July 29, 2003
A Distinct Lack of Debate
In today’s New York Times, Paul Krugman wonders if Tony Blair’s troubles over the David Kelly affair are a sign of things to come for President Bush.
The Labour Party – Blair’s party, currently in power – have been involved in a remarkable war of words with the BBC that has hurt the credibility of both sides. But as a Briton who spent half of last year in America, I believe the reason for this whole debate – and Blair’s troubles – is that this story simply couldn’t happen in the United States. Why? Because the American media would be too scared to start it.
Let me explain my reasoning.
The entire affair was started by an allegation by the BBC. This was not a public allegation by the Conservative Party (the party not currently in power); it was not a public allegation by a politician, or by someone involved with the Ministry of Defence. On BBC Radio 4's Today programme, reporter Andrew Gilligan quoted the still-anonymous David Kelly, and prefaced the quote with:
"But what I have been told is that the government knew that claim was questionable even before the war, even before they wrote it in their dossier."
Gilligan's report wasn't pre-screened by the BBC; he made the allegation live on air. And there's the difference between American and British news agencies – the British networks aren't so afraid of the government that scripts and reports must be pre-screened by editors [article mirrored here].
Essentially, it's a cultural issue. Tony Blair, while not being directly accessible by the media, is a damn sight more accessible than President Bush. Every Wednesday when the House of Commons is in session, he faces direct questioning from members of the House [RealVideo from 2nd July]. Most of the time, this consists of inanities, such as enquiries about the progress of the Department of Transport in getting a road bypass ordered to save the squirrel population of Chipping Sodbury. But in the middle of crises such as the Kelly affair, it means that the Prime Minister cannot duck behind a series of press secretaries and advisors.
(Of course, he can claim that other, more pressing, engagements must take priority – but the House would generally not stand that for more than one week before his deputy would be facing some very pointed questions indeed.)
The White House staff, on the other hand, are used to having reporters question them gently. If a reporter brings up a tough question, no problem, just evade it. But over here, the Prime Minister answers questions not from the press corps – who can easily be replaced – but directly from his elected opponents, and directly from the man who would take his place if he lost the next election. And that debate is broadcast around the world.
In Britain, the leader must answer questions. The media must, by law, be unbiased. (In fact, the independent regulator is already sniffing around Fox News.) And those two factors mean that Blair is already in trouble.
I wonder what the same openness would do for the United States.
Posted by Thomas Scott at July 29, 2003 11:09 AMThis is another reason to oppose the trend towards consolidation in the media industry (see recent FCC ruling and House opposition). As the media grows more concentrated, it has a larger interest in courting favors with those in power.
On the other hand, the BBC is hardly an example of an unbiased media source. Al Giordano has a nice opinion piece on journalism and objectivity. The only way to avoid this problem is not to strive towards unbiased media (unrealistic goal), it’s to encourage a large number of biased voices and allow the ensuing analysis and debate to bring the “truth” to the surface. In the current American media landscape, this is not the case. We have a handful of large news providers providing plenty of bias without allowing opposing bias to cancel this out.
-Chris
Posted by: Chris Karr at July 29, 2003 11:23 AMSo how many people actually think it was a suicide?
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at July 29, 2003 02:05 PMWell i dont know. Conspiracy theories suck because they only raise questions. If you were Tony Blair would you do something so rash and completely obvious? Can anyone say Vince Foster?
If he was murdered it would mean that Tony Blair, a liberal socialist, is evil. True evil and truly corrupt. To make an allegation such as that is very strong indeed and needs to be backed up by fact and fact alone. The BBC is biased and that is ok.
“A July 23 editorial in London’s Daily Telegraph points out that “BBC journalism exhibits the same ‘agenda-setting’ mentality… The BBC’s bias against the war led it into grotesque distortion of reality.” History repeats itself. Winston Churchill’s access to the radio broadcasting state monopoly in the 1930s was blocked by John Reith, the BBC director, who was an admirer of both Hitler and Mussolini. Radio broadcasting was then the only way Churchill could reach the masses and inform Britons about the growing Nazi threat. But Reith was an appeaser, like Prime Ministers Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain. Reith wrote in his diary that the Nazis “would clean things up,” and about Churchill: “I absolutely hate him.”“
I’m pretty much certain it’s suicide for two reasons - first of all, as pete says, I don’t think Blair would do something so rash and obvious. But secondly, I don’t think the British government is competent enough to keep something like that quiet if it wanted to…
Posted by: Thomas Scott at July 29, 2003 03:16 PM
