Celritannia wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2020/feb/04/laughter-erupts-as-tory-mp-claims-government-is-committed-to-open-dealings-with-press-video
They are afraid of the press, or rather, any press that isn't a media baron with offshore bank accounts and don't reside in the UK.
Curious they didn't invite The Independent and evening standard then. Curious they invited the beeb which isn't owned by a "media baron. Curious they invited the Guardian which also is not owned by a media Baron. Curious they invited the ITV which is a plc not owned by a single individual or group.
Almost as if these five examples prove the drivel in this particular claim.
A word of advice Cel, if people notice you have a habit of spewing drivel (or as you like to creatively call it "Using a phrase to gain attention") people will start pointing out the trend of a lack of anything resembling rational argument.
Celritannia wrote:Media outlets must always attend press conferences so they can criticise and report on the Government's actions. Otherwise, how do we hold our politicians to account?
The New California Republic wrote:Barring certain journalists from press briefings negatively affects both freedom of the press and government transparency.
Fartsniffage wrote:No one attended. Because those who were invited walked out. Even the evil parasites that make up the British press thought this was wrong.
Curious that some of these same journalists in "the lobby" have been actively trying to supress freedom of the press and transparency. If they are that determined to promote transparency then briefings should be broadcast and publicly available, not limited to their direct viewing to decide what gets communicated or not..
Look, it is certainly worrying the breakdown in the relationship between No 10 and the lobby for the reasons outlined (
although this is hardly new, and it's
not just the Tories with a grudge against the press). Thats a given. Press freedom is a universal liberty that needs to be upheld for all, whether the people in power like what publications say or not. Staging such a public show of excluding some journalists made Johnson’s team appear petty-minded and proscriptive – hardly a demonstration of its claim to be ‘the most transparent government in decades’. But some context is required.
The independent reports that:
It is not uncommon for politicians and their political special advisers to brief particular publications or journalists about their plans.
But it has long been the convention that briefings from politically neutral civil servants are conducted on a strictly non-partisan basis, with publications of all shades of opinion represented to ensure that readers and viewers are kept informed.
And they are right, mostly. The problem stems from a (maybe deliberate) miscommunication of who was hosting this particular briefing.
SpAds are not politically neutral civil servants, and Lee Cain, is
listed as a SpAd by the Guardian.
Also, just because "the convention that briefings from politically neutral civil servants are conducted on a strictly non-partisan basis" existed before does not mean that the convention is obligation.This appeal to tradition argument is fallacious, especially when I recall the Independent cheering when certain conventions were thrown out the window by Bercow.
Finally, Spads are not new. Howard Wilson brought them in back in the 60's.
Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:38 pm
