WHERE IS THE FOCUS ?

Recently I had a conversation over lunch in respect of BBC journalists and interviews of politicians. I expressed a view that on some occasions the journalists in question were merely being combative for the sheer sake of being adversarial, whereas the person I was speaking to felt it essential for journalist to question the politician to test them about their policies, to question their effectiveness. It was the duty of journalists to enquire. I can understand this argument, but there is, in my view, a tone and line of questioning that supports the position of whatever government is in power. Why do I believe this?

 

In general, in the interest of so called impartiality, bbc journalist will take an opposition point of view, no matter which party politician in being questioned. If Labour, then a Conservative’s point of view is taken and vis versa. The interviewee will always be allowed to have the last word; however, a harder line is adopted when the person being interviewed is in opposition. A government representative in never challenged to the same degree. 

 

You may feel that I am being prejudiced and delusional, and that it is only right for politicians to be tested and severely questioned, and the BBC take no view and are impartial. Not every journalist takes a specific line, nor is every interview adversarial. There are of course some reporters who do take a very specific point of view and ask questions with the object of expressing their own opinions regardless, but these, on the whole, are generally reports by journalists known for their specific outlook. This is essentially subjective rather than objective reporting.

 

There is a segment of reporting from British Pathé from 1968 which demonstrates, to some degree, what I mean about reporting taking the establishment line whilst purporting to be objective.

 

 

Some of you may have spotted Tariq Ali at 11 seconds in, on the left hand side of the frame. The commentary is all sweetness and light about how well behaved the anti-Vietnam war demonstrators were. Coming from all walks of life being escorted by our wonderful police, making their feelings felt. We then have the warning of about anarchists and troublemakers with a different agenda. They are pointed out and reviled and soon referred to as hoodlums, with the wonderful police holding the line. Yet the people shown as hoodlums are the very same people who came to the demonstration with a view to taking the march past the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square. That was the point all along. The Establishment view was that they were not going to be allowed to march past the embassy. The confrontation was the police line preventing the march from taking the route it had envisaged. The narration is entirely about the brave police putting down the anarchists and troublemakers’ intent on violence.

 

As I recall the events (although I was in Brixton at the time) they were not intent on violence; they were intent on taking the demonstration past the United States Embassy to show the United States Government just how many people wanted an end to the bombing, killing and violence being perpetrated by the United States in Vietnam. The British Police were trying to prevent the demonstration from achieving its main objective which could have continued to be peaceful making its way around the square back to Park Lane, down to Hyde Park Corner, along Piccadilly and on to Trafalgar Square for speeches etc. The confrontation was entirely caused by the authorities taking a strong line on where the demonstrators would be allowed to march, regardless of the consequences. The war in Vietnam was a very emotive issue.

 

The commentary is entirely in line with an establishment point of view with an attempt to divert the public’s attention from the real cause of the violence. A praise for the demonstrators, not their cause, and a clear opinion that those seeking to challenge the obstructive police cordon, were agitators deliberately seeking to create violence. According to the commentator, they were there with a completely different agenda from the real well behaved demonstrators. This newsreel would have been played in every cinema in the West End and around the country. That is the view that the audiences around the country would have accepted as fact. I may be wrong, but I think not. I am of the view that, that sort of establishment reporting is still being practiced today, but in much subtler form.

 

Some of you may even see yourselves in the crowds. Let me know. In any event, I accept that my view may be one sided, but events of that day and the pictorial evidence itself, is not at all represented by the commentary with any objectivity. It is entirely praiseworthy of authority as is much of the commentary today. I believe that to be the case.

 

In most countries that claim to be democracies, citizens, on the whole, show respect for the State and the various institutions that are in place to maintain order and stability. Much of the power of the state is taken for granted. Most citizens seem to accept that the individuals elected to govern the state are there to support and improve the lives of their constituents. There is an almost intrinsic inclination to support the state. Questions of nationality and patriotism come into play, and the citizens looks to the state as part of their identity. The result is that whatever political party or alliance is in charge of government, there is a built in advantage over any opposition.

 

Incumbents in certain positions tend to maintain their position. One need only note the number of MP’s who have led their constituencies through multiple elections and been Members of Parliament for more than 20 years. Indeed 68 Member of Parliament have served for 20 years or more. Peter Bottomley since June 1975 (48 years) Harriet Harman since October 1982 (40 Years) Jeremy Corbyn, Roger Gale, Margaret Beckett, Edward Leigh, all have been members for 39 years.

 

This tendency to support the state is seen in any number of different ways, and although there may be grumblings, they are just that, and the establishment has the home advantage. This is demonstrated even more dramatically in Putin’s Russia. Any protest of the slightest kind is denounced by fellow citizens. The plight of 20 year old university student Olesya Krivtsova is an instance in point.

 

[[I have broken away from this thread of thought and just watched the press conference of Nicola Sturgeon announcing her resignation as First Minister of Scotland. I am deeply saddened by her decision as she demonstrated yet again, in the manner of her going and the openness she displayed in explaining the various factors that have brought her to make this decision, that she is a person of an integrity and honesty that far outclasses any of the politicians we have in office in the present United Kingdom. Whatever you may think of her views, her character will be sorely missed from the public debate.]]

 

According to correspondent Steve Rosenberg:

 

Olesya was arrested for anti-war posts on social media. One of them concerned last October's explosion on the bridge linking Russia to annexed Crimea. "I posted an Instagram story about the bridge," Olesya tells the BBC, "reflecting on how Ukrainians were happy with what had happened." She had also shared a friend's post about the war. "I was talking on the phone to my mother," Olesya recalls, "when I heard the front door opening. Lots of police came in. They took away my phone and shouted at me to lie on the floor.".

A student of the Northern Federal University in Arkhangelsk, Olesya has now been added to Russia's official list of terrorists and extremists. "When I realised I'd been put on the same list as school shooters and the Islamic State group I thought it was crazy," recalls Olesya. Under the rules of her house arrest she's banned from talking on the phone and going online. Olesya has a striking image tattooed on her right leg - Russian President Vladimir Putin depicted as a spider, with an Orwellian inscription: "Big Brother is watching you." It appears that in Olesya's case, it wasn't Big Brother watching her, but her fellow students.

"A friend showed me a post about me in a chat," Olesya says, "about how I was against the 'special military operation'. Most of the people in this chat were history students. They were discussing whether to denounce me to the authorities." The BBC has seen extracts from the group chat. In one comment, Olesya is accused of writing "provocative posts of a defeatist and extremist character. This is out of place for war-time. It must be nipped in the bud". "First let's try to discredit her. If she doesn't get it, let the security services deal with it."

"Denunciation is the duty of a patriot," someone else writes.

That last comment says it all. These are young people, university students, who have adopted the governments point of view as fact. So far as I know they have not been coerced into taking action against her. Indeed there are many Russian citizens who believe the Russian State’s version of events and approve of the possible consequences of opposing the government line.

My point is that the more we let ourselves slide into acceptance that the State is to be supported, my country right or wrong, the less democracy we have in the end. Respect for the rule of law is what is essential, not respect for the rule of the State. The State is not the law, although the Law is of the State. “L'État, c'est moi” is no longer acceptable. Too often leaders tend to confuse themselves as being the power, rather than custodians of the uses of power.  

What is extraordinary about this conservative government is that, whilst they profess to want small government and low taxes, they are all for draconian legislation placing greater power in the hands of their small government. They seek to abolish the idea of the public right to demonstrate. They seek to limit the power of the courts and  the citizens right of access to the courts. They want to abolish any interference from judicial review of their actions. They want the power to remain in power without having to actually perform any public service.

This confusion between the office and the office holder is specifically demonstrated by the recent exposing of the attitudes of certain police officers and groups of officers. The examples of Wayne Couzens and David Carrick, both police officers who used their position and the perceived power attached to the job to see themselves as not only above the law, but the law itself. There are clearly others on the force who suffer from the same delusion. They are not the law. They are subject to the law. They are not the authority. They are servants of the public. They exist solely because of the public’s consent. They are trusted to safeguard the community in which they serve. They do not have power over the community. Too often they forget that and perceive of themselves as the force of law. Again, they are not the law. To lose the public trust is to lose consent and confidence. It is the cause of greater public anxiety as well as suspicion and division. It is an unhealthy relationship.

Much is the same with the current conservative party and performance in government. The atmosphere created by Boris Johnson led to an arrogance in all those surrounding him, that they are the State and could do what they liked. They are the law and nothing can touch them. Hence the ridiculous Bullingdon club parties exposed by a recording of a mock press conference. They were so arrogant as to take pictures and videos. 

More shocking is that there are still groups of MPs wanting to have him back as leader of the party. Why he has not been forced to resign his seat is beyond comprehension. But then they are all still in power. His same group of ministers is still in office. What is taking so long for the house Privileges Committee to just say “Goodbye Boris, you’re done”?

So I ask, where is the journalistic focus? There is none. It flits from topic to topic putting up no pressure whatsoever to press for a general election, waiting for tidbits on a variety of government policies actually achieving nothing. They cannot question most government ministers as they refuse to appear, and we are left with minor government spokespersons, who say very little, and opposition politicians who can’t answer the inevitable “What would you do?” question. The citizen is left in limbo and the tabloids.

The conservative party is being shielded by the situation in the Ukraine and the other catastrophic human tragedy in Turkey and Syria. For them it is a diversion, but it is also allowing them to continue with the charade of government and all the advantages attached thereto. On top of everything else, there is disruption in the NHS and elsewhere. The wages of nurses are in dispute and we have national newspapers and BBC reporting on comparisons of nurses pay in various countries around the world, in particular in the EU with pay in the United Kingdom, as if to suggest we are doing better than other countries and not so well as others. This is based on figures put out by government departments, or offshoots thereof, again a distraction from the real problem. What have salaries in other countries got to do with nurses trying to make ends meet and perform to the best of their ability in the United Kingdom?  They are living here and now with a rising level of costs in the UK. not anywhere else. What is the problem with giving them what they deserve?

Where is the focus? I do not know myself. I believe this conundrum may be what is behind Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation. Too many things diverting her attention from what she has been trying to achieve her entire life. There are important things that she has naturally and quite rightly put in extra effort to cope with. Her ability to focus, and the quantity of graft required, has clearly been impaired by the exertion. She is on the verge of exhaustion. It is her strength of character and recognition of the true meaning of public service, being able to give 100% 24/7, that has led her to take this step now, rather than when it might be too late to recover. Applause.