It’s a regular cliche among Conservative politicians and commentators to complain that Tony Blair’s government changed the terms of media management by inventing a system of “political lying”.
It is trotted out in election campaigns to justify all manner of excess in the Tory media camp. But this is a bit like accusing Ukraine of invading Russia. Blair’s Faustian bargain with Murdoch, Rothermere and other tax-shy non-resident oligarchs was a response to facts on the ground, notably the abuse showered on Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock.
Peter Oborne, the High Tory writer, now an ex–Telegraph dissident, even wrote an over-confident book called The Rise of Political Lying. It left more innocent readers with the idea that a porkie had never fallen from Margaret Thatcher’s lips, let alone from other pre-Blair Titans at Westminster.
The Blair regime – Mandelson, Campbell and Brown – was less fastidious than it should have been. But the truth, as usual, is more complicated. The Tories have no need of a Mandelson or Campbell (they have certainly never found one, despite searching hard) because they have always outsourced their more blatant propaganda work.
Fleet St does it for them. It does so out of a mixture of sincere belief in the Tory case – it is important to concede that point, even in a bad year – and for cheerfully partisan self-interest. Rich men own most newspapers and wish to stay rich.
So who needs a Campbell when the crusty genius that is the Mail’s Paul Dacre rejoins the regiment for the duration of the campaign? Not-Sir-Paul has been battering smoothie Cameron with a Ukip cudgel (“why will NO ONE talk about immigration?”) for years, but not this week. Ditto the lesser talents in charge at the Telegraph.
As the Tory press wages the most partisan election campaign since 1992 – because it is also the closest – it’s worth reminding ourselves of these facts, especially because it will not end when the polling stations open on Thursday morning (or when they close). The word legitimacy is the one to watch. Even the knuckle-draggers have learned how to spell it.
Roy Greenslade tots up the reader numbers here. The Guardian’s media editor, Jane Martinson, sets out the partisan facts of the campaign here, citing the Telegraph as winner of the 2015 Cheerleaders Prize. I cannot vouch for that, having given up on that once solid paper long before Oborne, soon after the non-resident Barclay brothers, Dave and Fred, bought it, whereupon its coverage just got madder and dodgier. The Mail provides quite enough excitement at breakfast time for me – cheaper and better, too.
Ah, you may say, but the Guardian is also pretty partisan. Up to a point, Lord Copper (as Evelyn Waugh’s immortal novel, Scoop, put it). If you read the Guardian, the Indy or the FT you will see respectful amounts of space being given to the policies and arguments on all sides, including ones disapproved of in the three papers’ editorial stances. Those are Labour (Guardian this time) and continuity of Lib-Con coalition (FT and Indy).
I don’t think that’s routinely true of the others. The Mirror is always proudly Labour (the only reliable ally the party has). Rupert Murdoch’s Sun is basically working class, patriotic Tory, but opportunist enough to back winners, including Blair, Cameron (reluctantly) and Nicola Sturgeon. Mao Tse Tung in Beijing when commercial needs dictate.
It’s OK to be partisan. I have never been impressed by the lofty adherence to “objective” reporting preached in American journalism schools and exemplified by the New York Times, which is actually limousine liberal. But there are rules of good editorial behaviour which boil down to not wilfully misrepresenting the views of a political opponent.
We all fail this test at times. Serious papers partially rectify their shortcomings by publishing reproachful letters and hiring columnists to represent the other view.
The Times is far better at offering a spread of columnar diversity than the Mail or Telegraph, whose stridently partisan view goes through the paper (printed edition only, online is much more down and dirty) to the point where bad weather ahead is Red Ed’s fault alongside defeats in the Champions League.
But in this campaign the Times front page has been conspicuously partisan, running repeated lead stories which stress Miliband’s “lies” on Labour’s past spending record (a disputed assertion) or his dependence, current or prospective, on Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP or Len McCluskey’s Unite cheque book.
Of course, it’s a Murdoch paper and Murdoch, like the Barclays or the Mail’s Lord Rothermere, has more than a disinterested hostility towards Labour’s tax proposals (not that they are under any direct threat from income tax hikes). But it’s a serious paper and a pretty good one. I can’t be the only regular subscriber to feel disappointed. In fairness its letters column is often quite critical.
All this matters more than ever to the health of our democracy. Not because newspapers have ever had the influence they claimed (how could Labour or the old Liberals EVER have won if they did?) but because they influence the broadcasters whose words do have cumulative impact on voters in a 24/7 era and, through them the social media environment.
So when I heard a BBC reporter on the radio on Tuesday talking about the “legitimacy” of Thursday night’s results I flinched again. As Alan Travis explains the Tory press is already cranking up to do a reverse ferret on its attitude towards the hung parliament which voters decreed in 2010.
Then it was “Brown the Downing St squatter” who stayed in place – quite correctly, says the cabinet manual of guidance – for five days until the Cameron/Clegg coalition deal was done. This time the boot may be on the other foot, but, as Jane Martinson predicts, coverage will be about “Miliband plots” not Tory squats.
Be prepared in the days ahead and beware the oligarch press. Remember how Al Gore allowed a close presidential election outcome in 2000 to be rolled over by ruthless Bush camp tactics in the “hanging chads” dispute in Florida. Just occasionally the political drama queens and conspiracy theorists have a point.
So when the oligarchs’ newspapers use the L-for-legitimacy word you are entitled to ask where their own legitimacy comes from. And where the oligarchs pay their taxes.
