Dal discorso di Tony Blair del 12 giugno scorso:
"I media vanno a caccia in branco: bestie feroci che fanno a pezzi persone e reputazioni"***
www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00177/cartoon-385_177...
*****************************************************************
"Come il discorso di Craxi del luglio ’92 alla Camera, quello del «tutti ladri, nessun colpevole», anche il discorso di Blair contro «la stampa bestia feroce che fa a pezzi persone e reputazioni» suscita la «ola» di uno stuolo di fans pronti a esaltare il suo presunto «coraggio». Naturalmente il discorso di Craxi non aveva nulla di coraggioso: era ricattatorio, qualunquista e soprattutto vile, visto che mirava all’impunità della casta. Idem per il discorso di Blair, che per tutto il mandato ha minacciato, intimidito, condizionato con ogni mezzo la libera informazione (per esempio la Bbc che smascherava le sue balle sulla guerra)".
da:
L'UNITA'
16 GIUGNO 2007
Struscia la notizia
di Marco Travaglio
www.vainedicola.com
*****************************************************************
"Gli inglesi li chiamano spin doctors, che letteralmente vuol dire: tessitori di storie, di contraffazioni, di menzogne destinate a proteggere i politici, a manipolare i parlamenti, a stordire le opinioni pubbliche. In una tela di questo genere era caduto David Kelly, microbiologo, ex ispettore dell'Onu in Russia e Iraq, consigliere del governo inglese in armi di distruzioni di massa. E la tela infine lo ha ucciso, dopo averlo usato prima come diversivo poi come capro espiatorio. L'onesto funzionario dello Stato ha pagato per tutti i politici che si sono sbagliati e hanno mentito attorno all'Iraq, ed è la prima vittima della guerra parallela che sta avvenendo in Inghilterra e negli Stati Uniti attorno alle ragioni - più o meno valide, più o meno false - che hanno causato la spedizione contro Saddam.
Ancora si sa poco della morte di Kelly: potrebbe essere un suicidio per disperazione, o qualcos'altro. Ma di certo quest'uomo fedele al servizio pubblico è stato adoperato dai politici per nascondere le sole questioni che contano, e di cui non era lui il responsabile: se Blair mentì in Parlamento oppure no, quando disse nel settembre 2002 che Saddam poteva lanciare attacchi chimico-batteriologici contro l'Europa o l'America entro 45 minuti. Se sia lecito oppure illecito il ricorso abusivo all'arma suprema delle mobilitazioni: la paura nuda, suscitata nei cittadini e nei Parlamenti. Questo si vuol oggi sapere e questo vogliono sapere gli inglesi, e non se la rete 4 della Bbc sia stata messa al corrente della menzogna grazie a una fonte segreta che si chiama Kelly o che porta altri nomi.
Forse era necessario abbattere Saddam, perché il suo regime avvelenava il Medio Oriente e seminava morte in Iraq. Ma perché gonfiare la sua immediata pericolosità mondiale, usando la paura della gente comune? Kelly probabilmente aveva detto al giornalista della Bbc Andrew Gilligan che il pericolo Saddam non era così attuale come pretendevano Bush e Blair. Che una cosa erano i diritti dell'uomo violati, altra cosa le armi mondialmente letali sbandierate a Washington e Londra. C'è infine la storia dei 45 minuti, denunciata dal giornalista come patacca inventata dal governo. Ancora non si sa chi mise al corrente la Bbc. Non deve esser stato Kelly, che ha negato di aver parlato di questo con il giornalista, ma il governo lo ha trattato come se lo avesse fatto.
E’ a quel punto che i manipolatori di storie, gli spin doctors, hanno gettato sul microbiologo la loro tela intrisa di veleno. Che hanno ordito un piano, forse, inteso a far passare per suicidio un omicidio di fatto. Doveva apparire lui il colpevole di tutto, e non Blair e il suo portavoce Alastair Campbell che aveva inserito nel discorso del Premier la storia dei 45 minuti. Kelly doveva apparire la fonte di tutti i mali, la gola profonda che aveva scatenato gli spettri vendicativi della Bbc. Il commentatore del Guardian, Hugo Young, descrive così, parafrasando Shakespeare, lo stato d'animo del leader laburista: «Una fonte! Una fonte! Il mio impero per una fonte!».
(cfr.: Barbara Spinelli, I tessitori di menzogne, La Stampa, 20 luglio 2003)
www.osservatoriosullalegalita.org/03/commenti/84.htm
*****************************************************************
"Se non puoi screditare il rapporto, discredita il reporter, o la fonte che quest'ultimo ha usato, o magari tutti e due".
"If you cannot discredit the report, then discredit the reporter or the source, and preferably both".
(Mary Dejevksy, The Independent, 19 July 2003)
comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/mary_dejevsky/article9...
*****************************************************************
Il discorso di Blair sui media, con le critiche ai quotidiani a ai canali di notizie, tradotto da "La Repubblica":
rassegna.camera.it/chiosco_new/pagweb/immagineFrame.asp?articleFormat=pdf&articleCurrentPage=1¤tArtic...
rassegna.camera.it/chiosco_new/pagweb/immagineFrame.asp?articleFormat=pdf&articleCurrentPage=2¤tArtic...
*****************************************************************
L'UNITA'
14 GIUGNO 2007
CARO BLAIR FATTI CORAGGIO
(WHITTAM SMITH ANDREAS)
a pag. 1
rassegna.camera.it/chiosco_new/pagweb/immagineFrame.asp?comeFrom=search¤tArtic...
*****************************************************************
IL SOLE 24 ORE
14 GIUGNO 2007
FASSINO: GIORNALI-BELVE, HA RAGIONE BLAIR
a pag. 6
rassegna.camera.it/chiosco_new/pagweb/immagineFrame.asp?comeFrom=search¤tArtic...
*****************************************************************
L'UNITA'
15 GIUGNO 2007
SULLA STAMPA BLAIR HA RAGIONE MA ANCHE I POLITICI
(IERVASI MARISTELLA)
a pag. 10
rassegna.camera.it/chiosco_new/pagweb/immagineFrame.asp?comeFrom=search¤tArtic...
rassegna.camera.it/chiosco_new/pagweb/immagineFrame.asp?articleFormat=pdf&articleCurrentPage=2¤tArtic...
*****************************************************************
L'UNITA'
16 GIUGNO 2007
La belva e i lettori
Antonio Padellaro
Strano, ma nella scoppiettante lite a distanza tra il primo ministro britannico in uscita e il direttore di The Independent sui difficili rapporti tra politica e stampa, non si parla mai dei lettori. I quali pur essendo quelli che pagano, per essere governati e per essere informati, restano sullo sfondo come i curiosi che si affollano intorno a un incidente stradale. Riassumiamo per chi si fosse perso le puntate precedenti. Tony Blair accusa: sulla base della mia decennale esperienza a Downing Street vi dico che i giornali sono belve selvagge e disoneste attirate solo dagli scandali e dai contrasti di opinione, e interessate a fare a brandelli le persone e la loro reputazione. La replica di Andreas Whittam Smith potrebbe essere condensata nella celebre battuta di Humphrey Bogart: Tony non te la prendere, è la stampa bellezza. Naturalmente il discorso- sfogo di Blair (peraltro scritto divinamente) ha riscosso ampi consensi nel mondo politico italiano, soprattutto in quello di sinistra dove i morsi della belva sulle intercettazioni risultano particolarmente dolorosi.
Certo, il momento è quello che è, ma in generale si può realmente sostenere che nel nostro Paese l’informazione sia nemica della politica? Ai nostri cari leader può accadere che non tutte le mattine abbiano l’oro in bocca e che lo sfoglio dei quotidiani riservi qualche amara lettura. Messa in pagina dalla belva dattilografa per assecondare, direbbe Blair, la propria natura selvaggia (vedi le succulente telefonate). Capita però che nei restanti 350 giorni dell’anno giornali e televisioni si mostrino molto più mansueti e disponibili. Stiamo parlando non della qualità e indipendenza dell’informazione, da valutare caso per caso, ma della quantità smisurata di spazio che ogni giorno quella stessa informazione messa sotto accusa riserva alle presunte vittime.
Chi scrive ricorda che, all’inizio degli anni 70, di regola, il Corriere della sera dedicava giornalmente all’attività di governo e dei partiti la sola (esauriente, chiarissima) nota politica di Luigi Bianchi, più qualche notizia di contorno. Rare le interviste, riservate ai grandi protagonisti. Eccezionalmente, in occasione dei grandi eventi (congressi, crisi di governo) scendevano in campo le grandi firme con le loro inchieste. Oggi, tutti in giornali di peso (l’Unità compresa) dedicano pagine e pagine alla politica e ai politici e lo fanno senza particolari istinti ferini. Anzi, nello sfogliare i quotidiani sembra di assistere al miracolo della moltiplicazione dei pani e dei pezzi. A parte i fatti del giorno squadernati e sezionati in più titoli, è un profluvio di retroscena, ritratti, aneddoti, dettagli, curiosità. Perfino se il ministro ha cambiato modello di camicia o di cravatta, si andrà a scandagliare il sarto da cui si serve onde ragguagliare sul girocollo e la tinta preferita. Le interviste, s’intende, non si negano a nessuno. È sufficiente che lo sconosciuto peone sia disposto a dichiarare qualcosa di piccante o sconveniente, e avrà le sue quindici righe di celebrità.
Inutile spiegare che i maggiori leader di partito e di governo sono stampati e illustrati dappertutto. Di loro conosciamo i sospiri e i più riposti pensieri. Fatica, del resto a cui essi si sottopongono volentieri in base alla regola prima della politica universale: se non sei sui media, non esisti. È il cast fisso che dai tg dell’ora di cena tracima nei salotti televisivi. Con le star che si scambiano di posto in un girotondo incessante e ipnotico. Luoghi dove non ci viene mai detto nulla che non sapessimo prima mentre i soliti rumori di sottofondo accompagnano l’ultimo sbadiglio: ti ho fatto parlare senza interrompere ora fai parlare me... Uno spettacolo forse unico al mondo quello dei politici chiamati a discutere di se stessi con altri politici, a farsi le domande e a darsi le risposte. Altrove, in Europa, un compito che è dei giornalisti e che nessuno si sognerebbe di sottrarre loro. E allora non si capisce più chi è la belva e chi l’agnello. E come mai chi fa la parte del leone se ne lamenta pure.
Torniamo infine al convitato di pietra: i lettori. È lecito dubitare che siano contenti di giornali (e telegiornali) siffatti. Ed è facile prevedere che lo saranno ancora di meno se una politica in crisi depressivo-aggressiva deciderà lei cosa gli italiani devono e non devono leggere, cosa devono e non devono sapere o vedere. Tony Blair ha tutte le ragioni quando denuncia i vizi della stampa. Forse ce ne sono anche di più e di peggio (il più grave: il troppo spazio che diamo a chi non se lo merita). Ma senza i giornali Tony Blair sarebbe diventato il premier Tony Blair? Ed è un caso che se la prenda con i giornali ora che premier non lo è ormai più?
*****************************************************************
*** IL TESTO COMPLETO NELLA VERSIONE ORIGINALE:
June 12, 2007
Blair's speech on the media in full:
The purpose of the series of speeches I have given over the past year has been deliberately reflective: to get beyond the immediate headlines on issues of the day and contemplate in a broader perspective, the effect of a changing world on the issues of the future. This speech on the challenge of the changing nature of communication on politics and the media is from the same perspective.
I need to say some preliminaries at the outset. This is not my response to the latest whacking from bits of the media. It is not a whinge about how unfair it all is. As I always say, it's an immense privilege to do this job and if the worst that happens is harsh media coverage, it's a small price to pay. And anyway, like it or not, I have won 3 elections and am still standing as I leave office. This speech is not a complaint. It is an argument.
As a result of being at the top of the greasy pole for thirteen years, ten of them as Prime Minister, my life, my work as Prime Minister, and its interaction with the world of communication has given me pretty deep experience, for better or worse.
A free media is a vital part of a free society. You only need to look at where such a free media is absent to know this truth. But it is also part of freedom to be able to comment on the media. It has a complete right to be free. I, like anyone else, have a complete right to speak.
My principal reflection is not about "blaming" anyone. It is that the relationship between politics, public life and the media is changing as a result of the changing context of communication in which we all operate; no-one is at fault - it is a fact; but it is my view that the effect of this change is seriously adverse to the way public life is conducted; and that we need, at the least, a proper and considered debate about how we manage the future, in which it is in all our interests that the public is properly and accurately informed. They are the priority and they are not well served by the current state of affairs.
In the analysis I am about to make, I first acknowledge my own complicity. We paid inordinate attention in the early days of New Labour to courting, assuaging, and persuading the media. In our own defence, after 18 years of Opposition and the, at times, ferocious hostility of parts of the media, it was hard to see any alternative. But such an attitude ran the risk of fuelling the trends in communications that I am about to question.
It is also hard for the public to know the facts, even when subject to the most minute scrutiny, if those facts arise out of issues of profound controversy, as the Hutton Inquiry showed.
I would only point out that the Hutton Inquiry (along with 3 other inquiries) was a six month investigation in which I as Prime Minister and other senior Ministers and officials faced unprecedented public questioning and scrutiny. The verdict was disparaged because it was not the one the critics wanted. But it was an example of being held to account, not avoiding it. But leave that to one side.
And incidentally in none of this, do I ignore the fact that this relationship has always been fraught. From Stanley Baldwin's statement about "power without responsibility being the prerogative of the harlot through the ages" back to the often extraordinarily brutal treatment meted out to Gladstone and Disraeli through to Harold Wilson's complaints of the 60s, the relations between politics and the media are and are by necessity, difficult. It's as it should be.
The question is: is it qualitatively and quantitively different today? I think yes. So that's my starting point.
Why? Because the objective circumstances in which the world of communications operate today are radically altered.
The media world - like everything else - is becoming more fragmented, more diverse and transformed by technology. The main BBC and ITN bulletins used to have audiences of 8, even 10 million. Today the average is half that. At the same time, there are rolling 24 hour news programmes that cover events as they unfold. In 1982, there were 3 TV stations broadcasting in the UK. Today there are hundreds. In 1995 225 TV shows had audiences of over 15 million. Today it is almost none.
Newspapers fight for a share of a shrinking market. Many are now read on-line, not the next day. Internet advertising has overtaken newspaper ads. There are roughly 70 million blogs in existence, with around 120,000 being created every day. In particular, younger people will, less and less, get their news from traditional outlets.
But, in addition, the forms of communication are merging and interchanging. The BBC website is crucial to the modern BBC. Papers have Podcasts and written material on the web. News is becoming increasingly a free good, provided online without charge. Realistically, these trends won't do anything other than intensify.
These changes are obvious. But less obvious is their effect. The news schedule is now 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It moves in real time. Papers don't give you up to date news. That's already out there. They have to break stories, try to lead the schedules. Or they give a commentary. And it all happens with outstanding speed. When I fought the 1997 election - just ten years ago - we took an issue a day. In 2005, we had to have one for the morning, another for the afternoon and by the evening the agenda had already moved on.
You have to respond to stories also in real time. Frequently the problem is as much assembling the facts as giving them. Make a mistake and you quickly transfer from drama into crisis. In the 1960s the government would sometimes, on a serious issue, have a Cabinet lasting two days. It would be laughable to think you could do that now without the heavens falling in before lunch on the first day.
Things harden within minutes. I mean you can't let speculation stay out there for longer than an instant.
I am going to say something that few people in public life will say, but most know is absolutely true: a vast aspect of our jobs today - outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else - is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At points, it literally overwhelms. Talk to senior people in virtually any walk of life today - business, military, public services, sport, even charities and voluntary organisations and they will tell you the same. People don't speak about it because, in the main, they are afraid to. But it is true, nonetheless, and those who have been around long enough, will also say it has changed significantly in the past years.
The danger is, however, that we then commit the same mistake as the media do with us: it's the fault of bad people. My point is: it is not the people who have changed; it is the context within which they work.
We devote reams of space to debating why there is so much cynicism about politics and public life. In this, the politicians are obliged to go into self-flagellation, admitting it is all our fault. Actually not to have a proper press operation nowadays is like asking a batsman to face bodyline bowling without pads or headgear.
And, believe it or not, most politicians come into public life with a desire to serve and by and large, try to do the right thing not the wrong thing.
My view is that the real reason for the cynicism is precisely the way politics and the media today interact. We, in the world of politics, because we are worried about saying this, play along with the notion it is all our fault. So I introduced: first, lobby briefings on the record; then published the minutes; then gave monthly press conferences; then Freedom of Information; then became the first Prime Minister to go to the Select Committee's Chairman's session; and so on. None of it to any avail, not because these things aren't right, but because they don't deal with the central issue: how politics is reported.
There is now, again, a debate about why Parliament is not considered more important and as ever, the Government is held to blame. But we haven't altered any of the lines of accountability between Parliament and the Executive. What has changed is the way Parliament is reported or rather not reported. Tell me how many maiden speeches are listened to; how many excellent second reading speeches or committee speeches are covered. Except when they generate major controversy, they aren't.
If you are a backbench MP today, you learn to give a press release first and a good Parliamentary speech second.
My case, however is: there's no point either in blaming the media. We are both handling the changing nature of communication. The sooner we recognise this, the better because we can then debate a sensible way forward.
The reality is that as a result of the changing context in which 21st Century communications operates, the media are facing a hugely more intense form of competition than anything they have ever experienced before. They are not the masters of this change but its victims.
The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is driven by "impact". Impact is what matters. It is all that can distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed. Impact gives competitive edge. Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact.
It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.
Broadsheets today face the same pressures as tabloids; broadcasters increasingly the same pressures as broadsheets. The audience needs to be arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked.
The consequences of this are acute.
First, scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.
Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgement. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. Watergate was a great piece of journalism but there is a PhD thesis all on its own to examine the consequences for journalism of standing one conspiracy up.
What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct. But misconduct is what has impact.
Third, the fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no-one dares miss out.
Fourth, rather than just report news, even if sensational or controversial, the new technique is commentary on the news being as, if not more important than the news itself. So - for example - there will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. This leads to the incredibly frustrating pastime of expending a large amount of energy rebutting claims about the significance of things said, that bears little or no relation to what was intended.
In turn, this leads to a fifth point: the confusion of news and commentary. Comment is a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is a large part of the media today not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course. In other words, this is not exceptional. It is routine.
The metaphor for this genre of modern journalism is the Independent newspaper. Let me state at the outset it is a well-edited lively paper and is absolutely entitled to print what it wants, how it wants, on the Middle East or anything else. But it was started as an antidote to the idea of journalism as views not news. That was why it was called the Independent. Today it is avowedly a viewspaper not merely a newspaper.
The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life's usual grey is almost entirely absent. "Some good, some bad"; "some things going right, some going wrong": these are concepts alien to today's reporting. It's a triumph or a disaster. A problem is "a crisis". A setback is a policy "in tatters". A criticism, "a savage attack".
NGOs and pundits know that unless they are prepared to go over the top, they shouldn't venture out at all. Talk to any public service leader - especially in the NHS or the field of law and order - and they will tell you not that they mind the criticism, but they become totally demoralised by the completely unbalanced nature of it.
It is becoming worse? Again, I would say, yes. In my 10 years, I've noticed all these elements evolve with ever greater momentum.
It used to be thought - and I include myself in this - that help was on the horizon. New forms of communication would provide new outlets to by-pass the increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media. In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five.
But here is also the opportunity. At present, we are all being dragged down by the way media and public life interact. Trust in journalists is not much above that in politicians. There is a market in providing serious, balanced news. There is a desire for impartiality. The way that people get their news may be changing; but the thirst for the news being real news is not.
The media will fear any retreat from impact will mean diminishing sales. But the opposite is the case.
They need to re-assert their own selling point: the distinction between news and comment.
And there is inevitably change on its way.
The regulatory framework at some point will need revision. The PCC is for traditional newspaper publishing. OFCOM regulate broadcasting, except for the BBC, which has its own system of regulation. But under the new European regulations all television streamed over the internet may be covered by OFCOM. As the technology blurs the distinction between papers and television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have different systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can be differentiated in the old way.
How this is done is an open question and, of course, the distinction between balance required of broadcasters but not of papers remains valid. But at some point the system is going to change and the importance of accuracy will not diminish, whilst the freedom to comment remains.
It is sometimes said that the media is accountable daily through the choice of readers and viewers. That is true up to a point. But the reality is that the viewers or readers have no objective yardstick to measure what they are being told. In every other walk of life in our society that exercises power, there are external forms of accountability, not least through the media itself. So it is true politicians are accountable through the ballot box every few years. But they are also profoundly accountable, daily, through the media, which is why a free press is so important.
I am not in a position to determine this one way or another. But a way needs to be found. I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires repair. The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.
I've made this speech after much hesitation. I know it will be rubbished in certain quarters. But I also know this has needed to be said.