Alastair Campbell wants a more hostile media. How would that help to defeat coronavirus?
Ilya Dmitryachev/TASS
In a widely-noted recent piece for TheArticle, Alastair Campbell declares that he agrees with Piers Morgan that, in their questioning of ministers at the daily coronovirus news conference, “the media have become far too tame”.
Seriously? Does he really believe that journalists are more deferential towards ministers than they were 20 years ago, when he was responsible for Government communications? Most would say the trend has been in the other direction.
Yet Campbell did not regard the media as “far too tame” in the early years of this century. In his final speech as Prime Minister , Tony Blair complained that it was “like a feral beast just tearing people and reputations to bits”. There was little evidence of dissent from Campbell at the time. Some recall that Campbell was rather assertive in seeking to bring the press and broadcasters to heel — not least wherever there was a bit of backchat over the Iraq War.
Never mind. However partisan or inconsistent Campbell’s current charge might be, let us consider it on its merits.
The broad context should not be controversial. When it comes to defeating the coronavirus, we are all on the same side. Apart from one or two unhinged comments from Extinction Rebellion supporters, there is agreement on that. So, however we might vote, we are on the same team as the Government in that respect.
It is also agreed that, while the end is agreed, there should be rigour and scrutiny about the means. It follows that all sorts of questions could be asked that would be constructive but could still be challenging. Would it be a good idea to try doing X, which seems to be working in country Y? Could the existing arrangement Z be counterproductive? Might it be sensible to suspend (or introduce) some particular regulation for the duration of the crisis? What is being done to increase supplies of this equipment, that testing, finding a vaccine? And so on.
In fairness, a lot of these questions have been asked. But the problem has been the opposite of that described by Campbell. There have been too many “gotcha” questions, seeking to catch out and attack ministers personally. Too much recrimination over what has happened previously. Once the crisis is over, there will be plenty of time to consider what mistakes were made. But the urgent focus is to consider what we should do now .
That is why the public has found the media’s conduct so frustrating at these press conferences. There has been far too much preening and point-scoring. One problem is that those asking the questions have been the lobby correspondents, the political journalists. They are doing their job the only way they know how. But why not send along more of the health correspondents or the science correspondents? Their questions would be better informed and likely to provoke more enlightening answers. That does not mean such queries would be easier for the Government to cope with than the grandstanding from Robert Peston, Beth Rigby and Laura Kuenssberg. On the contrary, serious questions tend to be trickier to answer.
By contrast, Campbell’s proposed questions are often ones prompted by hindsight and are now irrelevant. Should Boris Johnson have stopped shaking hands earlier? Should the Cheltenham Festival have been allowed to go ahead? Fine to devote ourselves to such points once we are back to normal. Governments around the world should be held to account, reviewing what they got right and what they got wrong. That is not the immediate priority.
Other “ questions ” from Campbell are really just hostile abuse: “Do you really believe you are on top of this in the way you should be?”
The other danger from the media is of groupthink. It means not just demanding more tests — though that is crucial — but asking whether the tests work, who should be tested and what they would achieve.
One sensitive but vital consideration is whether an action to reduce deaths caused by coronavirus might cause more deaths overall. For instance, the deprivation caused by an economic recession, or even depression, would kill many — the death toll is real, even if it is hidden. The difference in life expectancy between affluent and impoverished districts is stark. In future years, NHS spending will be constrained without economic growth. What about the increased danger of suicide if isolation is retained?
It follows that accuracy about the data is crucial in making these grim calculations and minimising the loss of life. What estimates are there of the proportion of those who died with coronavirus who died of coronavirus? Often multiple causes are involved, so it will not be straightforward. But having some idea is necessary in any calculus of how long the lockdown should continue before it costs more lives than it saves.
Comparisons are sometimes made between the conduct of the media during our current emergency and during the Second World War. It is not true that journalists were supine towards Churchill. He faced plenty of criticism. But there was also a powerful sense that we were fighting a common enemy , despite our political differences on other matters. That is the balance needed for our leaders to make wise decisions. In that respect, Campbell’s demand for even greater hostility from the media would be of no help whatsoever.
