Abstract
This is an important book about the state of, contemporary journalism, but it has its flaws. Few are better placed than John Lloyd to view the world of journalism and its travails. An experienced journalist, both in the UK and abroad, he co-founded the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism where he is a senior research fellow. He is also a contributing editor at the Financial Times.
But Lloyd is also a propagandist, or campaigner, for a variety of causes including for the Blair government in general and the invasion of Iraq in particular, for the Ulster Unionists and against the Scottish nationalists. Why do I mention this? Because, to some extent, Lloyd is the proverbial Johnsonian (Boris, not Samuel), a cake-and-eat-it man.
In some ways this book – written with style and well sourced, if a tad on the long side –symbolises Lloyd's ambivalent attitude to journalism. On the one hand, it is a passionate plea for the restitution of traditional values of journalism, in the teeth of the tsunami of unreliable information, fake news and PR-induced material that engulfs us all via the internet. On the other, Lloyd ignores some of the motes in his own eye.
In broad terms, this book provides a cogent and relevant analysis of contemporary journalism with much useful material. For example, Lloyd offers what appears to be a valuable summary of the role of the journalist: “… to provide a factual, truthful and context-rich account of events every day; to offer space for the widest spectrum of comment; to be fair in the presentation of the actions and beliefs of groups or individuals; to fully and fairly describe the motives and activities of government; and to grant as full access as possible to current information.”
But, like the book, this definition begs many questions – just take that first clause as an example: “to provide a factual, truthful and context-rich account of events.” One is tempted to ask, is it really that simple? “Factual” based on what sources? “Truthful” according to who? And “context-rich” from what perspective? What this sentence reveals is Lloyd's black and white approach to journalism and politics – there are good guys and bad guys, and that's it.
In 2004 Lloyd published a short book, What the Media are Doing to Our Politics, described by George Brock, then of The Times, as “a muddle-headed polemic”. It attacked the media and their coverage of politics in the UK – though, perhaps surprisingly, it was the broadcasters that were the focus rather than the right-wing tabloids. He was critical of how the media covered politics in general, or more specifically, Tony Blair's government. Then, as now, Lloyd failed to recognise that if there were (and still is) a breakdown in the relationship between politicians and the media, then some of the blame lay with the poisonous legacy of Britain's right-wing tabloids and the New Labour spin machine. It was surely surprising that in a book by a UK author about the state of journalism, with a strong emphasis on the UK media, Alastair Campbell's name was absent (other than as an acknowledgment) and the Mail's Paul Dacre got just one mention.
This book is oddly structured. The analysis and discussion, much of it worthy of attention, is interspersed with a series of accounts of the state of journalism in a number of seemingly arbitrarily chosen countries – most likely those of which that Lloyd had some knowledge or experience. But there is no explanation as to why these, rather than any number of other countries, have been profiled.
One of his overarching themes – and one I am in overall agreement with – is the problem of the provenance of material found on the net, which has spawned the fake news epidemic. Lloyd reminds us of the New Yorker cartoon – “On the internet no one knows you're a dog”. But while reading this book I couldn't help but recall a meeting chaired by Lloyd at the London School of Economics in the early days of the internet when there was great, uncritical, excitement about the new-found freedoms it created – the mantra “we are all journalists now” echoed round the room.
One former journalist, then a journalism academic, said that while he recognised the potentially liberating power of the internet and its ability to give a voice to the voiceless, he thought there were dangers because of the problem of provenance – how was the reader to know if a particular website was emanating from a trustworthy source or from The New Yorker's proverbial dog? “I think you'll find that that is an unnecessary and outdated concern,” said Lloyd, somewhat patronisingly, to the questioner.
Well, 20 years on, as the tide of fake news continues to rise, I am glad to say that as this book demonstrates, Lloyd has come to recognise that the questioner's concerns were pertinent. I confess I was that questioner and maybe I was a bit ahead of my time, or maybe Lloyd was a bit behind it?