Four of Britain’s best political commentators clashed tonight at an evening ostensibly to mark the shortlist for the Reuters sponsored George Orwell Prize for political writing. It turned in to a rather bitter argument between Steve Richards (The Independent) and Peter Oborne (The Mail) over whether politicians or journalists are to blame for a perceived lack of honesty in politics. Along with Michael Cockerell (BBC) and Bruce Anderson (The Independent) they lamented the passing of an age when politicians and journalists knew their respective places and spin was something that tops did. There were brilliantly rude exchanges which generated wonderful heat on a cold Docklands night. But why were these big beasts of the commentariat jungle fighting each other when they should be worried about their own extinction?
Paul Mason (Newsnight) in the audience asked a good question about how the media could engage younger people in politics but this was largely ignored as was any reference to New Media. I am sure that Orwell would not have made the same mistake. I reckon that if he were alive today he would be blogging and networking online. The reason that political commentary is the only game in newspapers is because factual reporting is all now done on 24 hour TV news and online. But even the comment function could disappear as blogs and social networking sites take over the job of analysis, opinion-mongering and debate. I hope that people like our quarrelsome quartet will be found roaming the new media landscape because we need their insight and experience. But we also need them to stop talking to each other and start listening and communicating with the wider world out there. The public hasn’t given up on politics or even political journalism. It is simply that they are doing it for themselves. It is time for journalists to join in the big conversation.
Yes, I enjoyed this programme too, though I only caught up with it last night – usually too busy on the internet ;0)
You might guess from my name that I found Steve Richards’ contributions much more to my taste than those of Peter Oborne. But that only goes to prove that it is human nature to listen to or to read, those with whom we have something in common. And that explains many of the unforgiving, judgemental blog writing. After all complainers complain, contended people remain quietly contended. When we look at political writing, blog and journalistic scribblings need to be “weighed” for this natural tendency.
Jean Seaton who teaches politics had some enlightening thoughts too.
I’m afraid Oborne comes from a convinced anti-Blair position, so visceral that there was no measure to his tone, and he seemed easily dismissed by those who referred back to other premiers’ “lies”. His constant and misleading reference to the “fact” that Blair “lied” was countermanded by the argument that “lying” was normal for premiers. In fact, it sounded as though other PMs had made much more of a habit of bending the truth than the present PM.
It seems to me that those who resent Blair for Iraq or for New Labour or for cash-for-honours or for some other policy are desperate at his ability to survive. Thus they scrabble around trying to pin “a lie” on the man as the unforgiveable sin for which we should hang him from Tower Bridge. After the trial in The Hague, of course!