monitor and implement a code of ethical journalistic conduct. Any system which involved statutory sanctions would threaten democracy itself. Free speech would be chilled. The sentiment was echoed by Rupert Murdoch himself in his evidence to the House of Commons select committee, when he spoke of how Britain benefits ‘from having a competitive press and therefore having a very transparent society. That is sometimes very inconvenient to people. But I think we are better and stronger for it.’ Implicit in this statement were two erroneous assumptions that need to be challenged. First, that the journalism which might be threatened by a stricter regime of regulatory oversight was that vital watchdog function which held power to account and which helped to root out dishonesty, incompetence or wrong- doing in high places. Second, that there was a direct connection between this vital democratic function of journalism and unfettered competition. Either deliberately, or through blind faith in the free market, Murdoch missed the point. Much (though by no means all) of the reporting practised by the News of the World was light years away from the kinds of corruption-busting authority-defying journalism that all good democrats wish to see not only preserved but vigorously promoted. Increasingly it had come to rely on a diet of sex, sensationalism and scandal derived primarily from ruthless, unprincipled intrusions into the private lives of individuals, with a brutal disregard either for the factual accuracy of the stories or the potentially devastating impact on the characters involved. It was the journalism of the Colosseum rather the journalism of accountability. This problem is not unique to the News of the World nor to Rupert Murdoch (though his various biographers agree that he is far more interested in scandal- Preface [ xi ] mongering and gossip than hard-nosed investigative journalism). But this vindictive style of journalism does appear to have become an integral element of the British newspaper culture, driven by the cut-throat nature of national competition and Wild West-style absence of any rules of engagement. It is neither pleasant nor edifying, and it is far removed from the kind of impertinent, anti-elitist, populist reporting that once characterized the best of British tabloid journalism – and which was indeed an essential ingredient of a healthy democracy. For the purposes of this book, however, perhaps the crucial point is that this amoral, celebrity-baiting form of journalism is also far removed from the customs and practices of British television journalism. At its height – abetted by a regulatory framework laid down in law, codes of conduct that were invariably followed, genuine sanctions for transgression and limited competition – television in Britain produced at least as much genuinely informational and accountability journalism as the national press. In its heyday, it would fearlessly tackle difficult social, economic and political issues, and would routinely challenge corporate and public authority. It would, in other words, regularly provide huge national audiences with exactly the kind of democracy-enhancing journalism that newspaper editors profess to worry about today. And here’s the irony: it was because of, not in spite of, a protective regulatory framework that the health and survival of its journalism could be guaranteed. As that protective regulatory framework diminishes, and as competition intensifies, great television journalism is under threat. It has already virtually disappeared in the United States, where the legacy of Edward R. Murrow and other revered journalistic voices from the past were long ago overwhelmed by an unregulated market that cared little for the democratic role of journalism. And now it is under threat not just in the United Kingdom but in many other developed and developing countries whose politicians are being seduced into believing that the marketplace is the universal panacea.