Abstract
Television news is really important – and there are some simple improvements that would make it so much better
3. Broadcasters should start reporting on the royal family with the same rigour as they treat every story on the news agenda. They do not, at the moment. They are too supine, too incurious, too compliant. The last year has demonstrated how the royals and the broadcasters work in constant antagonistic harmony.
The Queen’s death, Harry, the Queen’s funeral, the book, Harry and the coronation. Broadcasters need to stand up for themselves and treat the royal family like any other public institution. The royal family and their spin doctors – whatever fancy titles they have – need to understand that the age of editorial deference is well and truly over.
Take the coronation. In early May, Buckingham Palace set out to dictate what could be broadcast. In a document marked “Private and Confidential” – let me share it with you – the Palace imposed a series of extraordinary restrictions on the use of the video, the pictures of this rare national event. For example, on the TV no pictures of the new king or queen could be replayed until they had left Westminster Abbey. And the royal spin doctors had the opportunity to censor any pictures from the coronation before they could be replayed on the day. On social media, no clips of the coronation could be shown while the event was taking place. Really? Thus, in one go, Buckingham Palace prevented a whole generation of TikTok users and others seeing the spectacle.
Buckingham Palace is an analogue organisation flailing around in a digital age. The royal spin doctors dictated which clips of the footage could be shown in future broadcasts in what they called, with an Orwellian phrase, “a perpetuity edit”. You won’t be surprised that similar controls were exerted over the coverage of the Queen’s funeral. It led the public broadcaster’s doyen, David Dimbleby, to complain publicly about the constraints the monarchy imposes. He said: “It is not dangerous to question, it is not rude, it is important, because the way we are governed is important and the way our constitution works is important.”
Back in 2017, we at Sky News didn’t stand up to royal pressure. We asked for an interview with the then-Prince of Wales about the health of the earth’s oceans, a subject close to his heart and ours. Surprisingly, Sky News agreed to submit – I am still embarrassed by this – an explicit list of questions to his spin doctor before the interview. A bad decision. If a viewer had interrogated us about whether that was entirely in keeping with our core values of being honest with our audiences, it would have been hard to mount a robust defence.
Imagine submitting a list of questions to a top politician or business leader. Maybe in a puppet state. You already know – perhaps you don’t – that spin doctors at the royal palaces freak out when a broadcast journalist doorsteps a member of the royal family. Haughty emails, phone calls and even a summons for a head of news to a meeting can swiftly follow. I’ve experienced this treatment.
The shrouded dealings of the monarchy have formed an integral part of Britain’s identity, yet both the national broadcaster and others are shy to question the monarchy’s power and authority. Topics such as why King Charles didn’t pay any inheritance tax on the fortune he inherited from his mother or the fact the Duchy of Cornwall doesn’t pay capital gains tax should be examined properly. The reporting needs to be far more rigorous.
Our trade as journalists hinges on clear reporting – assessing the evidence – and authenticity. It is our job to offer the public a cogent analysis of significant happenings. This principle applies just as much to the British royals as to any part of British society – politics, business, science, culture and sport. This call for openness is not about voyeuristic access to their private lives. It’s about understanding their roles, their actions and their impact on British society. Why, you might ask, is this approach necessary?
First, the monarchy’s survival. The British royal family is no ordinary institution. It has shaped our country’s history, our culture, our identity. Their actions, decisions, the causes they support have far-reaching impacts. Openness allows for a better understanding of, and engagement with, their work, fostering a healthier relationship with the public. As the great number-cruncher Sir John Curtice, president of the British Polling Council, puts it: “King Charles and his heirs will need to find a strategy that enhances the monarchy’s reputation.” He says Buckingham Palace needs to watch the polling numbers very carefully. Today’s younger generation, particularly, is less likely to be enamoured of the monarchy: only 12 per cent of those aged under 35 think it is “very important” to have a monarchy, according to a National Opinion Centre survey published last January.
Secondly, it’s our money. The British monarchy receives taxpayer money through the Sovereign Grant, the monarchy’s annual budget. A Treasury review this summer revealed the royal family’s grant is due to increase from £86million to £125million. The Sovereign Grant needs more scrutiny. Lord Turnbull, a former cabinet secretary, so once Whitehall’s most senior civil servant, accused the Treasury of seeking to obfuscate how the monarchy was funded. He told The Guardian: “You get people writing in saying ‘Isn’t it a good thing that the king is so sensitive to public opinion that he has waived some of the money he could have had?’.” Lord Turnbull went on: “I think it’s bollocks. It is deliberate – that’s really what makes me so cross about it. It is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate how the thing works.”
Surely, in a democracy there must be accountability to the public to understand the return on their investment.
Thirdly, in an age of so much disinformation, a lack of clarity creates a cauldron for conspiracy theories and scepticism. Honest reporting can displace scepticism with trust and with understanding to encourage a healthy discourse. The start of the Carolean era is a ripe moment to reassess our approach towards royal reporting to make it sharper. The royal household also needs to change its ways, allowing more access, answering difficult questions and taking accountability. Greater openness is not about stripping the monarchy of its dignity or disturbing their personal privacy. It’s all about promoting a culture of openness that gives the public a truthful view of their monarchy. Remember, in truth there is trust, respect and unity.
2. Broadcasters should report less British politics to make it more relevant to the voters. Far too much airtime is focused on Westminster gossip – the ephemera of that cosy SW1 enclave – and not enough airtime on the decisions the government and Parliament are taking: their policies that affect us all – north, south, east and west.
A former American presidential speechwriter, James Collins, puts this problem succinctly. He highlights the difference between the HOW and the WHAT of government. He’d been watching a public meeting with President Biden and observed: “The people at the town hall session, like most other people in most meetings with most candidates and officials, asked mainly about the WHAT of government – education, vaccines, jobs, and so on. The press mainly asked about the HOW – of Biden’s dealing with critics and supporters.”
A prime example of this took place in Britain during Theresa May’s time as prime minister, when the broadcast news organisations became obsessed with the roles played by her two advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill in the general election of 2017, rather than with the Conservatives’ controversial social care policy. It’s time the broadcasters focused on policy issues that matter to the electorate and not some “here today, gone tomorrow” spin doctor. As former broadcasting executive Roger Mosey says: “The risk, otherwise, is that we are in a vicious circle: democratic politics is fracturing across the Western world and media coverage reflects that – and that makes the disconnection even worse.”
Broadcast journalists do need to think again about how to engage a public weary of hearing the same messages time and time again that the country is broken, who feel they can do nothing about it. Broadcast journalists need to recommit to political reporting, offering facts and analysis that people can use to make decisions.
As a general election approaches, political journalists should get out of Westminster to evaluate the evidence on the ground with an open mind. Political journalism should not be about transmitting the HOW of a gilded elite to a grateful nation. It is time, for a change, to focus on the WHAT. Political journalism is about transmitting the views of the audiences and the nation back to the political classes. Uniquely for a major economy, for decades Britain has become more and more centralised on London, its capital.
You could think of it as a sort of Londonmentalism. It is a condition that afflicts journalism, and political journalism, fundamentally. It creates the illusion of a singular narrative for the nation when, in fact, there are many. We have seen this in the recent excessive reporting on London’s ULEZ, the Ultra Low Emission Zone to tackle car pollution. And broadcasters were taken totally by surprise by the Brexit vote, from places from Sunderland to Southsea, in 2016.
Politics now is far more complicated, with a variety of interest groups. If you think of Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, Scotland, Brexit, Just Stop Oil, we are not seeing an insurgence. Instead, we are seeing a polarisation that is fuelled by a rage against machine politics, machine politicians and machine political journalism. Next time you commission, compile or watch a piece of political reporting, please remember the difference between the WHAT and the HOW. Remember, too, the vital need for leadership debates to take place during the election campaign. Broadcasters need to start working together now to hold head-to-head debates between the two leaders most likely to be the next prime minister. Voters need to see the prime minister and leader of the opposition debate the big issues facing the country at election time. Do we need a third-party leader to take part? No. Does the electoral performance of the LibDems over the past 10 years justify taking part? No. Are the SNP able to nominate a UK prime minister? No. My message to the broadcasters: don’t overthink the election debates. Keep it simple: just Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer – head to head. And show that political journalism can be a force for good.
1. Encourage freedom of expression. Since the creation of the printing press 500 years ago, its constant role was to subvert, to challenge and to democratise knowledge. From Day One, the print medium was the tool of pamphleteers, polemicists and revolutionaries. It was the catalyst of the Renaissance, the driver of humanism and a powerful force for good throughout Europe and the world.
From the first Gutenberg bible to Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man and Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, the printed word removed from the ruling elite – at a stroke – the ability to control information and stifle free thought. So it’s hardly surprising that the ruling elite in the 20th century had always been suspicious of any new medium and had always tried to control it.
Today, a new ruling elite is trying to stifle the freedom of expression in these islands that is so vital to our democracy. A big group of advertising agencies have been mounting a boycott of “right wing” news outlets here in Britain. The self-styled “Conscious Advertising Network” has boycotted the start-up GB News. Its advertisers include Tesco, Kia, Ford and British Gas. This action represents a threat to free speech, putting the business model of this start-up in jeopardy.
Freedom of expression is vital to our democracy. The regulator Ofcom has been adamant that broadcasters are free to include controversial or offensive content, provided they reflect alternative viewpoints. And let’s be clear: the new news channels have been launched to satisfy an increasing thirst in the UK for a diversity of opinions. It’s an awkward fact for some that GB News’s audience is growing. We should value a free and fair media that offer a plurality of news providers. The British public have the right to hear the full range of political perspectives. The advertising boycott of GB News should end. It is an insult to the British people.
To conclude: next time you hesitate to report a royal story with the same rigour as any other because it’s too awkward, next time you hesitate to report on the WHAT instead of the HOW of politics because it’s too awkward, next time you hesitate to encourage freedom of expression because it’s too awkward, dare to stop. Dare to reflect. Dare to remember the future of democracy is in your hands. Make the most of it.
