The past few weeks have been intensely embarrassing ones for the British media. Though we’re not verging on journalism’s expenses scandal, it is becoming increasingly obvious the extent to which the modern press are happy to run stories based on little more than conjecture; and do the rumour spreader’s job for them.
We heard one day that Charles Kennedy was imminently going to defect to the Labour Party. What was the basis for this? A shady briefing to friendly journalists, probably from within Camp Mili-E. This factless speculation worked its way through the press to the front of the broadsheets. Any sources quoted? Anywhere? No. But still good enough to print as fact. A couple of days later and we learn the rumours were groundless.
It was a similar story with Boris Johnson, who was definitely going to resign as Mayor if his Crossrail budget got cut. Was he really though, or did someone just pick up a rumour in the pub? Either way it got printed, then retracted, and we learn it had no basis in truth.
The shift of political power from the floor of the Commons to its press gallery has been well noted, and explored even more through the raft of New Labour memoirs out recently. But the problem is that it means most of what lies behind political journalism today are the carefully spun machinations of the rumour mill, spilling out of hacks’ offices through dodgy press officers and even dodgier special advisors (see the Charlie Whelan/Ed Balls duo for a definition of this).
At the end of the day though, reporters don’t cling onto the words said in a Commons debate, or scrutinise the statements of ministers. They wait around for the next leak dropped on their desk, and hang onto the hearsay casually mentioned in the press gallery. There’s nothing wrong with press briefings, and indeed the modern political press is brilliantly lively, but we do need to re-establish some basic standards or they will simply lose the public’s trust.
(P.S. Perhaps the strongest example of rumour stretched too far is the now silent story of the murdered MI6 agent. Out of some murky source came the idea that he might have been gay (landlord never saw him bring back a girl). What does that mean Daily Mail? Possibly gay man dies in suspicious circumstances? That’s clearly a drunk drug fuelled sex orgy romp death isn’t it! A couple of days later, after saturating the national papers with slanderous speculation, the more astute reader may have spotted a retraction. He wasn’t gay, there was no porn stashed in his flat, and there was definitely no bondage den. The Daily Mail print a comment piece lambasting their bad sources (read rumours). If you’re going to base your front page on such awful sources, you should probably point it out at the time.)
