Read on Twitter
Deja vu....
New laws to shake up NHS, reverse Lansley reforms and give ministers control.
Two stories, by the same author, exactly one year apart. Today's is "exclusive". It puts flesh on the bones, but is essentially the same.
(1/?)
New laws to shake up NHS, reverse Lansley reforms and give ministers control.
Two stories, by the same author, exactly one year apart. Today's is "exclusive". It puts flesh on the bones, but is essentially the same.
(1/?)
And it will come back again when the white paper is actually published.
This is what happens when you get pre-briefings, re-briefings, pre-announcements, announcements, re-announcements.
(2/?)
This is what happens when you get pre-briefings, re-briefings, pre-announcements, announcements, re-announcements.
(2/?)
Journalists want to inform their readers. They want to be first with the story. Politicians and their spads know this and play on it.
(3/?)
(3/?)
And it's not just this Government. Blair, Campbell and Mandelson were masters of this drip-feed technique, throwing in a few more nuggets each time to freshen the old mix - like adding pecans or a dash of scotch to create a "new" brownie recipe.
(4/?)
(4/?)
But why sell this story today as new and exclusive? Even using the same "ministers take control" headline. Why not go down the "as the Times reported last year..." route? Because "here are a few more details" doesn't really cut it as a splash.
(5/?)
(5/?)
Of course what happens to the NHS is of abiding interest to most people. It always has been, but even more so now, with the pandemic and post-Brexit trade negotiations. This is a perfectly legitimate story. It's the projection of it as new that I'm taking issue with.
(6/?)
(6/?)
Because it turns a piece of sound journalism into government PR. And there's too much of that in most of our newspapers and on radio and TV.
(7/?)
(7/?)
The line between getting an exclusive, giving people real advance information on things they need to know, and being used as a government mouthpiece is wafer thin. As Kuenssberg and Peston, among others, know to their reputational cost.
(8/?)
(8/?)
And it sows confusion. How many times has Hancock told us that the Government has invested £20m in #covid vaccine research? Literally dozens. Is it the same £20m or repeated investments?
(9/?)
(9/?)
I'm pretty sure we've spent a lot more than that, but very much doubt that every announcement represented another £20m.
We really need specialists to be alert and to resist pressure from sources and editors to dress up old news as something new.
(10/?)
We really need specialists to be alert and to resist pressure from sources and editors to dress up old news as something new.
(10/?)
This is vitally important as we emerge from the pandemic. This government has to repair its reputation after being slow-footed on #covid and as the Brexit chickens come home to roost.
(11/?)
(11/?)
It will be going full steam ahead on its legislative programme, which means it will be re-briefing and re-announcing stuff that has already been aired during the election campaign and in the Queen's Speech.
(12/?)
(12/?)
Of course we need to know the details. But we need our newspapers and broadcasters to sort the new wheat from the old chaff and not gift Johnson the "40 new hospitals", "20,000 new police officers" headlines he craves.
Rant over. Sorry. have a nice day.
Rant over. Sorry. have a nice day.
Sorry, back again. Have just seen this from @thattimwalker. He presumably thinks it's a new story. His tweet has been RT'd nearly 300 times. Which sort of proves the problem.... https://twitter.com/ThatTimWalker/status/1357813882337832971?s=20
