Polly Toynbee: We need a rebellion against a press
Tony Blair was dead right about the British media. It's a fleet of runaway JCB diggers without driver or brakes, beyond accountability or control even by those who nominally run them.
Needless to say, with almost one voice the media turned the blame back on Blair: who was this spin maestro to throw stones? They have a point, up to a point. But there was no nanosecond's pause for reflection, not a moment for self-doubt. Blair's enemies of right and left, current and former editors, used every Blair sin from BAE to the 45-minute dossier as a good excuse to block their ears. Too rare investigations of serious wrongdoing and a pious claim to safeguard freedom were figleaf justifications for an unremitting dose of poison poured into public ears every day.
Article continues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there are good journalists, including those who write for venal owners, but few would claim these voices are the weather-makers in our tempestuous media. And even many of them feel the insidious undertow tugging towards ever more robust opinion.
It's a shame Blair never said this before he came to power or in his first heady days. It's a shame he forfeited much right to complain about the tiger he rode with such glee. Remember his disgraceful genuflections to the Sun, especially on the eve of election.
But above all, it's a shame Blair's speech omitted the root of the problem - the ownership structure he did nothing to break. Had he been brave, he could have restored media ownership rules to pre-Thatcher days. She let Murdoch burn the rulebook to acquire over 40% of newspaper ownership. She arranged a unique get-out clause in EU media law to allow him to launch Sky. Now as he stalks the Wall Street Journal, shudders run down American spines at the possibility of the owner of the New York Post and the corrosive Fox News seizing this business bastion. If he fails then the Financial Times fears he will instead devour that, and its owner Pearson. An eloquent protest against his Wall Street Journal bid came from the FT's economics writer, Martin Wolf: "How many even of his admirers would argue that Mr Murdoch for all his successes has created even one serious, authoritative and truly independent newspaper... Downmarket is the direction Mr Murdoch knows... [He] can take substantial credit for the tide of vulgarity that now floods the UK."
Has this anti-democratic power reached a no-turning-back point? Ask John Major. In his autobiography he dates his downfall from the day Murdoch turned against him. Winning his support may now be a necessity: at least he has fooled all leaders into thinking so. Blair could at least have challenged him in this speech and regretted his previous cowardice. He should have lambasted the Daily Mail as the most toxic current cultural force. But it was weak to pick on the Independent for the minor crime of putting its opinion page on the front cover....
Read entire article at The Guardian
Needless to say, with almost one voice the media turned the blame back on Blair: who was this spin maestro to throw stones? They have a point, up to a point. But there was no nanosecond's pause for reflection, not a moment for self-doubt. Blair's enemies of right and left, current and former editors, used every Blair sin from BAE to the 45-minute dossier as a good excuse to block their ears. Too rare investigations of serious wrongdoing and a pious claim to safeguard freedom were figleaf justifications for an unremitting dose of poison poured into public ears every day.
Article continues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there are good journalists, including those who write for venal owners, but few would claim these voices are the weather-makers in our tempestuous media. And even many of them feel the insidious undertow tugging towards ever more robust opinion.
It's a shame Blair never said this before he came to power or in his first heady days. It's a shame he forfeited much right to complain about the tiger he rode with such glee. Remember his disgraceful genuflections to the Sun, especially on the eve of election.
But above all, it's a shame Blair's speech omitted the root of the problem - the ownership structure he did nothing to break. Had he been brave, he could have restored media ownership rules to pre-Thatcher days. She let Murdoch burn the rulebook to acquire over 40% of newspaper ownership. She arranged a unique get-out clause in EU media law to allow him to launch Sky. Now as he stalks the Wall Street Journal, shudders run down American spines at the possibility of the owner of the New York Post and the corrosive Fox News seizing this business bastion. If he fails then the Financial Times fears he will instead devour that, and its owner Pearson. An eloquent protest against his Wall Street Journal bid came from the FT's economics writer, Martin Wolf: "How many even of his admirers would argue that Mr Murdoch for all his successes has created even one serious, authoritative and truly independent newspaper... Downmarket is the direction Mr Murdoch knows... [He] can take substantial credit for the tide of vulgarity that now floods the UK."
Has this anti-democratic power reached a no-turning-back point? Ask John Major. In his autobiography he dates his downfall from the day Murdoch turned against him. Winning his support may now be a necessity: at least he has fooled all leaders into thinking so. Blair could at least have challenged him in this speech and regretted his previous cowardice. He should have lambasted the Daily Mail as the most toxic current cultural force. But it was weak to pick on the Independent for the minor crime of putting its opinion page on the front cover....