The Guardian has been running a series of features under the name ‘Tax-Gap’ over the past couple of weeks. I have read a number of the articles which show how companies based in the UK are avoiding UK tax contributions by locating parts of their business, such as trademarks and brand names, in low duty countries such as Ireland, Switzerland and Holland.
The campaign has impressed me because the Guardian has actively put on the news agenda an issue that is of interest to the public especially in the current economic climate in which tax payers money is being used to stabilise the economy. But what power do the media have in prompting action by the government in relation to the issues it raises?
On the front of the Guardian on Thursday 19th February, nearly two weeks after the ‘Tax-Gap’ series started, the leading story was titled, “Brown targets Switzerland in global tax haven crackdown”. It reports that Gordon Brown has been negotiating with world leaders a tough regulatory system for tax and banking that will cover every country. The framework is likely to be discussed at the G20 summit in London in April, which Brown will chair.
It would be niave to say that Gordon Brown’s action is a direct result of the Guardian’s campaign or that it is just a coincidence that the story appears on the front page. However I think it is fair to say it makes a difference by putting the issue in the public realm and creating a feeling that this is something the public want addressed. The government will have been well aware of the Guardian’s campaign and the potential feelings the campaign invokes in the public.
This is where the media plays a vital role in holding government accountable in a way the average Joe never could. The homepage says: “[The series] has taken a team of specialists more than three months and involved checking scores of trademark registers and sets of company accounts in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Ireland.”
In the ‘Reaction to the tax-gap series’ page on the Guardian website one commenter says:
“What you are doing is what I feel is one of the primary reasons for papers to exist. Keep up the good work" Alan C Rollins, Tallahassee, Florida, 8 February
I would tend to agree.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Pressure from the Spin Doctor and the News Desk - A lecture with Michael White
Today I went to a lecture by Michael White, Assistant Poltical Editor for the Guardian. Michael has been with the Guardian for over 30 years and before that worked in local news.
He talked a lot about how the media had changed since he joined a newspaper and I wanted to highlight a couple of the things he said as they relate to the increasing influence political communication has in shaping the news agenda.
The first thing Michael said was that the media is now driven by market forces and by technological developments (new media).
1) The media is a hugely competitive market in which newspapers, broadcasters, news agencies and radio stations are competing to break stories first and provide the best and most sensational content.
2) Technological developments have transformed the speed and methods of reporting news. Rather than having 3 news bulletin a day people can keep up with what is happening 24/7 through the internet and television. Furthermore it is no longer acceptable to just do newspapers, or just do broadcasting. To compete in the news market you have to provide content through a variety of mediums.
What this has done is put pressure on reporters to deliver content that is better than their competitors’, in the quickest possible time.
In line with the increasing capability and competition within the media, spin doctors have emerged to try and influence political news. It is now a battle between the media and the spin merchants to control the news agenda.
Michael made this point by saying, you have the spin doctor on one phone, and you have the news desk on the other phone both putting on pressure. It means you don’t get the privilege and space to develop your own ideas as much anymore.
What this does is leave journalists continually questioning themselves,
Am I wrong or are they wrong?
Am I seeing what I think I am seeing, or am I seeing what I am told I am seeing?
What was also interesting was that he said, when referring to Westminster politics: “The chamber is empty but Abingdale Green is full.” (The green outside Parliament where camera crews do interviews etc). It seems that just as much political work is done outside of parliament as it is done inside these days.
Multi-media journalism seems like a cut throat world when thought of like this - Keep on top of the technology and be hungry for the competition is the advice I took!
He talked a lot about how the media had changed since he joined a newspaper and I wanted to highlight a couple of the things he said as they relate to the increasing influence political communication has in shaping the news agenda.
The first thing Michael said was that the media is now driven by market forces and by technological developments (new media).
1) The media is a hugely competitive market in which newspapers, broadcasters, news agencies and radio stations are competing to break stories first and provide the best and most sensational content.
2) Technological developments have transformed the speed and methods of reporting news. Rather than having 3 news bulletin a day people can keep up with what is happening 24/7 through the internet and television. Furthermore it is no longer acceptable to just do newspapers, or just do broadcasting. To compete in the news market you have to provide content through a variety of mediums.
What this has done is put pressure on reporters to deliver content that is better than their competitors’, in the quickest possible time.
In line with the increasing capability and competition within the media, spin doctors have emerged to try and influence political news. It is now a battle between the media and the spin merchants to control the news agenda.
Michael made this point by saying, you have the spin doctor on one phone, and you have the news desk on the other phone both putting on pressure. It means you don’t get the privilege and space to develop your own ideas as much anymore.
What this does is leave journalists continually questioning themselves,
Am I wrong or are they wrong?
Am I seeing what I think I am seeing, or am I seeing what I am told I am seeing?
What was also interesting was that he said, when referring to Westminster politics: “The chamber is empty but Abingdale Green is full.” (The green outside Parliament where camera crews do interviews etc). It seems that just as much political work is done outside of parliament as it is done inside these days.
Multi-media journalism seems like a cut throat world when thought of like this - Keep on top of the technology and be hungry for the competition is the advice I took!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Political Point Scoring - Defection to the Tories
On the front of the Sunday Times today was a story titled ‘Tories steal welfare guru from Brown’. It reported the defection of David Freud, the government’s chief advisor on welfare, to the Conservative party. He is expected to be made a peer in the coming week and take up a front bench position.
After reading the story the question left in my mind was, “Have the Conservatives lured Freud to their party because he is a capable politician with a shared ethos on welfare or is this a political strategy designed to damage the government?”
The answer is probably a bit of both.
The story cites Freud as meeting with George Osborne before the defection which suggests some form of vetting and consensus building. Still, in terms of the Labour – Conservative divide this is a strange move. Traditionally the approach taken to welfare by the two party’s is polar.
But maybe political positioning in this case is secondary to the damage it inflicts on the government by being splashed across the front page of a Sunday Newspaper. Is the timing just a coincidence? Were the Conservative Party comments quoted in the article made merely off the cuff? I very much doubt it.
I remember reading about the defection of the Conservative MP Alan Howarth to the Labour Party in 1995 in the run up to the 97 election. The announcement was carefully planned so as to inflict the greatest damage possible on the Conservative Party.
It is probably not a surprise then to see the latest YouGov poll embedded into the Sunday Times article showing the 12% lead the Tories currently have over Labour. This demonstrates the toll stories like this are having on the government.
All in all it's a good day on the political strategy front for the Conservatives.
After reading the story the question left in my mind was, “Have the Conservatives lured Freud to their party because he is a capable politician with a shared ethos on welfare or is this a political strategy designed to damage the government?”
The answer is probably a bit of both.
The story cites Freud as meeting with George Osborne before the defection which suggests some form of vetting and consensus building. Still, in terms of the Labour – Conservative divide this is a strange move. Traditionally the approach taken to welfare by the two party’s is polar.
But maybe political positioning in this case is secondary to the damage it inflicts on the government by being splashed across the front page of a Sunday Newspaper. Is the timing just a coincidence? Were the Conservative Party comments quoted in the article made merely off the cuff? I very much doubt it.
I remember reading about the defection of the Conservative MP Alan Howarth to the Labour Party in 1995 in the run up to the 97 election. The announcement was carefully planned so as to inflict the greatest damage possible on the Conservative Party.
It is probably not a surprise then to see the latest YouGov poll embedded into the Sunday Times article showing the 12% lead the Tories currently have over Labour. This demonstrates the toll stories like this are having on the government.
All in all it's a good day on the political strategy front for the Conservatives.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Media, Communication and Society - An Introduction
Welcome to my new blog.
Over the last few years I have become increasingly aware of the power the media have in shaping peoples’ perceptions and educating them. At times I have been pleased to see the media exercise this power in a responsible manner and at times I have been outraged at the irresponsible approach they have taken.
My undergraduate dissertation concluded that a tabloid newspaper helped to create and reinforce misconceptions about asylum and immigration in the UK. For example, I found that asylum and immigration was put strongly on the news agenda in the aftermath of the London bombings in 2004. However the bombings had no direct connection to asylum seekers. Such association can intensify ethnic tensions in an already heated community.
Furthermore, last year I watched from a Muslim country, already uncomfortable with the perceptions of the west towards their country and culture, as the Archbishop of Canterbury was lamented in the British media for comments he made about Shariah law. These comments, in my opinion, were overblown and misrepresented by the media. It showed misunderstanding on the part of British culture towards Muslim culture. How do stories like this impact cultural understanding and international relations?
On the other hand the media plays a role in holding public institutions accountable and this is a core responsibility for it in a democratic society. Just a couple of weeks ago, undercover reporters from the Sunday Times exposed four House of Lord peers for offering to amend bills for their clients in return for money. This scoop is clear evidence of the media doing their job.
I was actually surprised to hear Lord Robert Winston on the BBC’s ‘This Week’ questioning the integrity of the media in recording the peers inside the House of Lords because it is banned to do so. To me it is more important for the media to expose the Peer’s alleged wrongdoing.
What has also become apparent to me is that the government recognise the power the media have in society and I believe a new paradigm has emerged in which political communication is primary to political position. I am nearing the completion of Alastair Campbell’s Diary and have been continually surprised at the extent of the power struggle he describes between the government and the media to shape the news.
For the next six months my blog will focus on highlighting these trends and seek to draw conclusions as to what role the media plays in British society, and to what extent this role is influenced by decision makers.
Over the last few years I have become increasingly aware of the power the media have in shaping peoples’ perceptions and educating them. At times I have been pleased to see the media exercise this power in a responsible manner and at times I have been outraged at the irresponsible approach they have taken.
My undergraduate dissertation concluded that a tabloid newspaper helped to create and reinforce misconceptions about asylum and immigration in the UK. For example, I found that asylum and immigration was put strongly on the news agenda in the aftermath of the London bombings in 2004. However the bombings had no direct connection to asylum seekers. Such association can intensify ethnic tensions in an already heated community.
Furthermore, last year I watched from a Muslim country, already uncomfortable with the perceptions of the west towards their country and culture, as the Archbishop of Canterbury was lamented in the British media for comments he made about Shariah law. These comments, in my opinion, were overblown and misrepresented by the media. It showed misunderstanding on the part of British culture towards Muslim culture. How do stories like this impact cultural understanding and international relations?
On the other hand the media plays a role in holding public institutions accountable and this is a core responsibility for it in a democratic society. Just a couple of weeks ago, undercover reporters from the Sunday Times exposed four House of Lord peers for offering to amend bills for their clients in return for money. This scoop is clear evidence of the media doing their job.
I was actually surprised to hear Lord Robert Winston on the BBC’s ‘This Week’ questioning the integrity of the media in recording the peers inside the House of Lords because it is banned to do so. To me it is more important for the media to expose the Peer’s alleged wrongdoing.
What has also become apparent to me is that the government recognise the power the media have in society and I believe a new paradigm has emerged in which political communication is primary to political position. I am nearing the completion of Alastair Campbell’s Diary and have been continually surprised at the extent of the power struggle he describes between the government and the media to shape the news.
For the next six months my blog will focus on highlighting these trends and seek to draw conclusions as to what role the media plays in British society, and to what extent this role is influenced by decision makers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)