Politics & The Press: One Big LOL

June 14, 2012 by Anastasia Kyriacou in UK Affairs with 3 Comments

The government is too preoccupied with courting the press rather than scrutinizing them: the relationship is one big LOL, but not the lots of love kind.

Propaganda is information that is not impartial, but biased and often misleading. It is dispensed with a certain political agenda and therefore used to promote or publicise such causes with the intention of influencing the masses and directing them towards that agenda.

Over this month, Module 3 of the Leveson Inquiry has proceeded to examine the relationship between politicians and the press. The highlights of this week have been particularly engaging, starring John Major, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband as witnesses in a decisive case against Rupert Murdoch. But why does Murdoch matter so much?

The Murdoch Empire has been labelled the biggest media player in Europe – an unquestionable cause for concern predominantly in the fields of British politics and populace.

A tabloid can be defined as ‘sensational in a lurid or vulgar way’ and with particular emphasis on the latter, The Sun is a fitting example. It is part of Murdoch’s News International Corporation and has a national daily circulation of over 2.6 million, which makes it the most popular source of written news in the United Kingdom. To put it plainly, the Murdoch Empire has a mass audience in Britain and therefore potential mass influence. This provides a basis of explanation as to why the relationship between the press and politicians has become so intimate and ultimately concerning.

As the 1997 election approached, Conservative Prime Minister John Major was heavily encouraged to strengthen relations with the Murdoch press and on Tuesday, Major revealed that in February prior to the election a significant conversation between Murdoch and Major occurred amidst their fine dining. It culminated with a statement similar to the following:

“If you don’t change your policy my organisation cannot support you”

Murdoch outright threatened to remove support for the Conservative Party unless Major changed certain policies towards Europe, which is likely to have referred to a referendum on leaving the EU. Although Major was admittedly “too sensitive to the press” which he even once called a “source of wonder”, the matter was not pursued and the Tory’s lost the election, Murdoch’s support aligning itself with the new Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. Twelve years later in September 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown refused any negotiation with Murdoch and support from The Sun was withdrawn and naturally, returned to the Conservatives. The Tories won the following election.

With such a blunt correlation between party politics and the press, Ed Miliband’s suggestion that “one person should not control 34% of the British press” is extremely accurate and quite frankly, exceedingly long overdue. This is because ultimately if the Murdoch Empire has the power to change British political policy whilst having significant access and influence over the population, his tabloids can be described as the most useful instrument to promote and publicise particular political agenda and can therefore be labelled as pure propaganda.

Nobody can deny that the government is far too preoccupied with courting the media rather than scrutinising them and as a result the relationship between editors and politicians have consequently ended in one big lol, but not the lots of love kind.

Tagged Conservatives, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, John Major, Labour, Leveson Inquiry, Prime Minister, propaganda, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair, Tory

Share this post

About Anastasia Kyriacou

Anastasia is reading BA History at the University of Birmingham and is the Amnesty International campaign manager for the University's student group.

View all posts by Anastasia Kyriacou →

RoseJune 14, 2012 at 1:16 pmReply

How can a democracy be a democracy when those in power are unelected? Hunt needs to be sacked and Murdoch needs to have his empire cut in half.

RMJune 16, 2012 at 12:25 amReply

Bloody hard to play devil’s advocate to this, but lets give it a shot.

Murdoch’s empire not exist but instead there is a cluster of multiple newspaper editors instead who determine the editorial stance of the national press, do you think it would be any different? Politicians will still romance such editors, particularly if their paper has the readership of an audience they find hard to connect to (e.g., working class Sun readers in TB’s/DC’s case).
Yes it does mean there is a reduced impact in the sense that these standalone editors won’t have as much leverage to influence policy, but they will have arguably a larger handle to do so than most. And there is nothing to stop these editors collectively forming their own unofficial group amongst themselves to exert their influence together. Legislative regulation can only go so far.

Though some credit must be given to Murdoch as he is keeping The Times newspaper running. It is one of the oldest newspapers in the country and is the keeper of records, yet it runs losses into the millions each year. Murdoch has bought The Times and is taking the hits of the losses in order to keep it afloat when no other bidders are willing to put money into such a risky investment. While this is on a tangent to the article, it must be noted of this contribution as it is arguably a vital part of our heritage. We could easily lose The Times and the journalism it houses very soon should Murdoch be forced to reduce his empire size. Not that this justifies any of the underhand relationships that exist between Westminster and Fleet Street.

What must also be noted in spite of Milliband’s call for a restriction of media ownership is that were it not for the previous Labour government, there would be no potential for Murdoch to bid for BSkyB. It was the previous Labour government that decided to relax legislation on what and how much of the national media foreign nationals could own.

Anastasia KyriacouJune 16, 2012 at 11:30 amReply

Whilst it is natural for there always to be a paper that is most popular, the problem with Murdoch’s tabloids being hegemonic is incidences such as what brought about the Leveson Inquiry in the first place. It is not an honest tabloid in any way and stricter regulations are therefore necessitated. If his press was to be thoroughly scrutinized or eliminated, then politicians will at least be romanticising with more trustworthy press. To be honest press with less power would mean the relationship between politicians and the press would decline altogether.

My argument is not about party politics – I have no political agenda and hope to have portrayed a view that is not politically biased. Blair’s association with Murdoch is perhaps the most intimate yet, considering the recent revelations about his influence over the Iraq war. Although Miliband belongs to the same party as Blair who may have created a lot of the mess, that does not mean his call for what is desperately needed should be undermined. Any call for positive should be accepted with open arms regardless of who it is from!

3 Comments

RoseJune 14, 2012 at 1:16 pmReply

How can a democracy be a democracy when those in power are unelected? Hunt needs to be sacked and Murdoch needs to have his empire cut in half.
RMJune 16, 2012 at 12:25 amReply

Bloody hard to play devil’s advocate to this, but lets give it a shot.

Murdoch’s empire not exist but instead there is a cluster of multiple newspaper editors instead who determine the editorial stance of the national press, do you think it would be any different? Politicians will still romance such editors, particularly if their paper has the readership of an audience they find hard to connect to (e.g., working class Sun readers in TB’s/DC’s case).
Yes it does mean there is a reduced impact in the sense that these standalone editors won’t have as much leverage to influence policy, but they will have arguably a larger handle to do so than most. And there is nothing to stop these editors collectively forming their own unofficial group amongst themselves to exert their influence together. Legislative regulation can only go so far.

Though some credit must be given to Murdoch as he is keeping The Times newspaper running. It is one of the oldest newspapers in the country and is the keeper of records, yet it runs losses into the millions each year. Murdoch has bought The Times and is taking the hits of the losses in order to keep it afloat when no other bidders are willing to put money into such a risky investment. While this is on a tangent to the article, it must be noted of this contribution as it is arguably a vital part of our heritage. We could easily lose The Times and the journalism it houses very soon should Murdoch be forced to reduce his empire size. Not that this justifies any of the underhand relationships that exist between Westminster and Fleet Street.

What must also be noted in spite of Milliband’s call for a restriction of media ownership is that were it not for the previous Labour government, there would be no potential for Murdoch to bid for BSkyB. It was the previous Labour government that decided to relax legislation on what and how much of the national media foreign nationals could own.
- Anastasia KyriacouJune 16, 2012 at 11:30 amReply
  
  Whilst it is natural for there always to be a paper that is most popular, the problem with Murdoch’s tabloids being hegemonic is incidences such as what brought about the Leveson Inquiry in the first place. It is not an honest tabloid in any way and stricter regulations are therefore necessitated. If his press was to be thoroughly scrutinized or eliminated, then politicians will at least be romanticising with more trustworthy press. To be honest press with less power would mean the relationship between politicians and the press would decline altogether.
  
  My argument is not about party politics – I have no political agenda and hope to have portrayed a view that is not politically biased. Blair’s association with Murdoch is perhaps the most intimate yet, considering the recent revelations about his influence over the Iraq war. Although Miliband belongs to the same party as Blair who may have created a lot of the mess, that does not mean his call for what is desperately needed should be undermined. Any call for positive should be accepted with open arms regardless of who it is from!