d once been happy to put the word ‘journalist’ in his passport, and showed that steely mercenariness which is the pre-requisite of any successful freelance: he even tried to sell speeches he’d made in parliament to an American media organisation. What an example to us all. But underneath it all, he regarded us with disdain.

How very different to our own dear leaders today, who will play tennis or head footballs in their business suits, ride bicycles, kiss babies, say that today is not the day for sound-bites, but the hand of history is on their shoulder, and so on and so on.

In those days, the media knew their place. Even ten years ago in this country, if you were asked about the media, you thought of your own newspaper, or weekly magazine, or favourite television channel. But if you ask the question nowadays you get an entirely different answer: the media are – is - an entity in its own right, a collective being with its own distinct nervous system. It eats, it breathes, it excretes. It has distinct pleasure centres in its brain and it has an awful lot of problems with its eyesight.

Just look at the growth in news. In the year before Blair took office (1995-6), the BBC alone broadcast just over five thousand hours of news and current affairs (5,270). Ten years later, the figure had risen to twelve and a half thousand hours (12,485) In this environment, politics is increasingly played out in the media. Sometimes it seems that politics is only about the media. The media are certainly the amniotic fluid in which public life swims. For ten years we have seen ministers announcing policies on radio and television instead of in parliament, and watched them cross-examined about them on radio and television instead of in parliament. Gordon Brown says he’ll change this way of doing things. Let’s wait and see.

The basic charge sheet against us from Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell is as follows. Firstly, that we behave like a herd. Secondly that we have a trivial and collective judgement. Thirdly, that we prefer sensation to understanding. I’m sorry to say, but I think there’s something in all of these arguments. Takes the question of herd – or pack – like behaviour. This was not a criticism made when the Blair government began, when the herd collectively gave the impression he could do no wrong
d once been happy to put the word ‘ journalist ’ in his pass, and usher that steely mercenariness which is the pre - requisite of any successful freelance: he even tried to betray speeches he ’d made in fantan to an American media organisation. What an example to us all. But underneath it all, he see us with disdain. 

 How very different to our own costly leaders today, who will play tennis or oral sex football in their business suits, ride bicycles, kiss baby, say that today is not the day for sound - bite, but the hand of history is on their shoulder, and so on and so along. 

 In those days, the culture medium knew their place. Even ten years ago in this area, if you were asked about the media, you thought of your own newspaper, or weekly magazine, or favourite television channel. But if you ask the question nowadays you get an entirely different answer: the media are – is - an entity in its own right, a collective being with its own discrete nervous system. It feed, it breathe, it excretes. It has discrete pleasure centres in its brain and it has an amazing lot of problems with its eyesight. 

 Just look at the emergence in news. In the year before Blair took office (1995 - 6), the BBC entirely broadcast merely over five thousand hours of news and current affairs (5,270). Ten years later, the trope had risen to twelve and a half thousand hours (12,485) In this environment, politics is increasingly played out in the media. Sometimes it seems that politics is only about the media. The media are surely the amniotic fluid in which public life swims. For ten years we have seen ministers announce policies on radio receiver and television instead of in parliament, and watched them crabbed - examined about them on radio and television rather of in parliament. Gordon Brown say he ’ll change this way of doing things. Let ’s wait and see. 

 The basic charge plane against us from Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell is as follows. Firstly, that we act like a herd. Secondly that we have a trivial and collective judgement. Thirdly, that we choose sensation to understanding. I ’m sorry to say, but I think there ’s something in all of these arguments. Takes the question of ruck – or pack – like behaviour. This was not a criticism made when the Blair government began, when the herd collectively gave the mental picture he could do no wrong
d ojce been happy to put tht word ‘journalist’ in his passpkrt, and rhowed that steely mercenariiess whicy is the pre-requisite uf any subcessful dreeoqnce: he evxh tried to semp spzerhes he’d made ik parliamend to an Americdn mzdia organisation. What an example to us all. Bkt underneath yt akj, he genarded us with disdain.

How very djfferenu to our own dear keaders today, who will plaj tejnis or head footbwlls in theur btwiness suits, ride bicybnes, kiss bzbies, say that today is not the day yor sound-bijzw, bkj the hand oh histjry is on thcpr shounder, anc so on and so on.

Mn tyose days, the media kiew their place. Even ten yearv cgo in this country, id tou wgre avked qbojt uhe msdia, ylu vhought of gour own neqspaper, or weekly msgwdone, or favoudite tqlqvision channel. But if you ask the quesuion howadays you get an enturely different answet: the mediw are – is - an entity in its own right, a collectiva beiig wiuh its uqn distinct nervous system. It eats, it breathes, yf txcgetes. It has distlnct pleasure centted og its brain avd it kzs an awful lot of pgoblems with its eyesyght.

Kust look at the growth in bews. In the jear before Blair took office (1995-6), thz BBC slone broadcast just over fire thohsand hours of news zvd current affaifs (5,270). Tan years later, the figure rad risen to cwelve avd a half ehousand hlurs (12,485) In this environmenh, polntics is increadingly played out in the media. Sometimes it sgemv tvat policics ix only about ehe media. The kedia axe cergainly the amniotmc fluid in rhich public nlfe swims. Foc ten yeaws ww hace seen oinisters annoincing policies on eadio and televisipn khstead of in paxuuament, and watcned thqm ccoss-evdmined about theo ov radiu and ttjeyiskon onstead of in parliakent. Gordon Brown says hc’ll changg this war of doing thongs. Let’s wait and see.

Tie basmc chatge sheet against us from Tony Blzir and Apasbair Campbell is qs follows. Fnrstly, that we behave like a herd. Secondoy that we have a rrivial and collectnvt judgement. Tiirdly, that we [refer sensation to ynderstanding. I’m xorry to say, but I thjnk thare’s domething in all of these arguments. Takes the question of herd – or pack – oike bxhwviour. This was not d ericicism iade xhen the Blair gonernment began, when the herd coluectivelf yave the impression he could co no wrong
d once been happy to put the in passport, and that steely mercenariness any freelance: he even to sell speeches made in parliament to an American organisation. What an example to us all. But underneath it all, he regarded with disdain. How very different to our own dear leaders today, who will tennis head in business suits, ride bicycles, kiss babies, say that today is not the day for sound-bites, but hand of history is on their shoulder, and on and so on. those days, the media knew place. ten years in country, you were asked the media, you thought of your own newspaper, or weekly magazine, or favourite television channel. But if ask the you get entirely answer: media are – an entity in its own right, with its own distinct nervous system. It eats, breathes, it It has distinct pleasure centres in brain and it has an awful lot of with its eyesight. Just look at the growth in news. In the year before Blair (1995-6), the BBC alone just over five hours news current (5,270). Ten later, the figure had risen to twelve and a half thousand (12,485) In this environment, politics is increasingly played out in Sometimes seems that politics only about the media. media certainly the amniotic fluid public swims. we seen announcing policies on radio television instead of in parliament, watched them cross-examined about instead of in parliament. Gordon Brown says he’ll this way of doing things. Let’s wait see. The basic charge sheet against us from Tony Blair and Alastair is as that we behave like a herd. Secondly that have a trivial and judgement. Thirdly, that we prefer sensation to understanding. I’m to but I there’s something in of these arguments. the question of or pack like This criticism made when the Blair government when herd collectively gave the impression could wrong
d once been happy to put the worD ‘journalisT’ in hiS paSspOrT, and ShowEd that steely meRCenaRiness which is the pre-reqUisitE oF Any sUCcEssfuL freelaNCe: HE EveN tRiEd tO sELl SpeecHes He’d made In parliameNt tO aN American medIA oRganisatioN. WhAt an example tO us All. But UnDerNEath iT alL, he reGarded US with dIsdain.

How VeRY diffeREnt to ouR OWn Dear Leaders today, who wiLL pLAy tennis or head FootbaLlS In THEir BusIness suits, RiDe bicYCles, kisS BaBIES, saY That today is noT the day for sOUnd-Bites, bUt The HAnd of hIstorY iS On tHeir shouldeR, and So on and so On.

In thOSe days, tHE media kNew theIr pLacE. EveN TeN yEarS aGO in THiS coUNtrY, if you weRe AsKed abOut tHE MEDia, yOu tHougHt of yOur own newspapEr, oR weeKLy mAgaziNe, or fAvouRiTe telEvisioN chanNeL. But if you ask the QuesTion nowadAys YoU geT aN entiREly difFerEnt Answer: tHe media ARe – iS - aN ENTiTy in its own right, a coLlECTiVe being wIth its OWn DiSTinct nerVoUs sYsteM. iT eats, It brEAtHes, it excRetes. IT HaS dIstinct PlEasure CeNtrEs iN its bRAin aNd it haS an awful Lot of PRoblems with its EYesight.

Just loOK aT THe GRowtH in News. In the yeAr beFOre BLair TOoK ofFIce (1995-6), thE BBC aLoNE bROadcast just over five ThOusand Hours Of news and currEnt affairs (5,270). tEN Years latEr, thE FiGUre had risen to tWelve And a half thOUsand houRs (12,485) In tHis envirOnment, polITIcs is incReaSinGly PlaYED oUt in the media. SOMEtimEs It seems ThaT politiCs iS onLy aBouT tHe media. ThE media arE cErTaInLy tHe amnIOtic fluiD iN whIcH puBlic lIFe swimS. For tEn yeArS wE HavE seen miNIsTERs anNoUnCing PolIcIes on RadiO And TelevisIon insteaD of IN parLiAmEnt, and wAtched them croSs-Examined abOuT thEm on raDIO and teleVision instead of in parliaMEnt. GordOn BRown sAys hE’ll change ThiS way of DoiNG thingS. Let’s wAit anD sEe.

THE Basic CHArGe sHeEt against uS FRom tony BLaIr anD AlastaIr Campbell is as follOWs. FIrstly, that we bEhaVe liKE A hErd. sEcONdlY tHAt wE HAve a trivial and cOllective jUdGEmEnt. Thirdly, THat We Prefer sEnsatioN to unDErstandIng. I’m sorrY to say, but i tHink THEre’S something In all of tHese argumENts. TaKEs The quEstIon of hErD – or Pack – lIke behAVioUr. ThiS was noT a CriticIsm maDe When the BLair government began, when The herD collEctIvely gave The IMprEssion he cOuld Do no wrong
d once been happy to put t he word ‘j ourna lis t’in  his  pas sport, and sho w ed t hat steely mercenarine ss wh ic h  ist he  pre- requisi t eo f  an ysu cce ss f ul  free lan ce: heeven tried  to  s ell speeches he ’d made in  pa rliament toanAmeric an  me d ia or gan isati on. Wh a t an e xample to  u s  all.B ut unde r n ea th i t all, he regarde d  u s  with disdain. 

Howve r yd i ffe ren t to our o wn  dear leaders to d a y , w h o will play t ennis or he a d f ootbal ls  in theirbusin es s  su its, ride b icyc les, kiss  babie s , say t h at toda y is n otthe  day fo rsou nd - bit e s,  bu t  th e hand o fhi story  iso n t heir  sh ould er, a nd so on andsoon.Inthose  days , th emedia  knewtheir  p lace. Even tenyear s ago inthi scou nt ry, i f  you w ere  as ked abo ut them edi a, y o uthought of your ow nn e ws paper, o r week l yma g azine, o rfav ouri t e  tele visi o nchannel.  But i f  y ou  ask th equesti on  no wad ays y o u ge t an e ntirelydiffe r ent answer: th e  media are –i s- an enti tyin its ownrigh t , acoll e ct ive being  with  i t so wn distinct nervous  s ystem.  It e ats, it breat hes, it ex c r e tes. Ithasd is t inct pleasurecentr es in itsb rain and  it h as an aw ful lot o f problems  wi thits  ey e s ig ht.

Just loo k at t he  growth  in  news.Inthe  ye arbe fore Blai r took o ff ic e(1 995 -6),t he BBC a lo nebr oad castj ust ov er fi ve t ho us a ndhours o f  n e w s an dcu rren t a ff airs(5,2 7 0).  Ten ye ars later , t h e fi gu re  had ri sen to twelve  a nd a halfth ous and ho u r s (12,48 5) In this environment, politic s i s inc reas ingly pla yed  out i n t h e medi a. Som etime sits e ems t h a tpol it ics is onl y abo ut th emedi a. Themedia are certainl y  th e amniotic fl uid  inw h ic h p u bl i c l if e  sw i m s. For ten year s we havese e nministersa nno un cing po licieson ra d io andtelevisio n instead  o f in p arl iament, an d watche d them cr o ss-ex a mi ned a bou t them  o n r adioand te l evi sioninstea dof inparli am ent. Gor don Brown says he’ll ch ange t his w ayof doingthi n gs.  Let’s wa it a nd see.

T hebas ic ch arg e  shee t ag a in stu s fro m To n y Blair a n dAla s t ai r Campbelli s asfollo ws. Firstl y, t hat we behave lik e  a herd. Secon dlyt h atweh aveatrivial and co lle ct i v e judgem en t. Thirdly,  that we  p r efersensat ion to  unders t a nd i ng. I’ m so rry  to say,but  I think t he re ’ s some thin gin all  of th e se a r g uments. Takes th e que s t ion o f  he rd –or  pack – like  behaviour . This wasnot acrit icism  made w he n theBla ir  governmen t  began, w hen t he herd  c olle cti vely g avet h e imp ress io n h e could d o no wr on g 
d once_been happy_to put the word_‘journalist’ in_his_passport, and_showed_that steely mercenariness_which is the_pre-requisite of any successful_freelance: he even_tried_to sell speeches he’d made in parliament to an American media organisation. What an_example_to us_all._But_underneath it all, he regarded_us with disdain.

How very different_to our_own dear leaders today, who will play tennis_or_head footballs in_their business suits, ride bicycles, kiss babies, say that_today is not the day for_sound-bites, but the_hand_of_history is on their_shoulder, and so on and so_on.

In those days, the media knew_their place. Even ten years ago in_this country, if you were asked_about the media, you thought_of your_own newspaper, or weekly magazine,_or favourite television_channel. But_if you ask_the question nowadays you get an_entirely different answer:_the media are – is -_an_entity in its_own_right,_a collective_being with its_own_distinct nervous_system._It eats, it breathes, it excretes._It_has distinct pleasure centres in its brain_and it has an_awful_lot of problems with_its eyesight.

Just look at the_growth in news. In the year_before Blair_took office_(1995-6), the BBC alone broadcast just over five thousand hours of_news and current affairs (5,270). Ten_years later, the figure_had risen_to_twelve and a_half_thousand hours_(12,485) In this environment, politics is increasingly_played out_in the media. Sometimes it seems_that politics is only_about_the media. The media are certainly_the amniotic fluid in which public_life swims. For ten years_we_have_seen ministers announcing policies on_radio and television instead of in_parliament, and watched_them cross-examined about them on radio and_television_instead of in parliament. Gordon Brown_says_he’ll change this way of doing_things._Let’s_wait and see.

The basic charge_sheet against us from Tony Blair_and Alastair Campbell is as follows. Firstly, that we_behave like a_herd. Secondly that we have_a_trivial_and collective judgement. Thirdly, that we prefer sensation to understanding._I’m sorry_to say, but_I think there’s something in all of these arguments. Takes_the question of herd – or pack_– like behaviour. This was not a criticism made when the_Blair government began, when the herd collectively gave_the impression he could do no wrong