In the light of what I posted last Saturday, I confess to be exasperated by the apparent lack of understanding by journalist of how representational government works. I say ‘apparent’ because they seem to impose extraordinary expectations and powers on people they interview who hold political office, and who, somehow, should have magic wands to impose their policies on everyone else. Nor do I comprehend why government ministers allow themselves to be questioned as if they were actually able to perform these feats, whilst also being at odds, or even at war, with their party. The party’s executive branch is chosen to effectively put into action the policies of the party as a whole. That is presumably what they were all elected to office, but no one has a magic wand.
Wanting a particular policy to be put into action is an aspiration, and getting it approved can be extremely difficult. Even if it doesn’t happen as expected, that is not necessarily a failure. A set back, maybe, but a forward movement nonetheless. If the policies then prove ineffective and fail to improve the lot of the electorate, then the electorate will find alternative representation. It’s not so much about being combative as being able to improve the situation. At least that’s what it should bbe. Having impossible and inappropriate expectations does not help and the world of Harry Potter is a fiction.
Given the nature and manner in which this country seems to cling to a first past the post method of elections, and the diverse, multicultural and differently able composition of the electorate, is it any wonder that there are such different political views regardless of political affiliations and parties. We have seen and heard the alleged disputes between prominent members of all political parties. Journalists and pundits just love to comment and stir the pot when such differences occur, as if they’ve discovered some strange and devastating anomaly of “rifts within the party!!”. But that is the nature of party politics in a democracy. Rigidity, conformity and enforced discipline is what leads to dictatorship.
The very word ‘uniformity’ screams out its problematic meanings, particularly when applied to party politics. It not only exposes rigidity but even goes so far as to impose a dress code. A recognisable uniform that emboldens and implies a kind of menacing solidarity. Brown shirts, black shirts, red bandanas, any number of chosen identifiers of rigidity, conformity and singularity of thought. That its not what democracy is about. Yes, some situations require uniformity, but strictly for purposes of identification and avoiding confusion. The military, law enforcement, team games, nurses, medical staff and any number of other organisations that, of necessity, must be easily identifiable.
Political democracy is not like that. There are no nations without diversity, whether physical, mental or indeed aspirational. There is a general feeling that conflict is unnecessary or at the very least avoidable. Causing harm is frowned upon and allowing harm is equally reprehensible. The differences are how we deal with it. We have to deal with disability, poverty, homelessness, illness and any number of misfortunes. As citizens we expect our elected representatives to find the right balance of compassion, empathy, order and economic acuity. In a reasonably informed society the pressure on representatives is heavy, and rightly so. Finding solutions to the problems of humanity is ever present and expectations run high. We all have opinions.
The problem of American influence, however, is causing some consternation. What has changed beyond all recognition is the almost free availability of transmitting information. Facts and opinions flow out at breakneck speed. Sadly, populist opinion seems to have overrun the new information highway. The vulnerable, who are generally poorly educated and resentful, (particularly in America) have latched on to people who have promised them a cure for all their ills. Nothing of the sort will be accomplished as it would seem most representatives (again, particularly in America) are gangsters and opportunists. In fact, what has happened is an explosion of violence, supported by fanatics and fraudsters. Division is the modus vivendi of most countries. Some have barely maintained any sort of civility. This is evidenced by the introduction of more repressive legislation on law enforcement issues, which may come back to haunt the parties that instituted the legislation in the first place.
The economic disparity between high income, middle income and low income have widened as has the geography of wealth the United States. On the whole, it would appear that the States with the lowest incomes favour the Republican Party and by extension Donald Trump. The North East and West coasts with seemingly greater income and education seem to favour the Democratic Party. However, those with greatest wealth are favoured by the Trump Administration.
The world is indeed turned upside down. Whereas from the late 18th through to the early 20th century, revolution began with the deprived and oppressed. Now, these same groups seem to favour dictatorships. I am struggling for some kind of understanding of where we are. I am confused.
I confess the voices I hear almost daily, in terms of news, are from the BBC. Their analysis and opinions have a certain style. They claim objectivity and impartiality. There is a view that their approach to interviews is a sort of cross examination for the benefit and interest of the listener. I do not entirely agree. It is a combative style of interview and more often than not there are far too many interruptions. I do not object to interruptions per se, but it is far too often an attempt to push the interviewee towards a specific answer (trying to put words in the mouth of the person concerned as if seeking to score points?) because of time constraints imposed by producers and programers. Most European politicians are quite used to this style of interview; however, the Americans find it impossible to deal with and usually take umbrage. Trump supporters and acolytes take grave exception and become offensive in the same manner as their hero who instantly attacks journalists for disrespect and fakery, no matter what the question.
Trump advisors have been particularly sharp and rude to Victoria Derbyshire and Sarah Montague. I do find these two a bit worrying myself, as I feel they are both a bit towing the line. Far too supporting of an establishment point of view, despite their so called impartiality. I suppose it’s just the nature of the job. There is an element of arrogance that goes with it. Chris Mason, like Laura Kuenssberg before him, exhibits the same attitude as Political Editor. Does it go with the territory? They mean to be objective, but clearly are not. In my view, they often confuse analysis with opinion, although I’m sure would be offended by the suggestion.
Relations between government and the press can be difficult, particularly in democratic governments. Government Press secretaries have quite a history. They can be outright propagandist or genuinely concerned with providing information about the intentions of the government and the leaders movements and appointments. There is the Joseph Goebbels school of propagandist at the extreme end. Further down the scale, so far as the UK is concerned, not that many press secretaries are that well known. We have had a few with very firm views with the likes of Alastair Campbell for Tony Blair, Bernard Ingham for Margaret Thatcher, Gus O’Donnell for John Major and Allegra Stratton for Boris Johnson. They are a long way from Goebbels. However, Donald Trump’s choices, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, Kayleigh McEnany and Karoline Leavitt are pretty close to the German orator. Their willingness to spout outrageous falsehoods is breathtaking. The reverence they appear to hold for Mr Trump is extraordinary. Nothing is beyond them.
We all know that, in any event, a free press is essential. A relationship between the press and government is equally important. It is from this relationship that we get our information about the workings of a democratic government. It provides us with what we need to know. Just how good journalist are at doing it can vary. How far we trust the information we receive varies with how much we trust the source of that information. Journalists and presenters have a lot to answer for. I continue to trust that my trust in the BBC is not misplaced. Or is it?
