Only part of the I


Ministers are keen to control how their work is covered by the media, and adopt various practices to do this, says Neil Merrick


t was a quiet Monday in August and, belatedly, the government launched its plan to cut rough sleeping. As expected, James Brokenshire, the housing and communities secretary, gave


early morning TV and radio interviews, and national and local media eagerly reported how much the government was spending on homelessness. Fine, you might think. Except the information put out by the media was not based on anything that reporters had seen in the homelessness strategy. Instead, the main source was a ‘story’ written by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The strategy itself did not become obvious until early afternoon. Journalists with the time to do this waded through the 77-page document to see if there was anything to add to the earlier headlines, but the day’s news agenda had moved on. Was this government manipulation of the media or just a


cock-up by the ministry? Those of a suspicious nature did not have long to find out as, the following day, virtually the same thing happened again. This time, it was a green paper on social housing, which


attracted more interest than usual because of the Grenfell Tower fire. That featured on breakfast bulletins, but the green paper was published at around noon, slightly earlier than when the rough sleeping strategy had appeared the previous day. Once again, it was game, set and match to the ministry. Headlines harvested and soundbites secured, ministers could sit back in the knowledge that the message had reached the right places in the way they wished, and any subsequent scrutiny by journalists would not attract much attention. Peter Apps, deputy editor at Inside Housing, says last


August was typical of the way the ministry tends to operate. “Every time there is a major policy announcement, it’s briefed to a national newspaper that writes it up in a sympathetic way,” he says.


Once a minister has appeared on TV or radio, a ‘story’ or


statement is put out by press officers but this may omit vital detail. The magazine’s policy is not to publish until reporters have seen the relevant document itself. That is what its readers, mostly housing professionals, expect. But in the rush to be first with news and feed social media, this can be difficult. Why, asks Apps, do government departments not have documents and other material ready before ministers give interviews or make announcements?


12 | theJournalist Maybe they are hoping for a better reaction by only


presenting a partial picture. If so, they often succeed. At last autumn’s Conservative Party conference, Brokenshire unveiled the government’s plan to ban combustible cladding on residential tower blocks following Grenfell. A press statement by the MHCLG received a positive response from the housing sector, says Apps. But days later, when the policy emerged in full, the reaction was less favourable. “We had groups sending us a second reaction when they saw the detail,” he says. It is not only the MHCLG that is criticised for withholding


information or putting out statements that exaggerate government performance. In October, the Department for Education was criticised by the UK Statistics Authority for reporting government spending on schools inaccurately. Should we ever believe what we are told? National papers


increasingly tend to publish statements from Whitehall press offices in full, while BBC reporters read out the government’s position at the end of stories in the interests of balance. But who checks when the Ministry of Justice describes the


UK’s legal aid system as the most expensive in the world, or the Home Office talks about the UK’s ‘proud tradition’ of providing asylum to refugees? Journalists who rub shoulders with MPs almost every day can also find it tricky to hold government to account.


The three-minute anti-hero on tour


WHEN PLYMOUTH Herald reporter Sam Blackledge had the opportunity to interview the prime minister during the 2017 general election, he was hoping for a scoop, or at least some meaningful quotes about the city. Instead, Theresa May gave


him what the Herald later described as ‘three minutes of nothing’. Already struggling to make


much of an impact in the campaign, the prime minister was in true Maybot mode, responding to Blackledge’s four questions with bland, almost insulting answers. The prime minister’s visit had been kept secret until the


night before. In the Herald newsroom, Blackledge’s colleagues helped draw up four questions he would be allowed to raise at town’s fish market. They need not have bothered. The Herald later published


the interview in full. Asked if she was becoming concerned, having visited a marginal constituency twice in six weeks, May replied: “I’m very clear that this is a


crucial election for this country.” Challenged to say how


Brexit would benefit Plymouth, she responded: “I think there is a better future ahead for Plymouth and for the whole of the UK.” Blackledge later wondered


whether he should have interrupted May or gone ‘full angry Paxman’ and walked away in protest. He has since left the


Herald for ITV, which refused to allow him to contribute to this article. Online editor Edd Moore


says the interview caused a ‘ripple effect’ across the UK, capturing the mood of the election. “There was no intention to do a hatchet job on the PM,” he adds. “It was borne out of frustration.”


RUSSELL HART / ALAMY STOCK PHOTO


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28