Curran and Seaton (p.341-3) believe that each of these
channels has its own distinct purpose and take on news events; that the BBC try
to purvey an image that its audience are ‘participants’ in the great actions of
the nation, that commercial channels like ITV popularise the news medium and
Channel 4 cater for the interests of a minority audience in a way that extends
the idea of public service broadcasting. This theory was reinforced by their
coverage of Culture Secretary Maria Miller’s resignation from cabinet on the 9th
April 2014 following a scandal over her expenses.
The expenses scandal was a story that first broke in 2009
when The Daily Telegraph newspaper
revealed that most MPs had been spending taxpayer’s money on personal items. According
to Blumler and Coleman (p.141-2) it caused a, ‘seemingly enduring stain upon
the entire political class grew as public indignation exploded.’ Expenses
became what Bennett and Lawrence (p.25) refer to as a ‘news icon’ because it
symbolised larger cultural themes in British society, namely widening isolation
between the elected and the electorate. Expenses led to ‘intensive public
discussion’ (Bennett and Lawrence, p.26-7) where the topic appeared in a range
of media including documentaries and films (Brooke, p.244-8).
Miller’s resignation was a major story in and the fact it
involved a matter that had captured the public’s imagination meant it required
extensive attention. All the channel’s evening bulletins led with the story and
dedicated at least two packages and a two-way with their political editors
offering commentary. The BBC dedicates 10 minutes to the story in its 30 minute
bulletin, ITV dedicates 8 of 30 minutes, and Channel 4 covers the story for 22
minutes by including two live studio interviews in its 45 minute programme.
All use the same footage of Miller giving an interview where
she explains her decision by saying she doesn’t want to be a distraction. The
interview is a close-up shot so the audience can register her emotions (Erikson,
p.630), which is something that the BBC and ITV voiceovers draw the audience’s
attention to. All use the footage in the tease; Channel 4 use it at the
beginning of the programme before any of the presenters have spoken while the
BBC and ITV have the presenters introduce the clip as part of a trail of other
news-stories. Evidently the BBC and ITV saw the story as just one of the
stories that happened that day whereas Channel 4 saw it as the story of the day.
Channel 4 and ITV edit Miller’s interview as, “it’s become
clear to me that this has become an enormous distraction and it’s not right
that I’m distracting from the incredible achievements of this government.” BBC edits
this last line out and include her saying, “I hoped that I could stay but it’s
become clear to me that this has become an enormous distraction.” The BBC also
uses the footage to end the first package with the reporter cuing it as, “her
emotional decision to quit.” Miller then gives a statement with frequent
stumbles: “I, I want to make sure the… situation… is is clear to everybody and
make sure I can…move on.” Then the reporter closes the package by saying how
the country has not moved on from expenses. In terms of what Esser (p.417)
refers to as a ‘news situation’, Miller’s interview would be deemed a
‘partially controlled situation’ because while the story comes about because of
wrongdoing the interview itself isn’t adversarial and Miller is able to get a
message across about herself and the government. Zaller (p.127) hypothesised
that the more strenuously politicians try to control news coverage; the more
journalists will resist covering them. The BBC probably saw her line endorsing
the government as an attempt to control the situation and therefore used the
clips that exclusively focused on Miller’s decision.
When cuing their opening packages ITV and the BBC open by
referring to Miller’s words about her resigning because she’d become a
distraction, they both follow this by quoting opposing interpretations held by the
leaders of the Conservative and Labour Parties. Alternatively Channel 4 starts
with a two-way of its political editor giving commentary, this is cued by a
more interpretive script which says expenses had not been forgotten, Miller was
‘pushed’ and asks the questions; what does this mean about MP’s integrity,
Cameron’s judgement and the safety of Miller’s seat?
All of the packages comment on press criticism about Miller,
they all represent this by showing headlines while Miller walks in slow-motion
in the background and the reporter gives commentary via a voiceover. The story first emerged in the press so it
needed to be mentioned by all, the fact the story had been running for a while
meant that voiceover simply summarised this part of the story so that it only
takes up 10 to 15 seconds because it was old news. Channel 4 was the only one
to attribute headlines to newspapers which gives a clearer understanding of the
public debate by knowing who was making the comments; this also served the
programme’s narrative because one of those newspapers’ editors is interviewed
later on and the Telegraph’s role in
the scandal is discussed in detail.
Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) feature in all the packages,
Jones (p.177) notes that PMQs is one of the few things to feature regularly in
news packages from inside Westminster due to the potential for debate and
noise. PMQs from that day featured lively exchanges between Cameron and
Miliband as both questioned each other’s leadership ability in statements that
led to loud cheers from their parties. All the packages edit in both ‘scoring’
points against each other and show them each shaking their heads as the other
speaks. The BBC does feature more footage than the others, including Cameron
stressing that politicians are honest and Miliband saying this story is about
Cameron’s apologist attitude towards unacceptable behaviour. The BBC and
Channel 4 packages precede the PMQs section with the same sound-bites of
Cameron stating earlier in the week that he believed Miller should keep her job,
whereas ITV state this was his stance in a voiceover by the reporter. ITV
probably chose not to focus too much on Cameron’s U-Turn because they felt their
subsequent opinion poll about him was critical enough. All the broadcasters try
to be fair, balanced and impartial by covering both sides of the political argument.
(Jones,p.172)
BBC and ITV both briefly show and analyse Miller giving a
37-second apology for her expenses in the Commons a few days before. The BBC
comment on how brief it is and ITV suggest it was made grudgingly, both
presenting her as showing contempt to the accusations against her. This is what
Ekström and Johnanson (p.64) define as a ‘talk scandal’ in which a political
career is jeopardised by a verbal utterance. Alternatively Channel 4 believes
this was just part of the reason for her resignation and is only touched upon
briefly in the political editor’s analysis. Instead they say ‘the final straw’
was Miller’s aide appearing on television saying this scandal was a
‘witch-hunt’ against Miller, this led to the Prime Minister then pressuring her
to resign. The BBC mention Cameron’s backroom role in her resignation, while
ITV simply refer to his “opaque” response to the question of whether he was
involved in her resignation during PMQs in which Cameron says people should
accept Miller’s reasons at face value.
ITV does not discuss Miller’s expenses scandal in detail only
saying she was initially found not guilty of the charge by a Labour member.
Channel 4 and BBC analyse the complex details of her mortgage claims and the
legality of it through voiceovers and text graphics. Channel 4 goes into the most detail about the
following cabinet re-shuffle by saying there are only three women sitting on it
and the new Women’s minister has had the equalities responsibility removed from
her brief because she voted against gay marriage. BBC mentions the number of
women and who assumed Miller’s job while ITV just says who has new roles.
All broadcasters follow this up with a package set in
Miller’s seat of Basingstoke which includes vox pops from constituents. BBC and
ITV use answers which focus more on the subject of expenses and how
politician’s treat the system, ITV even suggest people are ignorant of the fact
that the regulatory system for expenses is independent from MPs based on one of
the answers they get. Both the BBC and ITV use graphics and voiceovers to
explain how the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has
changed. BBC ask Conservative MP Gerald Howarth whether it is right for
Westminster to still be involved in any way with expenses to which the MP
replies yes. ITV ask a committee member for IPSA whether people are aware
things have changed to which he replies they need to get the message out. They
also do interviews with MPs Nick Clegg and Nadine Dorries who have opposing
views over whether MPs should have expenses. Channel 4 has a more specific
focus because it uses answers that reflect Miller’s reputation in the town and
ask the public and the UKIP candidate there whether she might lose her seat to UKIP
at the next elections. Both Channel 4 and the BBC close the package by
mentioning Miller will get £17,000 in compensation for resigning from cabinet,
but only Channel 4 clarifies that she has promised it to a local charity. ITV
look into popular opinion further by referring to their ‘exclusive’ online polls
asking about Miller’s resignation and Cameron’s handling of the affair.
All conclude with two-ways by their political editors,
according to Jones (p.174) it is done this way to suggest their input is a
conversation with the presenter rather than a lecture because the former is
more engaging to the audience. The political editors have the last say on the
matter, with ITV and the BBC’s commenting after the package and Channel 4’s
featuring at the beginning and end of the news; this means they are the
audience’s lasting impression on the story (Esser p.421). Both the ITV and BBC
editors focus on how angry the public are about expenses and how Miller and
Cameron underestimated that and therefore made blunders. ITV finish by saying
that’s the end of the matter while BBC says UKIP will exploit this scandal.
Channel 4 focuses more on the workings of power; saying Cameron had appeased
backbenchers, Miliband had missed an opportunity to score a goal at PMQs, the Telegraph was probably unfair in portraying Miller’s guilt and how Miller made
things worse for herself by having aides spread messages about a ‘witch-hunt.’
Channel 4 follow their second package with the presenter
saying they had tried to get an MP to interview in the studio but none were
available. The expenses scandal was embarrassing for the majority of
Westminster therefore it is understandable that many would have wished to make
themselves unavailable. (Dalen, Albæk, Vreese, p.151) Davis (2009, p.205) notes
that the primary reason politicians speak to the media is to get publicity
which is reflected by all the packages; input from the main parties primarily
comes from sourced material like PMQs and Miller’s interview, the only
exception is Clegg and Howarth defending the expenses system. Otherwise the
political figures who do speak have something to gain from publicity; Dorries
has a chance to attack expenses, UKIP to publicise itself and IPSA raise
awareness of their work which ITV say is being overlooked.
Channel 4 interviews Nigel Farage and a former Telegraph editor in live two-ways. Both
are characterised by adversarial questions. Farage is criticised for UKIP’s
‘appalling’ record for expenses in the European Parliament, Farage adopts a
tactic of self-repair to re-focus the issue by saying he is using EU funds to
get Britain out of EU which is a matter some of the electorate agree with.
(Ekström p.690) The Telegraph editor
is asked whether criticism of Miller was due to her involvement with Leveson
and support for gay marriage, the editor gives a ‘minus response’ where he
denies the suggestion and distances himself from it by saying this is about
preventing MPs ‘marking their own homework’ when it comes to expenses. (Schegloff,
p.59)
Curran and Seaton’s theory about the channels are largely
vindicated. The BBC and ITV’s coverage are both rather surface accounts of what
happened and interpret it almost exclusively as being about Miller and
expenses. The BBC tries to involve the audience in the story by commenting
heavily on the public’s anger over expenses and ITV expresses similar views while
trying to engage popular opinion with its poll. Channel 4 is catering for those
who have a special interest in politics by including more detail, open
questions and interpretation about the scandal itself and its repercussions,
thereby giving the audience more information to base their judgements on.
Channel 4 also challenges assumptions the other channels made, first by asking
whether press coverage of Miller was
fair and that it was right she resign and secondly by challenging the
assumption that UKIP can exploit this.
Bibliography
Bennett, W. and Lawrence, R. (1995) News
icons and the mainstreaming of social change. Journal
of Communication 45(3): 20–39.
Blumler, J. and Coleman, S. (2010) Political
Communication in Freefall: The British Case—and Others? International Journal of Press/Politics 15(2) 139–154.
Brooke, H. (2010) The Silent State: Secrets, Surveillance and the Myth of British
Democracy, Windmall.
Chapman, J. and Kinsey, M. (2009) Broadcast Journalism: A critical
introduction, Routledge.
Curran, J Seaton, J. (1997) Power Without Responsibility, Routledge.
Dalen, A., Albæk, E. and Vreese, C.
(2011) Suspicious minds: Explaining political cynicism among political
journalists in Europe, European Journal
of Communication 26 (2) 147-162.
Davis, A. (2007) Investigating
Journalist Influences on Political Issue Agendas at Westminster, Political Communication, 24(2) 181-199.
Davis, A. (2009) Journalist-source
relations, mediated reflexivity and the politics of politics, Journalism Studies 10 (2) 204-219.
Ekström, M. (2009) Announced refusal to
answer: A study of norms and accountability in broadcast political interviews. Discourse Studies 11 (6) 681-702.
Ekström, M. and Johansson, B. (2008) Talk
scandals. Media, Culture & Society 30(1)
61–80.
Eriksson, G. (2011) Adversarial moments: A
study of short-form interviews in the news. Journalism
12 (1) 51-69.
Esser, F. (2008) Dimensions of political
news culture: sound bite and image bite news in France, Germany, Great Britain,
and the United States. International Journal of
Press/Politics 13(4) 401–428.
Franklin, B.
(ed.) (1992) Televising Democracies, Routledge, London.
Franklin, B., Hamer, M., Hanna, M.,
Kinsey, M., & Richardson, J.E. (2005) Key
Concepts in Journalism Studies, Sage.
Hudson, G. and Rowlands, S. (2012) The Broadcast Journalism Handbook,
Pearson
Jones, N. (2009) Reporting Politics. in
Chapman,
J. and Kinsey, M. (eds.) Broadcast Journalism: A critical
introduction, Routledge, pp.171-180.
Lee, F. (2012) The life cycle of iconic
sound bites: politicians’ transgressive utterances in media discourses. Media, Culture & Society 34(3)
343–358.
Negrine, R. (1999) Parliaments and the
Media: A Changing Relationship? European
Journal of Communication 14 (3) 325-352.
Schegloff, E. (2007) Sequence Organisation in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation
Analysis. Cambridge.
Zaller, J. (1998) The Rule of Product
Substitution in Presidential Campaign News. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 560
(Nov.) 111–28.
No comments:
Post a Comment