"Would I lie to you? Getting at the truth about politics and political reporting"

written by Greg Power
Director, Global Partners

In democracies, old and new, across the world people seem to be losing faith in politics. Fewer people are voting, fewer people are joining political parties and trust in political institutions is declining. Voters think most of their politicians aren’t very good and, quite simply, don’t trust them.

Of course, public trust in politicians has never been very high. A Gallup opinion poll during the Second World War found that only a third of the British public believed that politicians were motivated by the nation’s interests. In other words, at the height of the war effort, when patriotism was at its peak, two thirds thought that most MPs were either in it for themselves or their political party’s interests.

Democracy relies on some public scepticism. It is right that voters question the motives of their representatives rather than offer them blind trust. In the long-term, the best guard against political corruption or misuse of power is a vigilant and watchful electorate.

But evidence suggests that something different is happening now. Scepticism about the motives of politicians has hardened into a cynicism about politics as a whole. Whereas a generation ago young people believed that politics could change things for the better, now disillusioned citizens – especially the young - are no longer interested. And if they’re engaged at all, its in looking for alternatives to traditional politics.

In political and media circles there has been much debate in recent years about these trends. The problem is that the argument has to be about who’s most to blame – with politicians and journalists arguing it’s the others fault.

Politicians believe that journalists are more interested in scandal and gossip than in properly reporting politics. They accuse the media of sensationalising events at the expense of the truth, and in an era of increasing political complexity, relying on simple stories and easy – and misleading – headlines.

For their part journalists argue that politicians are their own worst enemy, by never giving a straight answer to a straight question. Instead political parties seek to ‘spin’ stories away from the main issues. If politicians have a reputation for dishonesty it is because there are numerous examples where the media has uncovered the facts in spite of political obstruction.

Ultimately public cynicism will be fuelled by both the hostility in some parts of the media and the dishonesty of some politicians. But what the debate has missed up until now is that the public seem to distrust politicians and journalists as much as each other.

In UK surveys of the least distrusted professions politicians and journalists are always at the bottom. And this is just as much of a problem for the media as it is for politics. If people are not interested in politics or don’t believe what they read anyway, then there is little point in political reporting. As newspaper sales and viewing audiences for TV bulletins decline, so news becomes increasingly about only sport and celebrities. And the internet now offers numerous sources of specialist and often unmediated information for those who want to find it.

While the media and politicians continue to argue about who is more to blame, the public is getting bored watching. In the arena of politics, the stadium is emptying as the public looks for interest and relevance elsewhere.

This can only be bad for democracy as a whole.

However, some on both sides of the political-media divide have started to recognise the problem and take the debate to a different level. The point of this series of events is to bring those people together for a more meaningful discussion about the causes of the problem in the first place, and then what, if anything, we might do about it.

The first event in Belgrade (20-21 February) will include John Lloyd of the Financial Times and now Director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University, who will expand on the themes of his book What the media are doing to our politics. The book provides a thorough analysis and strong criticism of the worst aspects of political reporting in the UK from one of its most respected journalists.

He will be accompanied by Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP, the former Home Secretary, Education Secretary and Party Chairman in the Labour government. Clarke has a reputation as one of Labour’s most thoughtful - and abrasive - politicians. He has argued in defence of the media but also has urged for greater responsibility in political reporting.

They will be joined by politicians and journalists from the SEE in the first of several events to be held during 2007.

The point of this blog is to encourage a debate that goes beyond the participants in those events. The comments and views from here will help us to shape the agenda for the discussions and, we hope, create a continuing dialogue during the course of the project.

The increasingly sour relationship between the media and politicians has an impact on the quality of democracy. At its root there is a three-way breakdown of trust – between politicians, the media and the public. The public is too often missing from these discussions.

We would like your views on the impact that both political behaviour and political reporting have on the quality of democracy.

For example;
· Who do you trust to tell you the truth – politicians or journalists?
· Do you think that politicians could be more open, honest and direct with voters?
· Do you believe that politicians’ comments are reported fairly?
· Does political news tell you what you want to know?
· Do journalists do a better job than politicians in holding government to account?

We may not find all the answers, but with your contributions we hope at least to ask the right questions.