Having a rowdy press is vital to our democracy

I HESITATE to disagree with my old chum John Lloyd, one of Britain’s most distinguished commentators, but I cannot accept the British media is "damaging to democratic practice".

He has put this thesis elegantly in new book What the Media Do to Our Politics (published by Constable), and argued it cogently in a series of articles. But the thesis is not just flawed; it is the opposite of the truth. The disputatious vitality of the British media, for all its faults, is actually the essential lifeblood of democracy.

Of course, we get a lot wrong and are too slow to correct when we do. John cites two recent examples: the BBC’s claim that the government had intentionally sexed up intelligence and made misleading use of it to argue the case for war against Iraq, and the Mirror’s fake pictures of British troops abusing Iraqi prisoners.

But both the BBC and the Mirror have paid mightily for their mistakes, showing that the media is hardly as omnipotent as John thinks: one lost its chairman and director general, the other its editor and many readers. More importantly, although the specifics of their stories were wrong, both drew public attention to vital matters of public concern.

Almost everybody, bar Lord Hutton, believes the government exaggerated intelligence material to make the case for war. British troops have been arrested for abusing Iraqis in their care. Even when a free press gets things wrong, wider truths emerge. The public may not trust the tabloids any more than they trust politicians, but they trust our broadcasters and some broadsheet newspapers much more than politicians.

John believes the media has got too big for its boots: "The media now constitute a party of their own - the true opposition to the government of the day". But the media is only the "opposition" in the sense that journalists are naturally suspicious of power and say it should be called to account.

Moreover, the media has become more powerful in this regard in recent years only because of the paucity of proper opposition to the government from the Tories.

The British press is far more fluid and less predictable than it has ever been, accurately reflecting the decline in party allegiance. So a Tory Daily Mail can make life miserable for John Major’s government and the liberal-left Guardian can be among Tony Blair’s strongest critics, while the previously Thatcherite Sun and Times become cheerleaders for Blair. All this means that the newspapers are ahead of the political parties in reflecting shifting allegiances.

Few people still believe that our party divisions accurately reflect divisions of opinion in the country. We are long overdue for a realignment. The press, by being prepared to cross party lines, is pointing the way to the parties - again a service to democracy.

John sides with politicians who claim that the media hijacks their debates. Usually, we simply know how to present a debate better than politicians; the tabloids’ airing of issues that the chattering classes would rather sweep under the carpet, including immigration, Europe and asylum, is an essential democratic safety valve which ensures that the political establishment cannot always dictate the debate.

Blair seems to think he can’t get his way on the euro or the EU constitution because a number of powerful papers are Eurosceptic. But the Swedish press is overwhelmingly Europhile, yet Swedes rejected the euro. No national newspaper campaigns for Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, yet polls suggest that is the growing mood of the British people.

We could be more serious, like the French press, but the price you pay for that is a media which sees itself as part of the political establishment and leaves too many stones unturned. We could be more responsible, like the American broadsheets, but US papers are, by and large, a dull and homogenised bunch that plugs the same liberal-left line under cover of a spurious impartiality. I prefer our rowdy and explicit diversity.

John is right, however, in saying that many politicians despise us. But he regards that as a cause for concern; I regard it as a badge of honour. I abhor any kind of journalism which regards itself as part of the same club as the political classes. As a newspaper proprietor once remarked many years ago: "Relations with the government are bad, getting worse - and on no account must they be allowed to get better."

Thumb-suckers hit by Times cull - well, almost

MY COMPLAINT last week that in its current cull Times editor Robert Thomson was getting rid of too many of the wrong people, such as distinguished correspondents, and not enough thumb-suckers, such as its bloated team of leader-writers, has had a minor impact in the paper’s Wapping redoubt.

At the end of a leader conference late last week, Thomson admonished his opinionistas "not all to leave the office at once", lest the rest of the staff should see just how many there are. I understand it took a while for them to file out individually and that, since then, one has been pruned from their numbers. I suppose that’s progress, of sorts.

Research fails to uncover true bias

"YOU can commission media research to show whatever you want it to show," a professor of media studies once told me, which hardly spoke volumes for the rigour of his discipline. So those of a pseudo-Marxist disposition turn naturally to the Glasgow University media group, whose academics consistently see the media through red-tinted glasses.

Nobody, therefore, should be surprised that its latest research concludes, contrary to what we see on TV, that broadcasters are biased in favour of Israel and against Palestinians. The methodology of this quasi-academic stuff is, of course, flawed. Israel gets a better deal, say researchers, because more of its official spokesmen get airtime. But no-one believes spin doctors and pictures of Palestinians taking on Israeli tanks with sticks and stones are worth a thousand Israeli officials.

TV is also remiss, they say, because viewers do not understand the causes or the issues. But that is true for most international stories. When "plucky little Israel" was regularly invaded by Arab armies, the media was pro-Israel. Now that the Palestinians are perceived as the underdogs, the media naturally sympathises with them. That sympathy comes through even in the most objective reporting. If broadcasters are so pro-Israel, how come support for the Palestinians among viewers is higher than ever?

• MY predecessor bar one at the Sunday Times, Harry Evans, is showing his face this week to collect his knighthood, which is richly deserved for his services to journalism. It cannot compare, of course, to an award I was once given for being "the editor least likely ever to receive a knighthood". That was 20 years ago but it is as true now as it was then. Congratulations to Harry, nevertheless!

How can C4 get away with BB5?

CHANNEL 4 occupies a privileged position in Britain’s broadcasting firmament. It is not accountable to shareholders, unlike ITV or Sky, nor to licence-payers, unlike the BBC. It is not even clear who owns it (probably the Treasury, but you can’t blame Gordon Brown for its programmes).

In return for this unique status, it is mandated by parliament not to chase ratings but to produce programmes of quality and distinction, which means they will often have minority rather than mass appeal. But the current wall-to-wall screening of Big Brother Five, the most foulmouthed, degrading and violent so far, has turned it into the Yobs’ Channel.

Judging by the huge audiences it is attracting, there is clearly an appetite for this sort of thing - I suppose it means those English football hooligans sent packing from Portugal will have something to watch that suits their tastes when they get home. But I cannot for the life of me see how it fits into the special remit of Channel 4. Big Brother is too appalling even for Sky One. It belongs on Men and Motors. Channel 4 should get back to being a showcase for the best - not the worst - of British broadcasting.