牛牛资源

Peter Oborne’s resignation statement as chief political commentator of the Telegraph has touched a nerve for a whole number of reasons.

First, simply because of its rarity. Very few journalists are confident enough to speak out against their employers or to refuse to write stories that they don鈥檛 agree with. 

on the basis of its sexist and anti-Muslim coverage was an extremely unusual case of a journalist publicly outing his bosses. Oborne鈥檚 resignation, as the blogger Guido Faukes sniped, was a 鈥榞reat career move鈥�; in truth, the vast majority of journalists don鈥檛 have Oborne鈥檚 reputation and contacts and would find it even more difficult to find work elsewhere.

Newsrooms may claim to be at the forefront of protecting free speech but they don鈥檛 seem to be that comfortable with internal dissent or outright criticism.

Second, because of what it tells us about the direction in which 鈥榩restige鈥� journalism is heading. Oborne talks about the 鈥榙ecimation鈥� of the Telegraph鈥檚 newsroom, the decline in fact-checking and the obsessive pursuit of online traffic that pushes titles towards agendas like the Mail鈥檚 and away from well resourced public interest journalism.

Similar claims are now regularly made about the increasingly bland, establishment-obsessed coverage of BBC News.

Blurring the divide between advertising and editorial

Third, because it reveals a lot about the networks of power and influence that dominate the everyday business of news. The firm divide between editorial and advertising that has long been part of the folklore of quality journalism is under huge pressure from a variety of sources.

This can take the form either of 鈥榖randed content鈥� (from the Guardian鈥檚 , to 鈥樷��, the in-house agency component of Vice) which has become increasingly pervasive as traditional publishers in particular seek to make up for some of the revenue that has migrated to online advertisers. Or it can assume an even more blatant kind of interference.

Oborne 鈥� HSBC鈥檚 encouragement of tax evasion schemes 鈥� was sacrificed in order not to jeopardise the Telegraph鈥檚 advertising contract with the bank. Stories were run and then disappeared or not commissioned at all simply because of commercial considerations that compromise the fundamental purpose of independent journalism.

'Pandering to power'

鈥楾here is a purpose to journalism鈥�, writes Oborne, 鈥榓nd it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power, big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth.鈥�

Of course, news and the media industry more generally have always been enterprises controlled by 鈥榖ig corporations鈥� and 鈥榬ich men鈥�, whether offshore or online.

Presumably, copies of Herman and Chomsky鈥檚 Manufacturing Consent will be flying off the shelves today following their expos茅, more than 25 years ago, of the role of advertising in supporting a 鈥榩ropaganda model鈥� whereby advertisers are more likely to support output that conforms to their own ideological preferences 鈥� and, at times, more than willing to withdraw their support from outlets they consider to be hostile, which is precisely what seems to have happened with HSBC鈥檚 鈥榩ausing鈥� of their relationship with the Guardian following its coverage of the bank鈥檚 involvement in tax evasion.

Many people will be utterly unsurprised by the revelation of such intimate links between large media groups and their corporate sponsors but Oborne鈥檚 statement makes it clear just how open Telegraph bosses are about this state of affairs.

According to Oborne, Telegraph chief executive Murdoch MacLennan 鈥榓greed that advertising was allowed to affect editorial, but was unapologetic, saying that 鈥渋t was not as bad as all that鈥� and adding that there was a long history of this sort of thing at the Telegraph.鈥�

This is not quite what is taught in traditional journalism courses nor what is expressed in the usual editorials praising this country鈥檚 long tradition of a free press.

The final reason why Oborne鈥檚 resignation has been so widely acclaimed is because it gives voice to an increasingly widespread view that ordinary people are being lied to by people with power (which, ironically, is why we need fearless journalists in the first place: to alert us to this fact).

A crisis of legitimacy in traditional sources of authority

A , two years after the phone hacking crisis exploded, found that a mere 19% of the UK population 鈥榯end to trust鈥� the press 鈥� the lowest of the 33 countries polled. A of world public opinion listed the UK as 19th out of 27 countries in terms of the population鈥檚 trust in key public institutions.

There is a crisis of legitimacy in traditional sources of authority 鈥� including government, media, police and mainstream political parties 鈥� and very little confidence in the ability of these institutions to correct their own behaviour. In relation to press regulation, this means that the public is hardly likely to be impressed by a new regulator, , that is funded and controlled by groups like the Mail, News UK and, not least, the Telegraph.

Peter Oborne鈥檚 statement provides us with a clear warning that corporate influence, if unchecked, represents a systematic attack on free speech. His actions remind us that we shouldn鈥檛 allow news organisations to 鈥榤ark their own homework鈥� and that we need mechanisms to protect ethical practices in newsrooms.

But this is far more than an issue just about the behaviour of individual journalists and individual proprietors. We need urgently to change the patterns of media ownership in this country 鈥� to introduce limits to the amount of the media owned by a single voice and to redistribute income to voices which are otherwise being silenced 鈥� if we are to challenge the corrupt relationship between journalism and elite power.

Meanwhile, which of the parties will be brave enough to include a commitment to media ownership reform in their forthcoming election manifestos and, if they don鈥檛, is it simply due to their fear, as Oborne puts it, of the 鈥榮hadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can鈥檛 be conveyed across the mainstream media鈥�?