Between you me and the record

“You find unexpected friends on both sides and in order to protect them – and keep them as sources of private information – you wind up knowing a lot of things you can’t print, or which you can only say without even hinting at where they came from.” – Hunter S Thompson (1937 – 2005)

THERE was a moment on a recent episode of Tonight with Vincent Browne on TV3 which caused me to shrink with embarrassment on the part of one of the guests.
The health policy analyst and journalist Sarah Burke implied on air that something had been said during the break which radically contradicted what was being said on air that night. Vincent Browne immediately jumped in and stated that it was “unfair” to repeat what was said during the break. He was clearly flustered by what had happened and I’m sure I was not alone in my cringing reaction to it.
The incident became the launch pad for a further humorous discussion of the gulf that exists between what politicians say during the break and what they present to the public. Vincent regaled his guests with an anecdote about a Fianna Fáil politician who came on the show to defend Brian Cowen but damned him savagely while the commercials rolled.
I have been thinking carefully about my own reaction in the weeks since I watched the programme and why the response was so visceral. I have concluded that it was brought on by the fear that it might have happened to me. If, as presenter, a guest had done the same thing on my watch or if I myself had blurted something out in a moment of madness, the discomfort would have been the same. It was an interesting lesson in the extent to which I have been indoctrinated in the unwritten etiquette of journalistic practice.
It is the most natural thing in the world that journalists would develop relationships with politicians. Everyone has a job to do and outside of work most people switch off, discuss their day frankly and think nothing of it. In the case of politicians and journalists, this relationship has different implications not just for those involved but for the wider public as well.
One of the greatest political books ever written, in my opinion, is Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72 by Hunter S Thompson. In his author’s note, Thompson identifies an important issue and something he did in response to it which makes the book such a standout read.
“As far as I was concerned, there was no such thing as ‘off the record.’ The most consistent and ultimately damaging failure of political journalism in America has its roots in the clubby/cocktail personal relationships that inevitably develop between politicians and journalists – in Washington or anywhere else they meet on a day-to-day basis. When professional antagonists become after-hours drinking buddies, they are not likely to turn each other in.” 
In a month’s time, it will be 40 years since Thompson wrote those words and what he described not only still exists but has grown and morphed into something so oppressive that it can now be all consuming. It would be wrong to blame journalists entirely for this.
The 24-hour news cycle, staff cuts and reduced opportunities mean that people cannot afford to risk biting the hands that feed them, so people are forced to play by the rules. If a journalist falls foul of sources they will not get stories and will find themselves surplus to requirements in their organisation. Thompson says that the only reason he could afford to take the approach he did was because he could “afford to burn all my bridges behind me – because I was only there for a year and the last thing I cared about was establishing long-term connections on Capitol Hill”.
Thinking more around the issue of the press at the moment I came to another conclusion; that maybe the discussions around the power of the press currently being bashed out around the report of the Levison Enquiry in Britain are not addressing the real problems. Certainly the tabloids have questions to answer with regard to past criminality but, in most cases, this relates to coverage of celebrities.
On the whole, it is safe to say, those involved in political journalism behave impeccably. Any move towards increased regulation of the press to prevent infringement of privacy might have the unwanted result of putting extra limits on those who work day-to-day on politics. Given that they are already working under the massive constraints of having to keep politicians onside, it might further decrease their ability to do their jobs properly. The implications for society at large are significant and are not to be underestimated.
If you dig a little deeper and think of the everyday working life of any journalist in the country they are subject, by etiquette alone, to the embargoes. These are imposed by any person who wishes on the press releases which bombard newsrooms everyday. There is no law against breaking these but they are respected all the time and are another example of the kind of control that everyone nowadays tries to exert on the press.          
The power of the media, which we hear so much about, has led to politicians, corporations and many others employing armies of spin doctors in order to fight at every step to keep their version of the story in the public gaze sometimes instead of the truth. They have waged a war against journalism and painted the press as the bad guy where in fact it is the press who are aiming to serve the public, despite the efforts of those who would prevent them doing so.
Certain elements within the fraternity have certainly done wrong but people should be careful to consider well who they criticise ‘the press’. The number of constraints on political journalists is not going to decrease any time soon and this is not only a shame it is a dangerous thing for truth and democracy.