A battle is raging between conservatives and the media | thearticle

The Conservative leadership race has inevitably meant plenty of “blue on blue” action. Some of the conflicts might sound a bit synthetic: “I am the only candidate was is able to…” each of

them declares, often using much the same script. But it has also brought to the forefront another battle – that between the Conservatives and the media, especially the broadcast media. It’s

not just the BBC, long regarded as being institutionally biased to the Left. The debate for the Tory leadership contenders on Tuesday evening was a case in point. The presenter Emily Maitlis

heckled Boris Johnson as he attempted to answer questions. Among those chosen to ask questions was Aman Thakar, a former Labour council candidate and employee. Another was from Abdullah

Patel from Bristol, an enthusiast for Zionist conspiracy theories. Channel 4 News is probably more blatant in its allegiances. It is also thoroughly dishonest. There was a particularly

shocking example on Channel 4 News last week. The lesbian couple who had been subjected to a very unpleasant attack on a bus in north London were interviewed. The interviewer told them that

Boris Johnson was a homophobe and a misogynist and then asked them what they thought of him. A leading question m’lud. Not surprisingly the couple (who are both foreigners) were both then

critical of Johnson. The claims against Johnson were ridiculous – he was, for instance a supporter of gay marriage. Channel 4 is a state broadcaster. It is legally obliged to be honest and

impartial. But Ofcom appear to be unable or unwilling to enforce this. Channel 4 News’ presenter Jon Snow was reported on social media to have toured the Glastonbury Festival chanting “F***

the Tories”. He responded by saying he couldn’t remember whether he did or not. His on-air utterances are a bit more restrained, but the set of assumptions behind questions are broadly along

the same lines. Last year the viewing figures for Channel 4 News fell by nine per cent. Why do Tory MPs still agree to appear on it? It just lends credibility to an entirely hostile outfit.

Then there is Sky News which is the most anti Brexit of all the broadcasters. Even with ITV it is pretty apparent that Robert Peston, its Political Editor is exasperated that anyone could

hold an opinion at variance with his standard collection of Leftist prejudices. Often the media accuse politicians (especially Tory politicians) of being “out of touch”. A particular theme

is that they uncaring towards the poor as they “don’t know what it’s like.” Usually the interviewer making the charge in such indignant tones will be paid more than the MP being accused.

Maitlis, for example, is paid £220,000 a year. Also while the media class spend their weekends talking to each other at Islington and Hampstead dinner parties, the MPs are in their

constituencies. They will be at their “surgeries” talking to constituents struggling due to poor housing, or a delay getting a benefit payment through, or being unable to get the police to

assist with a “neighbour from Hell.” Or a hundred and one other issues. MPs also spend a lot of time with people who disagree with them. This will obviously be other MPs they debate with at

Westminster. But also it will quite often be their constituents. For instance, there are plenty of Labour MPs who would love to cancel Brexit but are made aware that a majority of those they

represent hold a different view. For the media pundits it is much easier to retreat into “group think”. They have far too little ability to understand alternative opinions. How often, for

example, are Ministers challenged about public spending being too high? Invariably the line of questioning is based on the demand that it is not high enough. How often would Radio 4 Women’s

Hour challenge the feminist orthodoxies, that many women oppose? Why does the same station devote such a chunk of “topical comedy” to people such as Jo Brand ranting away with their hatred

towards Conservatives? The adulatory coverage for Change UK and for Rory Stewart are examples of how public opinion was left behind. This then provokes a backlash from those who feel their

views are ignored or misrepresented. We could be moving towards a Trumpish situation of greater confrontation between Government and media. That would make for lively encounters but not

terribly informative ones. At present, politicians often treat interviews as an ordeal to be survived without making a “gaffe”. For such politicians the measure of success is to get through

the entire five minute slot saying nothing new or interesting. That is not terribly enlightening. The politicians should be more self confident – but it is also the fault of the interviewer

desperate for a “gotcha” clip. We could find the mood changes where it becomes the norm for the politician to hit back at the interviewer. Lots of bad tempered personal attacks on each

other, accusing each other of lying and so on. That would hardly be any more enlightening. It is about balance. Journalists and politicians should not get too cosy. But nor should the

relationship become so hostile that it breaks down. It should be possible to put challenging questions without descending into abuse. This would make it harder for our politicians to escape

scrutiny. If broadcasters maintain professional standards and ask fair and impartial questions there will be less sympathy for MPs who refuse to speak to them. It is partly a matter of

allowing the time required. The death of Brian Walden last month reminded me of what a peerless interrogator he was. But then he used to have an hour for each interview. How much more

rigorous it would be for those wishing to become Prime Minister to each spend an hour in a TV studio being questioned by Andrew Neil than “debates” squabbling with each other? The coverage

of our political life could recover. But that requires a serious effort by the regulators to take the impartiality rules seriously. It would also mean that the broadcasters were able to

manage to develop some respect and understanding for those with different points of view.