I take as much interest in the process of news creation as in the news itself. Having already commented on how watching/reading the news often feels like journalists inhabit a parallel universe where they hear an entirely different language and therefore politicians mean something other than the words they actually speak, two articles written recently confirmed my suspicions.
You couldn't slip a page of free supplement paper between Brian Cathcart's 'Reading the political codes' in the New Statesman and Peter Wilby's 'Catch of the day' in the Guardian.
They both dealt with journalists' tendency to read all kinds of fanciful imaginings into whatever politicians say and both manage to weave Pifflegate into their articles. However, there was nothing coded about Boris Johnson's rubbishing of the notion of 'broken Britain', one of his own leader's key slogans though it undoubtedly stems from Boris's off-messageness and the fact that it is simply a slogan rather than a true characterisation of the nature of modern Britain.
If they had wanted the media could have developed Boris's remark and David Davis resignation into a wider narrative about splits and divisions within the Conservative Party but they didn't. Instead, they continue to insert meaning into every gap, pause and ommission in government ministers' utterances.
Are they simply decoding dissembling politicians or creating the news?
1 comment:
I agree that journalists are tricksy when it comes to reporting politics, but I saw Alistair Darling talking on the BBC and he really didn't do himself any favours by not answering the question of whether there will be an income tax rise. It's the stamp duty debacle all over again ... (sigh). I want them to work out their policies before they talk to the press - it'll give much better press lines!
Post a Comment