Media The year of living dangerously Politicians can usually rely on the press to back ‘tough on drugs’ stances. But not always. By Malcolm Dean

In his evidence to the Leveson inquiry the independent Police Foundation open mind” as did The Evening Standard; into press ethics, former Conservative published what became known as while The Daily Mail, which placed an minister Chris Patten criticised the Runciman report, after its Chair, extract from its editorial in the middle politicians for seeking close relationships Dame Ruth Runciman. It was the of its front page declaring that “despite with newspaper proprietors saying most comprehensive review of drugs this paper’s instinctive reservations they had ‘demeaned themselves’ legislation for a quarter of a century. over a more relaxed approach to drugs, by ‘grovelling’ to the likes of Rupert Ministers expected the tabloids to treat we believe the issue deserves mature Murdoch. Arguably, nowhere is this kow- the report with the vitriol and vilification and rational debate.” Most astonishing towing more obvious than in the arena they traditionally pour over progressive of all was the response of The Telegraph. of drug policy, and explains much of the proposals. For once this did not happen. In an extraordinary editorial, given reason why most politicians refuse even Ministers were handed a copy of the its previously hard line approach, it to engage in the debate about reform, let report at the on Friday 25 proclaimed: “We are moving reluctantly alone propose changes. March, three days before its publication to the view that Dame Runciman is Policy-making is a complex process. on the following Monday. , who asking the right questions.” In fact the I watched it closely for 38 years from was then , informed Ruth paper went further than the report a Guardian desk. It’s a tangled mix, of Runciman that the government would suggesting the government should draw new events, old promises, bureaucratic be unable to introduce its proposals for up plans to legalise cannabis on an loyalties, party allegiances, manifesto political reasons. Mo Mowlam, the Drugs experimental basis. pledges, pressure group campaigns, Minister, who was also present at the What to do in the face of this think tank and select committee reports, hand-over, did suggest “Don’t you think unexpected burst of media liberalism? research findings, and legislative we should read it first Jack?” Undeterred, Government spin doctors changed tack, cooking time, among other factors. What Straw and other fellow ministers moved suggesting ministers were taking the surprised me during the five years it quickly to get their retaliation in first. report seriously. Jack Straw told The took me to write my book on the media There was a run of stories in the Observer there was “a borderline case” impact on policy, was the extent of Sunday papers rejecting the proposals for softening the law on ecstasy, but in right wing tabloid influence on such even before their publication. “Pleas a column in the hard line News of the emotional social issues as drugs, along for softer drug laws will be thrown out” World on the same day, he declared there with penal and immigration policy, (The Sunday Express), “Drugs hard line would be no reclassification of cannabis. because of the tabloids’ ability to fan stays” (The Mail on Sunday), “Government What prompted the media’s change public fears and prejudices. to reject drug law relaxation” (The of tone? The Express was not a surprise. In my recently published book Independent on Sunday). These and other Rosie Boycott, who in her days at The Democracy Under Attack – how the media similar press reports were reinforced Independent on Sunday had campaigned distort policy and politics, the drugs chapter by Charles Clarke, minister responsible for the decriminalisation of cannabis, draws a parallel between the influence for police matters, on the BBC’s Sunday had become Express Editor. The Guardian the tabloid press applies to ministers and morning political show, who declared interviewed Charles Moore, editor of the influence Rupert Murdoch applies there would be no weakening of , on his switch. He to his editors. Murdoch does not need penalties because that would “signal explained: “We are making criminals of to issue daily edicts because his editors taking drugs is OK.” hundreds of thousands of people even know what he wants. Ditto the tabloids Following publication, ministers were though they are not particularly wicked.” and ministers. They know what the suddenly thrown onto the back foot. As it happened, Dame Runciman sat tabloids want and too frequently policy The Express noted that ministerial “knee on the Press Complaints Commission is adjusted accordingly. jerk reactions won’t help the police”; on which Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of Just occasionally, however, the The Mirror insisted the proposals should the Mail papers was also a member. He politicians get it wrong. In March 2000, be “discussed intelligently and with an had many opportunities to see how well

12 | Druglink March/April 2012 informed and intelligent she was. He is Most astonishing of counter to public opinion as recorded known to be influenced by the people all was the response by the polls. A survey for the Runciman he meets. The message went out that commission found only 0.5% of people the report should be treated seriously. of the Telegraph. thought action against cannabis should The facts that it set out clearly showed In an extraordinary be a police priority. As long ago as 1994, a the current policy was not working. MORI poll found 80 per cent of the public A country with some of the toughest editorial, …it wanting a more relaxed approach to the drugs laws of any developed state had proclaimed: “We are control of cannabis. the highest proportion of drug users. It is my contention that the media The analysis was accepted, but not the moving reluctantly is more at fault than the politicians proposals. to the view that [Dame for the failure to modernise our drug That year, the media delivered laws. True, a succession of politicians another unexpected whammy to Ruth] Runciman is from both major parties have reverted politicians over tough talk on drugs. asking the right to tough hard line rhetoric in the hope At the annual Conservative Party of currying favour with the electorate. conference, Ann Widdecombe, imagining questions.” True, the politicians should have been she was playing to receptive media more ready to stand up to the tabloids ears, declared that people caught in formerly of The Sun, The Mirror and and to recognise that the papers do not possession of cannabis a second time, now chief media commentator for entirely reflect public opinion.T he public no matter how small an amount, should Guardian Online, wrote in the same issue are ready to accept more progressive be sent to prison. There would be no of Druglink: “what the media tend to policies. They do not want to see their cautions or “hiding places” for such achieve, however, is surely the opposite children being given criminal records. people. The media quickly discovered of their proclaimed intention. Rather But it is the media that has prevented a the police had not even been asked than turn young people away from drugs, serious public debate taking place on our whether this was workable. And The Mail it entices them. Both the act of drug- outdated legislation. on Sunday followed up with an exclusive taking and the fact that it is done illicitly Runciman concluded after its survey revealing that seven shadow is glamourised. Instead of turning people exhaustive survey that the 1971 cabinet ministers had tried cannabis away from drugs and crime, it reinforces Act passed to categorise drugs by in their youth. The Guardian headline their desire to mimic the famous.” harmfulness no longer reflected modern summed up the media coverage: “How Worse still is the degree to which in scientific, medical or sociological Tory drug policy went up in smoke.” general, the media prevent a serious evidence. Twelve years ago the media However, anybody who imagined that discussion of drugs by its eagerness to accepted this message, but then forgot these examples heralded a sea-change demonise the users. As the Royal Society about it. The fault lines set out in 2000 in media reporting on drugs at the dawn of Arts Commission on Illegal Drugs, are still as relevant in 2012 some 41 of the new millennium would have been Communities and Public Policy, which years after the passage of the 1971 Act. sorely disappointed. Tabloid coverage of reported in 2007, noted: “Demons are It is time that The Mail and The Telegraph drugs is generally dire. As a special issue diabolical, evil spirits and are therefore remembered their earlier editorials and of Druglink on media coverage noted in to be slain. In our view, using such acted on them. 2006, even the General Secretary of the language and thinking in such terms National Union of Journalists, Jeremy is childish, if not mediaeval. It stifles n Malcolm Dean spent 38 years working Dear, was critical: “…all too often the national and realistic debate and makes for The Guardian. His book. Democracy nature of the reporting on drug-related it harder, not easier, to deal with the very Under Attack – how the media distort issues is superficial, relies on stereotypes serious matters at hand.” policy and politics is published by the and scare stories.” Or, as Roy Greenslade, Ironically, much media coverage runs Policy Press.

March/April 2012 Druglink | 13