±«Óãtv

Why didn't Blair make these media criticisms before he spent all these years courting Rupert Murdoch?

His attempts to sidle up to News International and it's hundreds of subsidiary news publications (including bastions of fact-based reporting such as Sky, Fox etc) even caused Murdoch to publicly comment that Blair and Brown would call him asking him to come visit whenever he was in town!

Me thinks he doth protest too much...

He has a very valid point. The politician was responsible to the electorate for his actions and responsibilities. Those in Government responsible for their actions to Parliament and the press reported on this. Now the politician is responsible to an increasingly hostile press driven my ratings and sales rather than honest assesment of the situation. The increse in 'analysts' and 'experts' on the news who go over speeches like a solicitor and a legal document means the one wrongly placed word can mean weeks of press coverage. Newspapers and other press needs to stop hounding flashy headlines and start presenting more balanced facts from both sides of the political world.

I think there is some truth to what blair is saying in that since the advent on 24 hour news networks and the commercialization of news, news has become less of a public service done by media coroporations and more of a product in its own right - which it turns out is sold best by catering the lowest denominator. That being said there is still good reporting be done in the new york times and the ±«Óãtv, however, it seems that more and more newspapers and news programs are going the way of the tabloid. This media trend does not absolve Blair of the mistakes he made going into Iraq but he makes some valid points.

It is true that the Blair government received favourable press coverage especially in the early days but that does not affect the content of what the Prime Minister is saying.
Many will agree that getting an exclusive story whether it relates to politics or an individual is the main
object of a journalist's job and to make a greater impact they sometimes overstep the mark of good journalism and sensationalise the story.
This will make anyone circumspect in deciding whether to expose oneself and their families to derision by getting involved in politics.Trial by journalism is not a good way to govern the country.

Blair has a point. When the media starts commenting on a piece of news rather than publicizing facts, it's skewing viewers' points of view. Unfortunately, it is these comments that viewers opine on, rather than making their own analysis of the situations. How much of the population actually cares about politics in oppose to the gossips about politics? And it is these comments that allow viewers to have something to gossip about.

However, having said that, I think ±«Óãtv has been doing a great job as a news media. Comparing various news site that I read every day, I find ±«Óãtv to have the most fact, to be the least biased and has the least commentaries. And that is why, despite ±«Óãtv having most typos, I choose ±«Óãtv news as the first news site that I go on every morning. I hope the fierce competition of the media world will not change the ±«Óãtv's style of reporting unbiased facts.

I agree with Blair when he says journalists spend just as much time analysing what the politician says as reporting when they say it. I find this unhelpful and a complete waste of time, the journalist's personal analysis adds little understanding to the situation (in straight news reporting, Nick's blog of course is immune) and the air time/column inches would be better spent covering any number of global situations which will soon affect us, for example human rights abuses in Iran.

Tony Blair is absolutely right. There have been times when the opportunism of the media completely blurred real issues for discussion, a disservice to the viewer and listener. Personal attacks of no real substance became the news. The media are the real originators of spin, Tony Blair just knew how to turn it around and this has been the real angst for them. The media are a powerful beast, people believe what the media tells them to believe, codes of conduct are cosmetic. Its time the media took stock of its influence and responsibilities in society which is not to be an alternative opposition party.

He speaks the truth. Politicians are watched by the media but who watches the media? They are a law unto themselves almost wholly unaccountable and often full of self righteousness. The Islamic world often teaches that the west will rot and collapse. They sit like vultures watching and waiting for the sick animal (the west) to die, which is inevitable if something massive does not change.

What's that phrase about having your cake and eating it?

It seems sensationalism is all well and good if you (the Government and its policies) want to look good and raise awareness but not if you are made to look foolish or it highlights poorly considered options. So, Tony, I guess the lesson is think before you leak.

On a wider point, he's right to highlight the change in how the media act; it is now no longer the survival of the fittest but survival of the fastest. Got your running shoes, Nick?

TRUTH or FACT: In this I tend to agree 100% with Tony Blair. The media is excellent at uncovering and validating facts but very rarely is it it prepared to do the hard thinking to report the truth of a story - not just in Politics but generally. Whilst the media has a duty to expose hypocracy and error it does not leave room for the complexity or the Truth of the issues involved.

As a result the public are fed an increasingly simplistic and cynical view of the world.

I get very fed up with the two extremes of opinion offered by the media and their perpetual interpretation of the events - are we no longer to think for ourselves. Everything is rubbished. Minority views are given biggest weight. Once the media gets it tallons into something, right or wrong it is torn to bits. You can almost predict it. My best friend, daughter, son and husband don't watch the news any more. It just depresses me, offends me, frustrates me. Nothing is sacred any more. The country is demeaned by it - it has no identity, morals and it is unpatriotic.

A lot of what he says is very valid. While one is angry at New labour's spin and attempts to manage message on everything, the media has caused the atmosphere Blair describes, where analysis is given more credence often than fact.The Beeb in particular and other outlets need to understand that people are not interested in their "expert" analysis every time. Often the analysis is a lot less than expert. One is also fed up with every major news stort now featuring a lot of ±«Óãtv experts all talking to each other, while the principals in the story are rarely interviewed - hteir contribution taken in short sound bites.
News coverage is coming down to the lowest common denominator. If it ain't football, sex or personality led, its ain't "newsworthy".

I think the points raised in this speech are very true. There has definitely been a shift towards tabloid style reporting with sensational headlines becoming the norm.

The continual interviewing of people for comment often just shows up how little meat there actually is to the 'story'.

In response to Ed's post - I think we should think about how the media acts and ignore the fact the person making the speech happens to be a political leader.

I am absolutely amazed that he considers the Independent as being the metaphor 'Viewspaper' -does he mean biased? I assume he must not read the Murdoch press or he would find far better examples.

I think there is some truth to what blair is saying in that since the advent on 24 hour news networks and the commercialization of news, news has become less of a public service done by media coroporations and more of a product in its own right - which it turns out is sold best by catering the lowest denominator. That being said there is still good reporting be done in the new york times and the ±«Óãtv, however, it seems that more and more newspapers and news programs are going the way of the tabloid.
Moreover, the media seems not to question the government before the event and pass on government propoganda without scrutiny and then when things have gone wrong sensationalize the events and obscure any lessons to be learned from the mistakes. This media trend does not absolve Blair of the mistakes he made going into Iraq but he makes some valid points.

How ironic, coming from the Master of Spin...

It strikes me that commercial news outlets were purely driven by impact for many years before labour got into office. What's really noticeable now is the increased government interference with regulating the public service broadcasters.

If they need ratings to justify their licence fee and can't speak out against the government due to fears of more regulation from politicians or reductions in their grant, you will get sensationalism to compete with Murdoch and an unbalanced or timid coverage of any issue involving politics.

Though Alex Douglas-±«Óãtv was the first UK premier really to exploit media opportunities, the relationship between politicians and the media only started to deteriorate seriously during the Thatcher years. However, it took a nosedive when Labour hired Alistair Campbell and his army of press officers. It was the culture of short-term gains and obsession with tomorrow's headlines that brought us to where we are today, more than increased competition (a typical Blair red herring diversionary tactic). So, Blair simply may not complain. He sowed the spinning wind and he (and we) are now reaping the whirlwind.

Blair is right.

I have been bleating on about this for some time now to my friends and family. Boring? Perhaps, but if we live in a media environment where everyone at every point is demolished then one must, by virtue of that kind of journalism, that no one can be trusted in the slightest. That is either where we are or where we are headed - I vote for the former.
It is sad, but I do not see a way out of this. The need for attention-grabbing story will further intensify and sensationalism and scandal will continue to be common currency.

I don't think Blair did that. Think pre-Blair and back to the 1992 election and the seeds were sown then.

All this from the King of spin, and untruths. Very noble and righteous. The guy lives in a greenhouse, but still throws stones!

This is the Prime Minister who above any other Prime Ministers has courted and had a very close relationshipwith the media.

No other Prime Minister would have been able to get away with what he has got away with and still be in power. lets be honest here we all know that Alistair Campbell and Rupert Murdoch decide what we believe. The Sun decides who should be Prime Minister each each election and the public follow suit.

Murdoch has told Blair its time to go or else he will turn the media tide against him and force him out.

So it does Blair really expect us to believe him when he talks about the media????

I feel Blair is pretty spot on. The media's (particularly the press) constant 'you don't need to buy us' refrain is wearing very thin. Journalists are utterly unnacountable in a way that those in the Public Sector, or even business (shareholders) are, (ie, to do better, in a positive sense, all the time). Their accountability depends on the most shocking; on the ability to get us to pay them attention at any cost. This ultimately has to drive standards down. I do wonder, however, if this is a relatively 'British' issue; is it as prevalent in our European neighbours?

I have great sympathy with Blairs comments.

What we have to realise is that it is a vicious circle, the poltiicans spin to try and get around press cynicism, the press become yet more cynical to get around the spin.

There is no conspiracy, there are good politicians and good journalists. But the culture that has been set in motion cannot be easily changed.

Blair could not say it before he went or else the media would have crucified him.

The Media inadvertently set impossible judgemental standards for everyone except themselves....

after all you don't bite your own hand...

As someone once said...insert your own name or the name of your loved ones in the bitter bile that is said about our leaders

Politican is going mad, brain is missing, etc and then put your own name or the name of a top journalist in the frame. Feels odd and unfair doesn't it?

So why do we treat our leaders as less than human?

More respect all around please

For once, I agree with Mr Blair. Too much opinion as opposed to neutral presentation of facts. And the most dangerous of it all is the mixing of both. The worst offender is FOX News where anchors openly play party politics.

I guess he's just blaming the media for a negative legacy he's left. If he's honest with himself - he should have made decisions that were good for the country and the people rather than good for his party. He is responsible for his actions and his decisions so he should not blame others. He is man enough to decide, he should be man enough to stand for what he decided. If he made a mistake, he should also be man enough for admit it.

Blair's backing enabled Torturer Bush to attack Iraq and cause tens of thousands of deaths. Now Feral Beast Blair resents criticism.

So its all right for Blair to lie through his teeth, create dodgy dossiers, run arround the world at tax payers exspense with his wife in tow to collect any freebies that may be available. Its all right to freeload holidays, make the office of PM look like a joke with his subservience to Bush but the media, who's job it is to inform the public, should not be allowed to report the facts, i think blair urgently needs an reality check followed by medical help.

I have followed Nick Robinson's reporting of political affairs since he took over from Andrew Marr. I think he is one of the problems as he always tries to make a story bigger than it is. He was always trying to make it look as if all the parliamentary Labour Party was against Tony Blair. I think he did a lot to undermine Tony Blair. I hope he will be even harder on Gordon Brown; after all he, Gordon Brown, has ruined all our pension schemes with his underhand taxes.

There's no doubt in my mind that the anticipation of a negative media response prevents or at least hinders the government from making important decisions, but I don't blame that on the media.

The media is just delivering what the British people want, negative news with catty soundbites. Just look at the 'Have Your Say' forums. The most popular messages are always the ones with the 'lifes-not-fair' message.

In a couple of months, GCSE grades come out. Dependant on how good the grades are, the papers will headline either that education standards have dropped, or that exam papers have gotten easier (both quoting a respectable source, of course). If they don't...if they dare to be positive, nobody will buy the paper.

There's nothing the media can do about it until we finally learn to look on the bright side.

How dare he, if the media is ferral what about the wild dog he employed to deal with the media.

Last year, MORI found that only 20% of people trust politicians to tell the truth. But only 16% trust journalists to tell the truth.

Blair is right to bemoan the primacy of opinion over reporting. And the increase in opinion pieces is probably the reason why trust is at a low level. Opinion isn't news, but it has infected it.

The ±«Óãtv is guilty in this. Rarely can one view a report from the Middle East, or about Kyoto, or about G W Bush, without the reporter's views forming a clear subtext.

When I lived in Germany, the main TV news of the evening was a short 15 minute affair.

Occasionally a really significant item of news would generate a comment piece. It was obvious that this was a comment piece because it had the letters "Kommentar" at the bottom of the screen and was not spoken by one of the regular newscasters.

Would it be worth the media adopting such a technique, maybe the simple label "opinion" whenever commentary is made to distinguish it from the actual news, or even separate the two out, into distinct blocks.

Maybe this will make people more aware of what is actually news, and hence factual and accurate, and what is commentary and hence opinion and possibly (probably?) unsubstantiated or just plain wrong.

Its got little to do with 'Blair courting Rupert Murdoch' or whatever. I think the thrust of what he was saying is that the way technology is changing media, i.e. making it so pervasive and hyperactive, is damaging standards. The ±«Óãtv article on the speech is a perfect example. The words 'feral beast' get put in the title, implying the article is a big aggressive attack on the media, when it wasn’t. That title is there for impact, not to inform, which is exactly what Blair is complaining about. Nowadays news is about infotainment as much as it is informing. Do we really need a politics blog? Do we even need 24hour news? People 60 years ago on average were probably better informed about things than they are now, despite having far less information thrown at them. That’s because the quantative increase in formation hasn’t been met with a qualitative increase. As Blair said, there's the same amount of light, just more heat. There's more information, but the vast majority of that extra stuff is either wrong of superficial.

If you look at 24hour news, although it’s more convenient since you can drop in and get the headlines every 15minutes, but most of the time on air is spent delivering breaking news which they have hardly any information about. What’s the point? Why not just spend some time getting the information together and give it to us in a proper format with some substance at 6 or 10 o clock or whatever?

I don't know anyone who actually think journalists rank that much higher than politicians in terms of openness and transparency; the only difference is that it doesn't matter if a journalist is a bit grubby as it all adds to the flavour.

I think Mr B's worried over nothing frankly and maybe his real motivation in all this gnashing of teeth is not to gain a clean and independant media but more to leverage an existing and shady one?

Well perhaps if Mr Blair hadn't ignored 2m people loudly telling him he was 'mislead' about Iraq, and didn't have buckets full of corruption, misbehaviour, and allegations of illegality about his ministers and close colleagues that he has every time tried to gloss over and cover up..........
Maybe he has a point.

But to be credible he should first take to task those responsible for denying the British people sleaze free accountable government over the last few years.

Starting with himself.

I think that Blair is right about the media. I think they are out of control. Day after day they mix up opinions and facts. When the run of people to interview they routinely interview each other and give even more media opinion and commentary. I think the only way forward is to fine media organisations every time they give a confusing picture of fact and opinion.

I have seen first hand what Blair is talking about. In the US this has already happened where the majority of the news stories are biased sensationalism and saturated with opinions in order to attract a niche audience (as catering to specific niches usually attracts a larger audience; see Fox News.) Blair's concern over this is a valid one.

I have to agree with Tony Blair.. Sometimes it is easier to reflect on what you done after you have done it, when you are leaving or left.. sometimes i find it more worrying that we critise reflection..

People sometimes forget that news is business, business has shareholders and owners who demand profit (and sometimes editing), you only get profits from readership or viewers.. the money is made in the mass audiences..

Most people know that newspapers have agendas, but over time people forget where they learnt or read or heard something and maybe report to friends as a fact..

Local newspapers and local radio stations are sometimes far worse at reporting in a balanced fashion and you notice (even miss) the quality of journalism and editing you see at a UK level.

Tie this into it is pointless to report anything to Press Complaints, they have no teeth, you may get a "sorry" in a small box hidden away and the newspaper will not forget..

The only way to change it is better legalisation and a stronger complaints body, BUT who would have the guts to take on the businesses who control most of our information?

Blair, of course, is right. It is one of the few things he has ever said that strikes me as completely honest and correct. The journos will respond in florid indignation, in defence of their profession and their right to flog a story to within an inch of its life. They will also accuse him of appalling hypocrisy, which may be hard to defend given his years of spin (it does smack a little of faded labourites like Hattersley and Blunkett who end up writing about their dogs or their memoirs in the Daily Mail). But regarding the main point; it is undeniably true that:
- the most powerful men in the country are the media owners - they set the agenda and destroy careers;
- politicians spend a disproportionate and damaging amount of time worrying about how things will 'play' in the media;
- the rise of tabloid media men into positions of power in political parties (Coulson, Campbell) is further support for his argument.. and is itself a very worrying trend. Nick Robinson next for the Cabinet??

There is an element of this which could easily be seen as self serving. He says:

"They [the media] are not the masters of this change but its victims."

To which surely he would add (if he didn't think it would get all the attention) "And Alistair Campbell and all our headline fixated special advisers and ministers are just more victims, and in no sense part of the problem." Or to put put it another way, don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Or maybe I'm reading a malign motive into it, where none exists.

Blair is, on this, right, but he has taken advantage of these problems in the media as much as he could, so he is not really the right person to be making the charge.

While I believe the media is out of control, what can be done abuot it? Freedom of speech protects the media and unless sales decrease dramatically, the media will make and break politicians. As such no politician will take act against them. I seem to remember Blair being fine with the media rippig Major's government apart - it is only when they turn on him when he is in government and when he is about to retire anyway so there is little that can be done to him that he dares to say anything. (And even then he hasn't actually done anything about it, just complained).

Blair's hypocrisy knows no bounds. This is the man who used the media in the build up to the Gulf war to promote his cockeyed, dictatorial craving to take us there. Without the role the the 'redtops' and right wing broadsheets played, would we be in the situation we are in?

To complain about the media when they are not playing the 'yes man role' sums up the short sightedness, self centerdness and greed that sadly epitomises not just Blair, but the majority of our politicians.

Where is the justice?

For once I agree with Tony Blair. The media is driven by sensationalism and they will happily destroy peoples lives just to get a story. All I would like from any news organisation is to be told what has actually happened. All this opinion and journalistic license is complete nonsense. I am perfectly capable of making up my own opinions. 24 hour news is the worst when a story breaks and they wheel in a load of 'experts' to speculate about what might have happened. Give it a rest, just tells us when you know something.

One interesting thing about this is that Tony Blair's critique of the media increasingly sounds like that of Tony Benn.

Particularly the section on commentary, where both TBs have now complained about journalists talking to other journalists to interpret what the politicians really meant. What a meeting of minds!

If one listens,for instance, to The Today programme on Radio 4 it is reminiscent of the days of Pravda with every other item a reported government announcement or diktat. Because Blair & others give press releases saying that they are going to announce whatever it is that day..the news coverage of that event is pre-empted, so we have this bizarre and fruitless situation where a newsreader interviews another ±«Óãtv reporter who gives their opinion as if that in itself was of any interest to the listener/viewer. All of this is exacerbated by such pointless mind-numbing repetition on ±«Óãtv News 24 and Sky with "star" newsreaders. sent to the scene. We can all access the news bullet points online these days and editorial comment - the news on TV and Radio should be simply factual reporting with magazine programmes such as This Week providing the commentary/interpretation and ideally expert, rather than celebrity, analysis

When I was growing up it used to be the case of never believing what the politicians told you. Now its the other way round, never believe what you read, hear or see in the media.

The point on comment is fair, although politicians bear responsibility for this as well. I try to remember an occasion where I have heard a serious discussion between politicians (or politicians and journalists) involving clear arguments rather than assertion, counter-assertion and a sheer refusal to pay attention to the point of the discussion. As a recent example, when an MP pointed out that one person asked for 1396 other offences to be taken into consideration on sentencing, the ±«Óãtv Office response was that they are committed to finding and prosecuting criminals. That answer is blandly inoffensive but completely misses the point. If spokespeople (and ministers) make such comments there is simply no material upon which to hang a news report, pushing people towards providing comment to fill their slots. Of course such simple rejections of the story are an attempt to draw the 'impact' away from it, to prevent it continuing to run. That attempt to prevent stories being news pushes broadcasters towards making the most of stories at the start.

One pleasant change would be for the media to stop treating everything as news. When a think tank produces a report, an academic publishes a paper, or a retired minister/official makes a comment, it is not news-worthy unless there is any indication that people intend to act upon it, either positively by acceptance or negatively by rejection or even better, refutation (I appreciate that this posits a distinction between the realm of ideas and that of action, but would suggest that politics, in particular, is the realm of applied ideas, and until they are applied, ideas are of relatively little importance). The idea is important, but until it is considered and accepted is it really important as news? Jumping on reports as soon as they come out tends to lead to said reports being rejected straight away to reduce 'impact'. This leads to ideas not being thought about. At which juncture the whole point of free speech as producing the best ideas by debate disappears.

Its a question of power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The power the media wields today seems to lead to a 'lets make news not just report it' attitude. There seems to be is a desire to take scalps at all costs with no consequnce. Of course you need an inquistive press as a defense for freedom but there needs to be a degree of self restraint. Mr Blair's comment seems a little ironic due to the amount of manipulation the Labour have used in the past.

Rolling news brings out the worst in good journalists. The pressure to get the headline news and the expectations of the public to be kept fully up to date every minute means that journalists have to constantly find something new to say. Politicians are under pressure to comment, often before they have had a chance to obtain the facts. The result is a frenzy of activity whenever a possible story breaks leading to detailed reports based on scanty information that in hindsight are misleading or wrong.
Politicians need to wait until they have more information before giving comment and news agencies need to hold fire. It's time they became a public service again rather than an entertainment show.

It?s not often that I agree with Blair but there is a lot of truth in what he says. Though I would not expect significant parts of the media to like or agree with it.

The "feral beast" which is much of the media today is responsible for devaluing real news, cheapening and worse damaging lives with invasive techniques and by far the worse driving fear into peoples hearts with constant dire prophecies whether from global warming, gas cuts, bird flu, child snatchers, etc, etc. "Never mind the truth its the headlines we need!" Seems to be the media mantra today and the negative the better!

The challenge is for truly professional journalists to confront this, though most I suspect are too scared of editors and owners to do so.

Where do you stand Nick?

Interesting that Blair's "Feral beast" reference comes where he is complaining about the media's "fear of missing out" that lead them to "hunt in packs".
This must be the same "fear of missing out" that he has used to selectively brief tame journalists for years.

Let's not forget that in the days leading up to the Iraq war vote, Blair/Campbell fed the tabloid media unending unending intelligence information(i.e. lies) designed to "make you angry and shocked".

Those who live by the pen, die by the pen.

Unfortunately now with 24/7 reporting, it's never a good day to bury bad news.....

I am appalled at some of the comments along the lines of: "Blair's got a point."

We have a history of being the most secretive democracy in the West and the FoI only has a brief period of use before MPs, tacitly supported by the government, are attempting to roll it back. The PM's office has accredited reporters; step out of line and you don't get to hob nob at the centre of politics. TB has a suspiciously cosy relationship with Murdoch and now the media is getting it in the neck!

And there is far too little analysis. I get annoyed by the bland reports that a minister said or did such-and-such with very limited: how, why, what for, or what's the real story here. And how often has Tony Blair been interviewed on serious news compared to his predecessors? You're more likely to see him on Parky. In fact, the press is far more emasculated here than in the US. No wonder we have the worst tabloids, serious reporting is very difficult.

Sheesh, the Noo Labour posters here have obviously been brainwashed by this government's Newspeak. I am worried.

Blair's comments on the media are a bit generous but otherwise correct.

I completely agree with most of Tony's Blair's speech and applaud the fact that he accepts New Labour's complicity in encouraging spin. Only the politically illeterate can deny that much news reporting today is entirely subjective. You can read about the same speech given by a Minister in the Daily Mail, the Guardian and the Times and get three totally different accounts of what was said, by the emphasis, nuances and commentary attached to the piece. The government and the opposition spend more time rebutting claims from unnamed sources than they do discussing policy. Editors now wield more power in Westminster than some cabinet ministers.

It's a shameless act of face-saving. Blair is getting his excuses and finger-pointing in first, before it's too late.

Blair knows that once Brown has the keys to Number Ten, Brown will reject the "Age of Spin" and everything which went with it. (Not quite Khrushev's denunciation of the Stalinist "cult of personality", but not too far away either..) I believe Blair is terrified about what will happen to his reputation once he doesn't have the apparatus of Downing Street and the Murdoch press to protect him.

I find the arrogance of Blair here astounding and sickening.

Does Blair honestly think that after the dodgy dossier, David Kelly, the Ecclestone bung, the sycophantic courting of Murdoch and the Mail, Brown's "psychological flaws", "Call me, Tony" etc. that we should believe a single word he has to say about the media?

It's the attacks from the feral Brown that Blair has most to worry about.

Why won't Blair answer this question: "What influence has Blair's friendly relationship with Rupert Murdoch had on his government's policies over 10 years?"

If Blair answered this honestly and openly, I'd be prepared to listen more openly to his other views about the media.

Perhaps John Adams had it right when he said to one his sons, “Public business, my son, must always be done by somebody. It will be done by somebody or another. If wise men decline it, others will not; if honest men refuse it, others will not.�
In an age when celebrity is all, and is most easily achieved by shock, rudeness or 'impact'then maybe the wise and honest have retired from public life (be it politics or the media)

Sensationalism in the media? Yes probably. Certainly choice soundbytes are pushed to the fore, but he can hardly complain when he's using terms like "a feral beast...tearing people and reputations to bits".
Don't tell me that this inclusion was accidental...

Mr Blair's criticisms might have more force if he had not been responsible for much of what he criticises:

Remember the pre-97 New Labour opposition and their rapid reaction computer system? (What was it called? Excalibur?) It got to such an extent that some described it as "prebuttal" - getting your retaliatory soundbite in first. Any slight change of position immediately got pounced upon as a U-turn.

Then there were the pagers issued to backbenchers to make sure they were relentlessly on-message - with the result that individuality was ruthlessly stamped out and every ambitious MP had to sound like a marketroid mouthing the New Labour platitudes devised by Campbell et al. I found this piece ( ) by David Rowan that sums it all up nicely. The flipside to this is that even the smallest dissent gets blown out of proportion in the press as though they had spotted an oasis in the desert.

There was the habit of preannouncing and reannouncing policies several times, each time making it sound "new" - I distinctly remember Gordon Brown announcing the child trust fund scheme about three or four times before it actually came into effect.

Labour's relentless news management did come a cropper occasionally though - most notably with Jo Moore and the "good day to bury bad news". Labour are still prone to burying that bad news - there was a classic example of this recently, when they snuck out the latest report on the Identity Cards and Register scheme on the same day as the Prime Minister's announcement that he was stepping down - shock horror the costs had risen significantly. ( ) This was not just coincidence - this was the regular six-monthly review that was due to be published at the end of March.

This is not to mention all the eye catching crime initiatives (curfews, marching offenders to cashpoints, Respect Squads/Zones), terrorism scare-mongering (90 day detentions, ricin plots that weren't), policies announced in the Sun before being mentioned in Parliament, etc., appearences in comedy sketches, Big Conversations that weren't, inadequate public consultations on nuclear power, sudden invites to Downing Street for celebrity chefs, "new community matrons", etc ad nauseam. (And I haven't even mentioned dodgy dossiers, 45 minute missile threats or Nigérien yellowcake) All of which have the feel of being designed to create big headlines in the tabloids rather than solidly derived and carefully considered policy.

And when there are genuine and spontaneous demonstrations of public feeling - such as the anti-Iraq War protests or the anti-road pricing petition - the Government dismisses them or ignores them.

It is perhaps less than surprising that if the Government treats us and the press with such contempt, it will in turn be treated similarly.

'The media has little of the external accountability which other walks of life now face.'

Straight from Michael Write's piece.

I'm going to school for print journalism right now, so this all seems very odd to me. I haven't been around long enough so all my answers are probably naive, but as far as I'm concerned the media is rarely ever taken seriously because there's so much of it and no one is ever held accountable for the crap that's put out. The job is barely respected from what I see and we make garbage for cash.

If I had my way there'd be a panel of journalists that every single journalist in the world has to go before after school to see if they are capable of defending themselves in what they write, and to see if they are actually bright enough to contribute to the world of media instead of just take away from it.

Not sure if any of this makes sense, I didn't even read the posts before this one...

Hell, handbasket, Britain.

Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Blair has some nerve!!

Regardless of if we agree or disagree, its reasuring to know we have this sort of problem to deal with. It shows at least we still have freedom of speech and that the media is independant and free to report, record and express.

I'm sure people in places like China or Zimbabwe would love to have a situation like this.

Blair has inherited what he sowed and does not get any sympathy from me. BUT what he has come to realise very late in his day is that the media is a major problem in today's world and serves the public it claims to champion so loudly, so badly. Far from being a force for good it is actually undermining our society. I include the so-called broad sheets and the ±«Óãtv in these comments.

Reminds me of the line from Godfather II... "We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator..."

Just think if it wasn't for the headline-hounding, privacy-busting modern media, we would never have heard George Bush utter the immortal words, "Yo Blair!"

The modern media might be invasive, but those two words spoke volumes about the nature of the "special relationship", and as that has a direct impact on us all, I'd humbly submit it was quite important to make it public.

Yogi Blair must be so bitter about that particular revelation.

Sounds to me like Blair is just another delusional, past his sell-by date politician who can't bring himself to believe that the public could ever stop liking him for any valid reasons and that, therefore, they must have been misinformed by a wicked, dishonest and reckless media.

This sort of whining that is hardly anything new. I distinctly remember Sir Bernard Ingham while he was Thatcher's press secretary and John Major towards the end of his administration saying much the same thing. Indeed sometimes politicians go beyond blaming the media for their unpopularity and actually claim that problems being reported are purely manufactured by the press and have no basis in reality - for example the way we were told for the first couple of years after the invasion of Iraq that everything was going very well and the apparent violence and anarchy we saw on the news was just the result of selective and biased reporting.

I dislike this type of moaning for three main reasons.

First, what's the point? The media is what it is and it's not going to change. I assume even Blair wouldn't seriously consider censorship of news reports and blogs or the blocking of overseas news sites which don't toe the government line. The British press has treated politicians with contempt for over 400 years - from libels sold on Fleet Street in the early 17th century to Private Eye today - despite what Blair has convinced himself (the laughable idea that the press didn't use to conflate commentary and reporting) nothing much has changed in tone. I'd much rather have a free and vibrant (if, sometimes, over the top) press than government censorship.

Second, it assumes that people are suggestible fools who just believe what they read and form their political views purely on that basis. I always find it amusing that people who make this claim always say that they aren't affected by what they read in the press, it's the people who disagree with them who have been misled. The rather nasty implication being that if we all read the same (and, by the politicians' standard, correct) news we'd all think the same and that all this tedious business of debate and democracy could be dispensed with.

Third, I dislike the hypocrisy. Politicians (and none more so than Blair) are products of the media. They can't gain or retain power without positive media reporting. They never complain when the press are rubbishing their opponents but when that same vitriol is turned on them suddenly it's a crisis in democracy.

What Tony has a problem with is that the supply of information used to have a limited output stream - broadcast and printed media. And as such the Media could be controlled.

In the modern age both politicians and journalists are having to come to terms with competition from a new breed of consumer, who will gather evidence, form opinion - and the crucially test that opinion in online debate.

It is the debate amongst the populace that is driving the increased commentary.

Now Blair's problem is that lies and spin are being called for what they are. He is right to fear a feral media, for that is the true test of democracy.

A government should live in constant terror of it's populace. And if the media serve as the publics weapons of choice then i say more power to the people.

Careers may be destroyed, reputations tarnished. If that puts some people of going into politics then so much the better!

Whilst I agree with Mr Blair on the news becoming a commodity that has to be packaged and sold, he has aided and abetted in this.

If Blair wants reporters to spend less time analysisng what he said he should have said more. Speak plainly and there is no need for analysis: it is what it is.

Blair should have spoken plainly, stopped spinning, stopped staging every announcement, stopped planning every move with his PR advisers. He should have explained his reasons, motives and thinking. But he only does that speeches where no-one can interrupt or ask questions.

As for the Freedom of Information Act, we only have to look at how restrictive and expensive that has become to see that it has hampered rather than aided open debate.

Finally, his implicit denial that motives have any bearing on judgement is either a lie, pure fantasy or a plain self-delusion. Mr. Blair and his successor are clearing lining up the debate to make
a new regulatory body appear neccessary, when what they really want is stifle debate and dissent.

all this from the man who took propaganda aka spin to a whole new level

poetic justice?

I think the comment made by Ray (30) 'So its all right for Blair to lie through his teeth, create dodgy dossiers, run arround the world at tax payers exspense with his wife in tow to collect any freebies that may be available. Its all right to freeload holidays, make the office of PM look like a joke with his subservience to Bush but the media, who's job it is to inform the public, should not be allowed to report the facts, i think blair urgently needs an reality check followed by medical help. '

This satirical, inaccurate and cynical view just perpetuates the simplistic view most people have. I'm not against serious journalism or informed comment but it takes hard work to achieve and is about balance and fairness. This is lacking in much of journalism today although many of the ±«Óãtv foreign correspondents at least strive for it.

Blair makes some good points, particularly on commentary contaminating what should be reporting of the news. One clear example of this was a few years ago when the ±«Óãtv became the Bush Bashing Corporation and any objectivity went out of the window (although it has since made some amends in that respect). Journalists forget that they have not been elected by anyone; we don't care what you think about the story you're reporting, we just want the facts.

Here's a sad example of how today I get the news. If I hear something of interest on, say, ±«Óãtv world, the first thing I do is check if the same is being said on something like CNN. Even then I do a google news search to find independent confirmation. Only if all three state similar facts do I take the items as credible news.

It is a sad day when you learn you can't trust politicians. It is equally sad when you start to doubt the integrity of the system that should be reporting on what politicians are doing.

Regards
Giulio

I think the main reason Blair and Campbell undertook such a careful media campaign was due to seeing a merciless takedown of John Majors government in the early 90's.

They decided to fight fire with fire so it is the media to blame for the emergence of spin

The media in my opinion has too much power, is not self-critical enough and is accountable to no-one.

I completely agree with Blairs sentiments

Amazed that so many commentators sympathise with Blair. I certainly do not. He tried to manage the media and eventually failed to the extent that most Press and TV journalists are suspicous of him and his motives. But generally reprtage of this government is fair. If huge mistakes were being made ministers would sue and the libel laws being what they are in this country they would win.

I largely agree with Mr Blair. The combination of competition in the media and the fear of making a stand against it (because that is begging to become the next target) has turned the media into a beast which damages the reputations of individuals, organisations and governments with impunity. Control of some kind will become necessary.

Countries with the most relaxed media laws are being savaged by their own media in ways which are damaging their ability to deal effectively with foreign policy and terrorism. The continual airing of problems and injustices rather than positive aspects means that there is always ammunition for those intent on stirring up trouble against them.

I am from New Zealand & Ireland, and read this from a global perspective.

Blair is absolutely correct. The media has no accountability. This comes out everywhere, not just politics.

Science is especially affected. Whenever there is a new "feathered dinosaur" fossil found in China the media jumps at it with big sensational articles saying this is the "missing link". When it comes out three days later that the fossil was a fraud, there isn't a whisper from the media. The general public is left believing that there are heaps of fossils proving bird evolution, when in fact most expert scientists in the area would concede there are very few, if any.

Furthermore, the media decides who wins the elections. In NZ 2 elections ago, the media made a big deal about the minor parties - wouldn't you know, they got lots of seats. Last election they asked "Is it a 2-horse race?" and published few of the minor parties media releases - as expected, the 2 main parties took all those seats back again.

When the pope said something against Islam last year, there were sensational stories about it everywhere (at least in Ireland). But I never once heard the actual words he said reported in the media, just commentary.

The media all-but decides how the people think and vote. There needs to be a lot more accountability. But as Blair's comments criticise the media, which is how everyone hears the news, everyone will be led to believe that what he said was wrong. I bet very few people will read his actual words & make their own conclusion, well done Nick for quoting them here. A nice change from most media articles...

Blair does indeed have a point. You don't have to be a New Labour acolyte to agree with this - in depth reporting and analysis has gone out of the window in the search for the next scandal. Hounding out a minister is more important to the media than hounding out the truth, which tends to be a more tenuous and evasive creature.

Blair's apparent hypocrisy actually backs up his argument - he knows the nature of the beast and has used it well in the past.

Blair used the media for his own devices on numerous occasions, most notably to whip up dis-information that took us into the invasion of a sovereign state.

Blair's speech in which he alludes to his 'braveness' for speaking out on a matter he has made worse, is just another embarrassing, self-congratulatory footnote in his prolonged departure.

It is the sight and sound of one hand clapping.

I actually think there is some truth in what Blair says. I don't believe it is down to correspondents like you Nick but down to the whole feeling in the media- the bosses etc. I have mentioned before the views of martin bell who writes fairly frequently in the Guardian on these type of issues and the sensational reporting that we get is the main problem in my eyes. Like in the madelline mccann case, and that one a few months ago with the murders in ipswich- the media goes over the top reporting these stories because they sell papers and get viewers. Actually I don' think this has affected the politcal side of news reporting quite as much and we do have access to a lot more now- we can watch all of Blairs press statement, speeches, PMQ's etc on the bbc site so if you have the will you can access whole speeches rather than just looking at the tiny bits played on the news bulletins.

I would like to know from you Nick how you think the media situation will change with Brown and just generally over the next few years- after all it has changed enormously in the last 10 years so as someone in probably the best position to tell us, what do you think?

Tony Blair has always cultivated his TV placemen so that he could have a non-challenging fireside chat with David Frost, Adam Boulton and company.

It is foolish now to jump in the puddle and complain about the media and spin. We might not believe everything that is reported but most of us have learned that politicians are institutionally unbelievable.

Blair has led the most dishonest government in my adult lifetime. (That is a fair length of time, and covers some sharp political operators). Without a free, enquiring press to worry about he would have been far, far worse, and we would have been no wiser. As he strolls off into the sunset (with a handsome pension unaffected by results and paid for by us) he is angry to find that his public image is no longer pristine and shiny, but dull and tarnished; he is venting his spleen on those he holds responsible when he would do better looking in his mirror. He spent ten years sidelining parliament and I for one am very happy that he couldn't do the same with the news media. He still doesn't seem to realise that this is a noble, free democracy - despite his best efforts - which is probably why he tried to run it like a one-party dictatorship. A troublesome media is an essential part of that. He should have studied the job description more carefully before accepting the office.

I have to say I agree with Blair. I tend to have to look at several websites or news channels in order to get what I would consider a purely factual representation of a news topic. I actually watch EuroNews a lot, as because of its international audience is has to keep the news simple and factual without interpretation. I can do my own interpretation without reporters saying things like "And do you know what that means?" every third sentence. Good one Blair!

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Blair is right to some extent but the effect of the "rolling news" culture to me is more devastating in the non-party political area.
The blanket coverage of the tragic disappearance of Madeleine MCCann and the Ipswich serial murders this year are 2 examples. In the latter, a man who has not been charged had a public interview in which he seemed to incriminate himself plastered all over the ±«Óãtv and I'm sure other 24-hour news outlets.
In their desperate attempts to get "movement" on a story the rolling news media only discredit themselves in the long run.

I think neither party is innocent. Both deserve each other.

The triumph of spin over substance, impact over content, and the endless pursuit of the headline irrespective of the facts - well, New Labour would know all about that wouldn't they?

The triumph of spin over substance, impact over content, and the endless pursuit of the headline irrespective of the facts - well, New Labour would know all about that wouldn't they?

It is worse here in the U.S. Paris Hilton has dominated the tabloid news these past two weeks. Meanwhile our soldiers get killed in Iraq with increasing frequency, and the news is buried somewhere in pages 3-4

Journalism is in a coma, if not dead already. There are still journalists and writers out there that write with objectivity, but they are few and far between. Nearly every story has a slant or angle. Even in this article, the journalists have the final word, just read the last three paragraphs.

Being an American, I have to read Reuters and ±«Óãtv to get an objective story that deals with U.S. affairs. While I don't agree with all of Blairs politics, I am with him 100% on this. He is saying what every politician wants to say (he just doesn't have a fear of not getting re-elected).

While in college, if I were to write with the objectivity of a journalist from any major newspaper I would have failed out for putting my own emotions and views into my stories.

But alas, in our capitalist societies with the 'lowest common denominators' buying the goods (in this case the media), the media has to sell Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole, and stories on what exactly Tony Blair meant when he said [insert random word here].

If I wrote and reported the way 90% of journalists do these days, I'd be ashamed of myself. You should be too.

At least the media in the UK isn't as bad as in the US. Here, to be "unbiased," reporters do little or no research of their own, and just get a statement from each of the main two political parties. Instead of looking at facts and holding politicians accountable for what they say and do, the media just goes to democrats and republicans for an easy "two sides" for every issue. It oversimplifies politics, and cuts all dissenting viewpoints and a lot of facts from the public debate. And then there's the travesty of the Canadian media, with ownership so highly concentrated, you'd think we were a corporate dictatorship. At least the UK media still has teeth, and still has a diverse spectrum of opinion. Reading the Guardian or the Indepenent is like a breath of fresh air.

I have thought this for some time now and I'm glad he has said it. By questioning, debating and over-analyzing every decision our politicians make we stop them doing and saying what may be right, just because it can easily be intentionally mis-interpreted or manipulated.
Every decision can be countered but I think the media's eagerness to emphasize the bad in every decision harms our belief and trust in our leaders.
This willingness to question leaders on the TV is easily picked up by pupils who in turn question their teachers etc...

i hate blair, but for a change i agree with him. if it was just the government that were suffering at the hands of the media, i may not feel the same way, however it seems all walks of life are a target. the press can destroy credibility with very little effort and there seems to be very little recourse for this if they are wrong!..
it wasnt many days since channel4 tried to show a documentry about the death of diana, including unseen footage!? i cannot see how that is good for anyone? people may watch out of curiosity, but surely with the great power of the media comes great responsibility, and i see very little of that - although channel4 did withdraw the program at the last minute, after much protest! the press/media always hide behind their freedom to say whatever they like when they are criticised, but perhaps if they were a bit more reserved about the things they said, their freedom would not be questioned!

Some of what Tony Blair is true.I find at the moment when viewing the
news on all channels Instead of the
news you get comment on the news.
Its become very boring
Edward King Salisbury

There are some comments that this statement was 'ironic' from Blair the 'master of spin.' But who has portrayed him as 'the master of spin'? The media has. I would argue Rupert Murdoch, and other areas of the media, are the true masters of spin.

It might not be completely true, but at least in the past we were presented, more or less, with 'facts' and not commentary. These days we are almost told what to think by the media. Could it be Blair's spin was a reaction to the media's spin of previous Labour leaders?

I have never been a fan of politicians, but I think Tony Blair is right - and if we are not careful we will inadvertently hand democracy from ourselves and politicians to the media giants. At least we have some control over politicians.

I have held the opinion for some time that Blair, rather than trying to control the media, has been fearful of the media reprise and so has caught himself up in a spiral of damage limitation. I am now convinced more than ever that I was right.

I have just come back from Iowa, where people are genuinely interested in, and regularly go to see, and discuss afterwards, the politicians coming through smaller towns and cities to speak to the people. If T Blair et al feel themselves misrepresented by London-based media, why not get out more? Why not speak directly to the public - rather than the stage managed appearances we see? They have long enough Christmas, Easter & Summer holidays. Gladstone went "on the stump" to speak to the people direct - perhaps the present lot might consider it.

Sometimes the media is fair, sometimes it is not. But it is how the media portrays stories and to which kind of audience which is most important. For me, the tabloids are responsible for some of the most racist, bigoted, and unbalanced reporting ever told on this planet. The problem is also that the more sensational stories become, people become desensitised to them, and it becomes the norm, so the media have to become even more sensational to get a reaction. It is a vicious cycle and as long as the media want to make money, then this will continue forever and ever.

Don't you just love the innocence of Mt Blair - an additional head at Mt Rushmore soon no doubt - "The feral media". And who do you suppose made them wild? Let us see. Iraq, Formula One, Brown/Blair, cash for honours enquiry, detention of foreign subjects, the BAE corruption inquiry, Freedom Of Information limits etc etc.

Nothing to see here press people. Move on to things of interest. Like the Olympic logo.

Credit to Tony Blair, he’s used the oldest trick in the book - blame the media - and people swallow it down. For every bad bit of reporting or sensationalism in the media, there are two politicians doing the equivalent.

As someone who works for a small local paper which doesn’t often have a huge amount of contact with Government departments, I can tell you that the rare occasions I do are some of the most problematic ever. It doesn’t matter whether you ask a simple, straight-forward question or not, you don‘t get the question you asked answered.

Any politician who is, as Blair says, too scared to make decisions for the country because of the potential media reaction shouldn’t be in the job put simply. It's too easy to hide behind how the media will react rather than make tough or difficult decisions.

The media is far from perfect and does need to rein in the opinionated comment pieces and over-the-top reporting in many cases, but politicians have a lot more of a job on to clean up their act.

I have just come back from Iowa, where people are genuinely interested in, and regularly go to see, and discuss afterwards, the politicians coming through smaller towns and cities to speak to the people. If T Blair et al feel themselves misrepresented by London-based media, why not get out more? Why not speak directly to the public - rather than the stage managed appearances we see? They have long enough Christmas, Easter & Summer holidays. Gladstone went "on the stump" to speak to the people direct - perhaps the present lot might consider it.

I agree with Blair on this. News is a business not a Public Service anymore.
I do think that the ±«Óãtv & Channel 4 News give biased views.
News should be the known facts first. Then maybe in the second part have 2 different analysis one from each side and then let people make up ther eown mind, but unfortunatley analysis seems to favour the rich and powerful.
For example when it comes to IRAN we hear always about the numerous UN resolutions that are broken. With ISRAEL we never hear about the hundred or so UN resolutions against them

Quite right Tony.

Ironically you can see the effects of what Tony says in most of these responses that you are reading now. Most of the commentators immediately dismiss what he says, merrily tear him down and then start giving their own much wiser opinion.

It feels great to steal his lime-light doesn't it! Its great to be smarter and wiser than the elected leadership of our nation. And besides, everyone else is doing it. See there on the newstands and in our lounges, we bash any handy public figure in all the papers and on every tv channel.

Who among us would welcome a pack of reporters and paparazzis barking questions aimed to bring up any pain or any drama that sells? And yet we still buy the rubbish. Why?

A simple way to determine if Mr Blair was right is to check tonights TV news broadcasts, and tomorrows newpapers. If the time broadcasters devoted to comment is greater than the speach itself, then you know he is right. Tomorrow if the number of papers report the speech in full is greater than those who don't, then you know he was wrong.

If time is short, just tune into tonights Channel 4 News and count the number of Opposition and media people who are critical of Mr Blair.

Personnally I consider Mr Blair has a valid point. One example: the ±«Óãtv's Panorama programme was the lead item on the Today morning radio programme, then on the 10 O'clock news that night. These were adverts for the programme dressed up as news.

'Opinion and fact should be divisible'?
But facts mean nothing without context.
I still remember a minister announcing that there would be 5000 new police officers within X years - only for a commentator to point out that the same number would retire in that period, ie 'new' sounded (as it was supposed to) like 'additional' when the minister knew the truth was that there would be "no additional" officers.
The presentation of 'facts' which mean the opposite of what they are cited to show is still common today. This morning on Radio 5 at least 2 police officers contacted the breakfast show to say they could say from personal knowledge that crime figures were 'fixed'; a comment that the guest, an ex Flying Squad officer, confirmed was common knowledge.
The same non-facts are issued routinely in the Health and Education sectors and elsewhere.
Thank Heavens for experienced journalists like Nick Robinson, Jeremy Bowen and John Simpson and their ilk who can supply the context that the politicians gloss over; the context that gives us a better chance of understanding what is actually happening.
Despite the constant barrage from the Labour Party and the Sunday Times, I still believe the ±«Óãtv News gives the best mainstream reporting available.
Keep it up!

There is no doubt that Blair has headed the most media-manipulative government of all time, but the general standard of news reporting has fallen during the same period.

It seems the media spends more time on commentaries of what might become news, rather than reporting news of actual events. Serious, factual news reporting, including that by the ±«Óãtv, has sadly become a thing of the past.

I think he has a very sound point, but I think this opens up many more issues than perhaps he cares to elaborate on. I have a feeling we'll be talking about this for a long time!

There isn't any doubt that Blair is right in what he says. Too many correspondents like Mr Robinson give their opinions and their slant on what has been said and dress it up as The News. I long for the day when I can read The News and listen to The News NOT Nick Robinson's version of it. And he isn't alone either. The local ±«Óãtv Midlands News on TV has it's own version of Nick Robinson. His name is Nick Owen. Perhaps it's about time someone nicked the Nicks.

It doesn't matter any more. The circulation of the tabloids decides General Election results. The British public is increasingly obsessed with celebrity and showbusiness to the exclusion of the real world - Reality TV and soap operas have become the new Bread and Circuses to a populace who just don't care what their leaders are doing. And the ±«Óãtv is not innocent of this obsession with celebrity. You have contributed to the coming collapse of our society and I hope you are proud of yourselves.

I find these comments breath-taking, especially from the most mendacious and hypocritical politician that this country has probably ever known. Tony Blair the leader of a government which once employed people whos' role was to deliberately mis-lead the population through the use of spin (thats lies to the rest of us).
Tony Blair has a problem with the media because after ten years of spin, mis-information and dis-information nobody believes a word he says. This is the man who thought he was the president of our country but has discovered that, as always, our people won't be fooled for long. I am a citizen of this once great nation and a former Labour supporter but this self-serving individual has made me question everything I believed in.
Yes we have some problems with the media but Tony Blair and his cronies are part of the cause not victims of them.

For 'Sunday Times' read 'The Times'

It is interesting (and I think correct) that no one seems to be attacking his message, just the messenger.

Blair and his government have behaved like feral beasts towards England and the English. Aided and abetted by the ±«Óãtv, Channel4 and the Guardian.

A case of the babboon's backside calling the sky blue in this case.

Blair complains about journalists anaylsying what politicans say. That is simply because ministers don't say what they mean and we have to get the 'real story' from off the record briefings reported as opinion.

I expect Mr Blair will be savaged by much of the press for this speech. We already see the ±«Óãtv and other news organisations doing it by taking little inserts of the speech out of context. Having taken the trouble to read the whole speech I think Blair's analysis is spot on.

Classic Blair, classic New Labour...

1) Take an issue that is of genuine concern to many
2) Attach yourself to it and bask in the warmth of your message
3) Completely ignore the fact that you were the prime mover in the creation of the problem in the first palce.

On planet Blair he feels our pain. AAARgh

Stop whingeing Blair. You and Brown have done more damage to parliamentary democracy than the Luftwaffe

Tony Blair is a complete hypocrite when it comes to the media, however, that does not make him wrong. 24 News reporting means that we get quantity but not quality. Also the impact of news stories has lessened, not increased because of it. Sadly, there seems to be no likelihood of this being reversed. As for a feral media, well the ±«Óãtv was defanged (If it ever had fangs), by Hutton. It has not dared to challenge the government since. ITV are irrelevant and Channel 4 have become a laughing stock of late. The major newspapers are owned by magnates pushing their own agenda and continually pushing unwanted news stuff on us simply to make money by playing to the lowest denominator (Celebrity). Why does the Daily Mail still have one Diana Front Page a WEEK?! The Guardian and Independent are the only papers I have any respect for. Because no one in the media actually challenges the Government. This government has been involved in scandal after scandal and no one in the media (With the exception of the ±«Óãtv in the David Kelly affair, has chased them down and forced answers. 15 years ago, the media would have destroyed a government as failed as this one, and it would be a good thing that corrupt politicians are brought down. Today, no one dares challenge the government, those that do can't make a big enough splash. For instance, the breaking BAE corruption scandal that Blair and Goldsmith jumped into head first, how many papers led with it? If that had been Heath or Major they'd all have been screaming for resignations by now. Blair is a hyporcrite to have broken the media as a power and still criticising it for occasionally disagreeing with him (Because he's never made a bad decision that he didn't personally believe was right, no).

Blair is right. When Labour was hogwashing about WMD's, if the press was worth its salt, they should have blown the whistle. This just tells you how much the press knows about what they write. Absolutely nothing. they can still hide under the guise of press freedom and informing the public yet they mostly do not know what they are talking about except their warped opnions and commentary. Hope some of this media moguls one day become politicians so that the feral beasts they created can also go after them. Having said that, Blair is a hypocrite and has misinformed more than some media.

I'm loathe to admit it, but I agree with Tony Blair entirely on this one. Not that politicians are all squeaky clean - far from it - but the obsession with so called 'exclusives' has reached the point where its an exclusive if you have a mere phrase unreported elsewhere, and the words 'scandal' and 'shock' are used to the point where they may as well mean 'normal' and 'business as usual'. The way the press as a collective sometimes seem to simply set their sights on someone for something relatively minor and then hound them out of office is simply cringeworthy. Its even more playground-ish than what goes on in the Houses of Parliament, where grown adults jeer and boo like inarticulate sports fans. The whole thing is a disgrace, but in my opinion the "meeja" drives the problem instead of merely reporting it.

The right to free speech! This is the excuse used by the media to destroy, belittle, lie and embarrass any target the media chooses for the purpose of political gain or ratings. What a society we live in today when the media think they have the power of the people and what they say or do can make a big difference. The problem is that they do have an effect. They should be stopped from this mass manipulation and scaremongering that they are responsible for. I am proud to be English but ashamed of our tabloids.

Leigh

I believe that many news consumers are adapting to these changes. I know that I examine news much more critically than I had, and disbelieve a lot more of it. I'm much more aware of which voices I trust and do not trust. In the end, recent trends may have worse consequences for journalism than for politics.

One important way to defend the freedom of the press (or any other) is to use that freedom responsibly.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" you ask TB.

Whose fault is it that he doesn't answer the loaded questions favoured by so many journalists nowadays? The questioner or the questioned?

Blair is entirely right. At a local level most voters view of local government is often shaped by the local weekly newspaper. For my experience of over 25 years in local government they often trivalise issues and make no attempt to understand the background to the difficult choices councillors often face. The aim is to sell newspapers in order to attract advertising review.There is often no attempt to generate any rational debate on the alternatives. Councillors are portrayed as either charlatans who are only in it for the money or thick fools. In these circumstances is it any wonder that political parties are increasingly finding it difficult to get individuals to stand for election. From bitter experience, I know that they can misreport what you say in order to sell newspapers. They know that the libel laws favour the rich and that the press complaints commission is a joke. The result is that many voters have a completely distorted view of local government. The loser in all of this is democracy in this country.

Sad to say, but I agree with Tony on this one. The media has moved on in the last 12 years, it is a much quicker delivery, and far less "controlled" by spin. It has moved with the electronic world we now live in, and Tony said that was good.
By the looks of it, Tony has just realised he and his party have not moved with it.
Gone are the cosy days where his team could brief the favoured journalists with the Labour Party soundbites. Now everyone can have access to it all. Why does no one listen to the maiden speeches anymore ? Tony, read one (they are published on the government website) and then you will see. You and your politicians are stuck in the 1900's with your language (honourable gentleman, will you yield for a question etc) and your processes. People these days do not want to read a 5 page diatribe about why someone wants help. Make it relevant, make it clear, but above all make it quick, or you loose the audience. Listen to yourselves on debating shows, ask a question "What is the yellow ball worth in snooker?" The politician will find a way of telling you about the history of the game, and the way their party has done so much more for the game than any other party, and quote stats.
Tony, the answer is 2. Nothing else is needed.
I think Tony realises that his successor is not as good at manipulating the press as he has been, and is looking for the media to cool down and give his party a chance. I hope this doesnt happen. Nothing to do with party politics, but I think we are slowly getting to a place where politicians will be more accountable for their words. Thats a good thing, maybe they will talk less and do more.
Finally Tony, you created the beast, you unleashed it, and now you cant pull it back in. Tough.
I look forward to reading all about your money making exploits in the future on the web, because we both know it will be on there somewhere....

I agree with Tony Blair, and am pleased he has decided to come out and say this. There should much more consideration of what is reported, there is far too much raucous-bellied shouting in the British press... as a Brit living abroad, I can say that it DOES get noticed abroad and DOES reflect badly on us as a whole. Also agree with the following excert from his speech ...

"The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief, it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future"

Tony Blair is correct in his analysis I believe.
Myself, my family and friends have commented on this increasingly over the past number of years, how dizzying the reporting of news has become and how we all long to find somewhere where the bare facts are conveyed impartially. The media has become emotionally manipulative - it is gripping to get sucked in, watching the news - but that's the point.. it grips almost against your will. It sells as if it were advertising. The world, the real lives of human beings are cheapened. I don't think it's a question of blame either, but I think the media as a body really need to take a close look at their role in this.

I do not think that the comments made by Tony Blair about the media are anything to do with the way he has been treated by them. After all he has nothing to lose or gain now.
I agree that his assessment is a fair summing up of the state of media reporting today which is run on the basis of a soap opera. They inundate the public with sensationalist unlifelike drama in each episode and continue the storyline to a pointless conclusion avoiding the basic facts at all times.
This media sensationalism has the effect of dumbing down important, real, positive issues whilst pursuing their own agenda of negative reporting to catch out the unwary politician or public figure or indeed creating fiction to fill their pages.
I am surprised anyone should want to be in the public eye today as the good or change that many set out to bring about, is almost certainly going to to be undermined, or even worse, not reported on at all.
I fear the media are in the process of self destruction and far from improving democracy, racial equality and tolerance they are effectively creating the opposite.

Just interchange the words "media/newspapers/TV/reporters" and "politicians" and Blair's speech makes more sense. If anything, its leaders like Blair and Bush who are "veral animals", using media through spin when it suits them, and then spitting on it when it doesn't. Blair's speech does not need so much attention. It's hogwash, and should rightly be pured down the drain without much ado.

All democratic governments from the earliest times have used propaganda to manipulate the electorate. It's just that today we use the word 'spin'. The methods of creating this spin have become more sophisticated. Ironically, what the Blair government did was make their 'spin' department more public, so that the process could be viewed and criticised. Past Tory governments would have been amused at the naiviety of the Blair government in this respect. Maybe Blair's hope for open government has backfired.
And the media, from earliest times, have also indulged in spin. The politically biased press has always used their reporting to try to influence the voters. But what is worrying is where the media spin is coming from today. Indeed, this very blog, at the heart of the ±«Óãtv political commentatory, is very adept, via its master of spin, Nick Robinson, the king hypocrite of media manipulation, at putting its own spin on those who have to make decisions that affect us, the voters. I know who I would trust, Nick, and it certainly is not you !

Blair is right in a way. The media becomes obsessed with trivial things and forget the important issues.
On the other hand if the media had done their job properly Blair may not be here As Lord Hutton said he was dreading some of the questions the reporters may have asked. They did not ask him and therefore he did not have to give the answers.
The other reason why the media is forced to go after the government is because of the weak opposition in the House of Commons. How many times has the media had to act on behalf of the public because of the weak opposition. Without the media UK would probably be a Police State by now with Blunkett in charge of the Interior Minister Troops.

If Blair's comments aren't true, then why has most of the reporting about the Conservative party since the mid 1990s and the Lib Dems for several years always been about leadership crises? I can't count the number of times Menzies Campbell has about to have a coup d'etat launched against him, yet Lib Dem policies are hardly ever reported on, even during their conference. And the minute there was a hint of controversy with Dave's grammar school policy, lo and behold, someone has commissioned a poll of local Conservative Chairmen. I doubt this would have been so widely quoted if it hadn't exacerbated the problem for Mr Cameron.

Yes, it may be concluded that politicians started this mess, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to address the issue. The press in particular seem to permanently be on a mission to hang and flog all politicians who are not 100% saintly and make any mistake in their professional or personal lives. Then the TV news reports on what others are saying, and so the original mistake is no longer the story.

When new legislation or policy is proposed, couldn't we instead have an analysis of what it means, and alternatives presented? People could them make up their own minds about whether they agreed with it or not. Instead, everything is labelled as whether it is Blairite or Brownite, a battle between modernisers and the old guard, etc etc. No wonder some people say they are confused or turned off about politics - it is all presented as though it were a boring soap opera.

Those who live by spin will die by spin. If governments behaved like responsible bodies, keeping the best interests of the public in mind, Mr Blair would be justified in his criticism of the press."Marketing" government ideas (accentuate the positive, minimize the negative) and finding good days to bury bad news does not lead people to think that government is unbiased, and more importantly truthful. A jaundiced comment I made some while ago "all politicians lie, some more enthusiastically than others" (even if only by omission) seems to borne out by events. Mr Blair courted the press when it suited him in opposition. He now turns on it when it no longer serves his purpose. The press is not without blame, but surely an apology, even one printed as small as possible on an inside page is better than getting none whatsoever from politicians.

I really find Blair's irritation difficult to take seriously. OK, much of the press is rubbish - that is why I don't buy newspapers any more. But David Kelly and ANdrew Gilligan were brutally (and unnecessarily) exposed by the New Labour press machine with tragic consequences for at least one of them. We were led into a disastrous intervention in Iraq on misleading information from the Blair machine. All he can really complain about is that he has been caught out - and isn't that the job of the press??

More and more time is being spent in the public sector managing ‘media perceptions of issues’ rather than real issues.

To give a concrete example, I work in a sector where the most common ‘type’ of person working within is a 30 year old woman from a state school education, yet the media will constantly portray it as an ‘old boys club’. To try and tackle the damaging perception we commissioned independent research, and got an external commission to scrutinise the research to check it was valid. It proved our point, and yet daily I see coverage in the press, and have to manage enquiries, which all come form the premise its an old boys club. This is one example of a hundred about how I can spend 50% of a day managing what people think, rather than the real job of managing actual issues.

I quite enjoy my sparring with public perception and the media, in some ways my job would be less interesting and challenging without it. But the question for the public is whether they want their politicians and public servants managing perceptions, or managing real issues.

Spending 4 months working in Iraq at the height of the 'Al Sadr Uprising', I saw first hand the media effect. Not one report in that 4 months bore any resemblance to what was happening. We had the data and the trends, but no media outlet even bothered to ask us for it. We would have provided free, honest, unbiased information because that is our job. But it wouldn't have made for a sexy headline alas. The media in this country caused more trouble in Iraq than most of the 'insurgents' put together. I don't believe anything in the media now. I believe its all distorted half truths and lies.

I agree with much of what Blair says, even though I'm no fan of his. The reaction to his speech by the Sun is typical - it can't stand criticism (eg Clare Short's campaign against Page 3) and yet at the same time it doles it out.

If politicians had more faith in the public and were more honest about the difficulties and disappointments of governing a country then the media may become more objective too - but as with most things in life the lowest common denominator will do.

Politicians should set an example to the public - and not to appear as chippy as the press: just as Hazel Blears can't complete a sentence without attacking the Torys - the Sun cannot say anything positive about Europe.

Perhaps the press should be more like Private Eye?

'Brassed neck' isn't even close.

This just sums Blair up. He likes nothing better than a heartfelt condescending speech where he knows all, including the issues of concern to his critics.

On this case a sincere man who bemoans the death of hard facts, of communicating the real issues....

This, of course, from the man who pandered to The Sun presicely to side step the facts and real issues.

Fairly typical of just about everything Blair has said...... and done.

I think Blair is spot on, absolutely right in his analysis.

Blair is correct as usual. I really object to ±«Óãtv news failing to show key political speeches, but instead having Nick Robinson explain what the politician meant.

Blair's comments are on the mark. News outfits, such as the ±«Óãtv, see themselves as quasi-national entities unto themselves, with clearly defined ideologies as the subtext to many of its most important stories. Instead of earning income from the usual sources in a free economy, they parasitically live off the British populace and ram down their ideology to the 'unknowing masses'. They care a whit about consequences and gleefully destroy political personages, placing them under a scrutiny that the ±«Óãtv directors and reporters would never submmit themselves or even survive if they did.

When I saw 121 responses to this item, I nearly moved on, but then I realised, if people don't give their honest view, nothing will change.

Twenty years ago I read the Daily Telegraph, not because of any political leaning, but because it gave the facts about an event, the history, if on going and sometimes comment. That changed to merging comment with facts, so I stopped buying newspapers.

The merging of fact and comment or someones "sense" of a particular story, means we do not get facts. We get one persons view, the view is always a bit controversial, it must be, or it will not get broadcast.

I have thought this for the last two years, and have contemplated making a complaint every time fact and opinion are merged. I may still do it, but realise I would be falling on deaf ears.

If you and your fellow journalists sat down and contemplated what your rolls were, I think you would have an inflated view of yourselves.

It's 1815hrs and I have just watched News 24's report on the speech, 10 seconds or less of his 30 minute speech, the rest of the segment, comment, opinion, yet again opinion. No member of the general public, no one who agreed with him. So how informed are we?

You do it from the back drop of Number 10 on many occasions, I have never heard you apologise days later when you have got it so badly wrong.

If there was a news outlet that I could trust I would buy it.

Feral leaders: Bush-Blair
650.000 murders to their account

What happened to my comment? Set it out first, pressed preview to check it through before adding the ID, and the original vanished - so I'm either anonymous, or nothing. If this page is anything to go by you must have got it! It's the one with the Irish morality tale from Arklow at the bottom.

For once I agree with Tony Blair.The news media has increasingly pandered to the lowest common denominator of sensationalism and trivia recently.The ridiculously over hyped case of the missing toddler Madelaine McGann is the clearest most recent example of this.The news organisations have become slaves to competition,more obsessed with audience figures and what they perceive the audience wants to hear,rather than what actually matters.Personality has overtaken substance in everyday political commentary.I'm sorry Nick,but you and your colleagues have a lot to answer for as far as the dumbing down of Britain is concerned.

Your job is to report the news in a balanced and truthful manner.
Perhaps there is a lesson in the comment for all good journalists to take note of.
If you do your job as the traditional British press did this speech would not be of much concern at all and you would get on with the job of reporting.
I would buy a paper which reported the news rather than spin.

if Blair had resigned over Iraq he would have avoided all the backlash he continues to face.

He didn't and now complains because of the heat he created around himself for his mistake.

Politicians have reduced themselves to where they are simply celebrities, no more and no less. As such they get the celebrity treatment from the press and TV.
If they want to be treated differently, even seriously perhaps, then they will have to work their way back to how politicians behaved when they were (more) respected.
No more freebie holidays, no more hobnobbing with low lives, no more locust acts when offered some free samples from a store; no more clinging to office regardless of offence or crime, no more attempts to cover up abuse of parliamentary expenses.
And no more lying.

At first I saw Mr Blairs comments as a passing of the blame for his failings (10 years in, blaming the conservatives just doesn't work anymore). Perhaps that's just the cynicism created by a media and political landscape that requires you to read between the lines to get the real story though.

You can't argue that he has a point, everything is sensationalised in the media. But has that really changed? When he came into power in 1997, I can remember the media storm created by the death of Princess Di and other events of the time, so why does he complain now when it suits him?

If anything the media has improved with technology. Where the news 10 years ago was stated by 'experts', at least now there are plenty of people that are happy to open up debates like this for the thinking people to discuss.

My problem with the current government has always been that they don't want people to think and discuss, and they'd have gotten away with it as well if it wasn't for those pesky news headlines.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Live by the sword, die by the pen ?

I totally agree with Mr.Blair, but it is very unfortunate he is not the right person to say these 100% correct points because he himself taken lot of benefits from this irresponsible and dangerously commercialised "FERAL BEAST"(excellent two words description) media, Also he choose wrong time to say these all valid points because he lose his credibility for many many reasons.

on the media: from PAST : because of CNN and ±«Óãtv exaggerated stories on Iraq Weapon of Mass Destruction whole world convinced(especially UK & US Peoples) that Iraq and Sadam is very dengerouse for world peace especially for UK & US security,

Current : Because of Media Bob Woolmer case extremely embarrassing for Jamecan Police. also I think this Bob Woolmer case more embarrassing for media than Jamecan Police,

You look like Judge Jules.

Tony Blair's 'feral' media comment is being extremely kind to the media. I, and most people I know, would put it far, far stronger than that. An absolute disgrace comes closer to the truth. The British press which used to be the pride of Britain has now become the shame of Britain.

This applies not just to the tabloids but to what is laughingly called 'the quality media'. If a fact can be twisted and perverted by the British press corps to the extent that it becomes virtually unrecognisable, it will be.

Truth is certainly nowhere to be seen and all that seems to matter nowadays is how can an event be twisted to be made as frightening and offensive to the British public as possible. And all this with the base objective of trying to sell as many papers as possible or get as many viewers as possible.

A balanced view, the prime requirement for any journalist in my view, is so far away from what happens nowadays that the modern political journalist is now nothing more than a writer of complete fiction. The sad thing is that not many people in Britain have yet woken up to this and still think that there is such a thing as journalistic integrity!

No, 'feral' media is just being far too kind to the British media.

It is a bit rich Blair attacking the media after all he has done trying to control it, but I can very much understand his point. I often listen to the Today program on Radio 4 in the morning, only to turn it off as I'm so fed up with the mindless agression of the ±«Óãtv journalists. Fair enough ask questions of the people you are interviewing (interrogating?) but the questioning is often aggressive and unhelpful - its up to the listener to decide not the ±«Óãtv to tell the listener what to think.

Sounds like sour grapes to me and as a journalist all I can say to Blair is that shooting the messenger isn't a good idea although some of your policies have been so disastrous I can see why you find the idea attractive.

Suppose your disgust means you won't be touting your memoirs around the media? No? Didn't think so.

This is the same man that took Martin Amis and a crew from US Vogue (or some such glossy mag) on his vanity tour of Africa, if I am not mistaken. It really is the kettle calling the pot black. The man has no shame.

This is the same man that took Martin Amis and a crew from US Vogue (or some such glossy mag) on his vanity tour of Africa, if I am not mistaken. It really is the kettle calling the pot black. The man has no shame.

Blair is right about this (for once) but it goes far, far beyond politics; the culture of moral outrage, shock headlines and pandering to the latest white whine infests every aspect of our 'culture'. The media, and the press in particular has absolute power to say what it likes (even if it has to lie to do it: there are many ways of circumventing the PCC guidelines) and never ever has to apologise or admit that it was wrong.

And it goes back well before Blair; I started to deeply distrust newspaper accounts of anything, absolutely anything, from about 1985, and nothing has happened in the intervening 20 years to give me any more faith in our press. Don't know what the answer is, but I think the problem is much older and more deeply rooted than the impact of spin doctors or new technology.

He has completely lost it. Next he will be blaming "the meedya" for invading Iraq. He started this spinning, let the feral Campbell off the leash and displayed his concern for the facts by releasing two dodgy dossiers to spin the country into war.

I think the way news is reported about the Government by the media should be looked at: in the morning we get, "X, minister for Y, will today announce Z." During the day we get reminded of this, countless times. In the evening we get, "Today X, minister for Y, announced Z." Where are the journalists getting the scoops, rather than sitting back and letting the press officers hand out their copy?

'It is interesting (and I think correct) that no one seems to be attacking his message, just the messenger' (122).

Yes, Paul but that is surely the whole point. This criticism of the media coming from someone who could offer a degree of independence might carry some weight. Coming from someone who has more ruthlessly and cynically manipulated the media for his own ends than any other British politician in my lifetime, it appears to be nothing more than sour grapes.

Cynical maybe but remember that a cynic is one who, according to Oscar Wilde, knows "the price of everything and the value of nothing".

What price the memoirs now?

It is true that there are problems in the way news coverage is made these days. However, the current government is in not blameless for making it so. Courting the journalists, spinning, making strategic "leaks" and "burying" bad news are all cynical manipulations of the media. Now to cry "foul" at the treatment Blair receives from them is hypocritical beyond belief.

Much of the ±«Óãtv's news reporting is first-rate, and rightly respected. But three anecdotes sum up for me where ±«Óãtv reporting has gone badly astray.

Firstly, its emphasis on sometimes deperately trying to generate controversy, even from nothing. That mindset is illustrated by your own blog, where we are invited to "complain about" what others have posted, with no invitation to agree with it!

Secondly, elevating the reporting of perverse misinterpretations of events over the events themselves. For instance, last week's coverage of the agreement with Libya to CONSIDER releasing prisoners made only passing reference to the government's insistence that the Scottish Executive would make any decision about those held in Scotland, and focused instead on Scottish politicians' outrage (at what??). Done skilfully, that aiding and abetting of distortion can be really insidious.

Thirdly, the dodgy encouragement of the public as reporters (as distinct from their proper use as witnesses) in place of professionals. That led to the ±«Óãtv according unwarranted authority to an unchecked report from someone who (as it turned out) mis-described what happened when de Menezes was chased into the tube station. The Met was subsequently lambasted for not correcting the media's error - and the lambasting itself became a news story!!

We desperately need a free press - just look at what happens to countries without one. And the ±«Óãtv foreign correspondents' excellent reporting (not least as heard on "From our own correspondent") consistently upholds the highest standards of fearless reporting, sometimes under the most difficult of circumstances. It must really irk those in foreign postings that those with easier tasks back home sometimes let standards drop badly. Andrew Gilligan reports credibly from Iraq; then he and his editor undermine the good work when he is back in the UK. You'd scarcely believe it was the same organisation, let alone the same man!

It makes no sense for him to comment now. He's out of action and the things he says no longer have any relevance, even if they were true. No one really cares what he says now, unless he shows a sign of bitterness.

It does no good to discuss how bad the media is - it simply reflects the times we are in. He may as well complain about the weather - it makes no odds. Tony is all used up now, like a dead battery - Iraq drained him in the end. Bring on the next one, and let's see if he's got any energy left. At least he can blame the retreat on Tony (bless him).

I have to largely agree with Tony Blair on this one. Not really a Nick Robinson fan - I think the ±«Óãtv should focus its political reporting on the more serious stuff, not the froth - but then again this blog is testament to Nick R's opening-up the whole process of news reporting, to let us the public in. So perhaps there is some hope for better things in the future.

It is simply ridiculous how sensationalist, selective, and inbalanced the news has become. I think watching 'question time' shows what a dire state the media's coverage of politics is in at this current time.

It can hardly ever be called a debate, with the show being dominated by wild calls for resignation over the smallest errors, ferocious witch hunts and blame games, ridiculous attempts to sum very complicated issues into a yes or no answer, and ussually a stupid and largly pointless play on words ridiculing a politician getting the largest applause.

It is painful to watch.

Welcome to sound bite journalism. If you look at headlines on any of the major media sites, they consist of attention grabbing words, predictions of doom and gloom and dreadful pandering to the current taste in sensationalism. When you read the text below the headline the actual news is mundane and boring. As competition for readers and subscribers increases the sensationalism increases. The ±«Óãtv is a good example of this. Check the headlines on the ±«Óãtv online news webpage in the morning and see for yourself. The ±«Óãtv is at risk of becoming a laughing stock. Unfortunately this becomes the main news of the day when in fact there are many more interesting stories that are never covered because they are too positive or not shocking enough.
Tony Blair is right. Personally I will miss Tony's light hearted approach to journalists. He manages them very well and that takes a lot of skill. I hope the next few prime ministers will find a new way of getting their message across to the populus. The standard of journalism is dropping, editorials and opinion pieces are replacing it and the news media is looking more and more desperate in its ratings game.

I heard Pierce Morgan being interviewed at lunch at the cricket on Saturday (Radio 4 LW, and surprisingly I'm not yet 30!). He said that the media's building up and then attacking style was healthy, at least compared to a US style reverence for the famous.

A very interesting viewpoint from one who is as secure as anyone can be in his position of change. For this reason it should be treated to proper consideration.
On the good side it is a sound critique of a business that has sometimes followed gold in a blind and reckless way with little understanding of the route it is taking. On the bad side, it is made on behalf a business that has developed the misleading statement to a fine art form and has thus earned the distrust of all: a business lost in its own percieved importance.
If the speech has made any of the movers and shakers of either part reflect, it will do good.

Two points - one of which was made many years ago and that is that the media has power without responsibility. The Government got accused of not providing sufficient protection for David Kelly but no one seems to comment that it was our rapacious media who he needed to be protected from.

The second point is that the media (especially the broadcast media)confuses explanation with simplification - we end up with soundbites replacing discussion not just because politicans want it but because the media can't cope with anything else. Perhaps the internet is the best hope for the future

The ±«Óãtv and rest of the media may do well to step back and consider the long term strategic sprit in which the speech appeared to be made.

Sure there will always be political scandals or hungry news reporters in this increasingly more real time world. Neither do things right; although well motivated in their current situations.

Both politicians and the media would do well to take time to consider their positions and consequences of actions with use of this extreamly powerful realtime information technology now at their disposal.

24/7 global communications but really is this used for the betterment of mankind or like a kids in a candy shop?

Blair is leaving, for good or bad, a chance for all to learn from the sucesses and mistakes.

Blair never forgot his early barrister training in the use of weasel words. An example: "we will not increase income tax" to imply no increase in taxes. Unfortunately he played fast and loose with the truth too often to be considered a "normal kinda guy". The phrases "horse", "stable door", "bolting" come to mind whenever New Labour moans about the media.

The media's acknowledgement of a few slip-ups but refusal to accept the truth of Blair's main point is like passengers on the "Titanic" arguing about the Beef Wellington but failing to discuss the iceberg.

Nick, Can the media be feral? Maybe. But can they also appear astonishingly unpatriotic at times? Certainly!

I routinely watch the ±«Óãtv News International version, & sometimes am pleased with its approach in contrast to, eg, CNN & Fox News. But sometimes, eg recently with the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, the ±«Óãtv's coverage has left me very displeased indeed. Yesterday, there was a longish & interesting feature from Argentina which only called the Falklands the "Malvinas". OK in Argentina, but not elsewhere, bearing in mind the Falklanders' overwhelming desire to remain British. Despite this obvious fact, the newscasters, who granted are very likable people, completely failed to remind their viewers that the feature represented an essentially Argentinian view - & DEFINITELY NOT Britain & its Falkland subjects' views.

Today there was more, when the Argentinian President Kirchener talked about getting the "Malvinas" back. Again there was NO reminder to the international viewers of the islanders' very strongly stated distaste at the thought of any possible Argentinian return (following their brief & unwelcome presence there following their illegal invasion of the islands which precipitated the 1982 Falklands War), & that the islanders themselves had been instead in occupation there for almost all of the Falklands' human-occupied history (ie since about the 1830s).

Another issue has been the ±«Óãtv's coverage of Gaza. Often when Gaza's routinely violent news is featured on the ±«Óãtv News International site, I find myself angrily turning off the ±«Óãtv news & transferring my attention to CNN, or even occasionally Fox News. This is in preference to the ±«Óãtv because ±«Óãtv newscasters do NOT make any of the exceptionally obvious observations that one would expect them AS ADULTS to do, like eg: how come the essentials of life are allegedly so short in Gaza, when guns, bullets, & violence are so plentiful there?

Surely the principle with Gaza is this: tell them their actions are wrong, & they may change. Don't tell them, & they are likely to believe that they can continue doing whatever they like for as long as they like - however unpleasant it is.

Certainly, that's not being feral. Instead, it's being responsible with UK taxpayers annual licence fees!

Watchet