Peter Goddard

War and Media

Andrew Hoskins, Televising War: from Vietnam to Iraq. London and New York: Continuum, 2004, 148 pp. David Domke, God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the War on Terror and the Echoing Press. London: Pluto Press, 2004, 240 pp. Philip Knightley, The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq. London: André Deutsch, 2003, 594 pp. David Miller (ed.), Tell Me Lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the Attack on Iraq. London and Sterling, VA: Pluto, 2004, 310 pp.

‘Improper liberties’: Regulating undercover journalism on ITV, 1967-1980

This article draws on the archives of Granada Television and of the Independent Television Authority/Independent Broadcasting Authority to explore how and why the use of surreptitious recording equipment and hidden cameras by television investigative journalists was regulated, particularly within Independent Television in Britain. The first instances of regulatory intervention are identified and the substance and operation of the guidelines governing Independent Television journalism are examined, along with their implications for editorial and journalistic autonomy. The contemporary documents used here bring to light the substance of the ongoing debates between journalists and regulators over the purposes of journalism and appropriate forms for its regulation, revealing much about their authors’ own perceptions of their roles as well as the balance to be struck between serving the public interest and safeguarding individual privacy.

Television news and the economy: inflation in Britain

This study looks at television coverage of the economy through analysis of the issue of inflation. A year-long corpus of material from the BBC and ITN is surveyed. The focus is on the way this medium handles explanations of the causes of inflation — and on the political implications that follow. The agenda that emerges is broadly based in political terms and reification of the economy is not found to be a common feature of the coverage. Explanations for the contours of the agenda (and omissions from it) are sought in terms of newsroom practice and the location of the coverage within a broader discourse of economic ideas.

Measuring media criticism of war and political elites: A response to Florian Zollmann

In his 2011 article, ‘Managing the elite consensus’, Florian Zollmann takes issue with a number of arguments put forward in Pockets of Resistance: British News Media, War and Theory in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq (Robinson et al., 2010). This book was the endproduct of a research project1 that examined UK television news and press coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, focusing mainly on the invasion phase (mid-March to midApril). Our central conclusions were that most UK news outlets, for reasons of humanitarian warfare ideology, over-reliance upon official sources, and patriotism, failed to maintain their independence (pp.161–172). But we also noted that there were exceptions, and, due to factors such as professional autonomy, event-driven news and UK mediasystem characteristics, a minority of media outlets (Channel 4 News, The Mirror, The Guardian and The Independent) were able to exercise meaningful levels of independence from the government position (pp.172–176). We also noted that both patriotism and humanitarian warfare ideology were limiting factors on the degree of independence exercised by these media outlets (p.177). In criticising our account, Zollmann argues that by over-measuring media criticism, we incorrectly claim that UK media performance deviated, on occasions and across a minority of media outlets, from the predictions of elite-driven accounts of media-state relations (e.g. Herman and Chomsky, 1988). In this response, we first identify several issues in need of clarification and correction. We then pick up and expand on the matter of procedural vs substantive media criticism,

‘Distinctiveness’ and the BBC: a new battleground for public service television?:

UK government-led consultations over the renewal of the BBC’s Charter, and the new 2017 Charter itself, have foregrounded the ‘distinctiveness’ of the BBC’s output, especially in popular entertainment television. Focusing on these debates and proposals, this article considers the value of distinctiveness when applied to BBC television, identifying definitions of the term and its history (or lack of it) in previous debates about the British broadcasting system. It discusses the implications of proposed systems for measuring distinctiveness quantitatively. It examines why the publicly funded, not-for-profit model of broadcasting might be expected to yield more distinctive outputs, yet also detects the spectre of concerns about the BBC’s market impact to be present in the background of these debates, in relation both to the production of entertainment content and to its scheduling. The article argues that the domestic and global economic and cultural benefits arising from the BBC’s potential for creating ‘distinctive’ programming should outweigh concerns about market impact. It also concludes that ‘distinctiveness’ adds little to the BBC’s existing service requirements, but risks being used prescriptively and as a weapon with which the BBC’s output can constantly be questioned by its critics.

Political Broadcasting in Britain: System, Ethos and Change

Political broadcasting in Britain has developed slowly over the last 75 years, but enormous changes to the political environment have followed in its wake. Before the Second World War, political broadcasting was uncommon and broadcasting authorities were acutely cautious of it. When politicians did give radio talks or Parliament was reported, it was in a manner which was formal and correct. Its impact on popular engagement with politics was small. Since the 1960s, television political coverage has been much less cautious. There has been very much more of it, a great deal of which has proven lively, probing and irreverent. The major events of Parliaments and electoral campaigns have been played out before the viewing audience or even staged solely for their benefit. Television has come to represent the single most important means by which parties communicate with voters and voters gain an understanding of politics, offering a reach and potential impact greater than any other form of communication.