Search

Using the UK Fire Brigades Union dispute of 2002-3 as a case study, this paper assesses current union-journalism relations and briefly outlines the FBU's campaign to access the news agenda. Using quantitative methodology, it analyses the dispute coverage in the UK national press. While there are some opportunities that unions can exploit, such as 24-hour news and live broadcasts, newspaper analysis indicates that national press coverage generally favoured government and other elite sources as primary definers. While the FBU was given at least equal space to put its case in nearly half of all articles, certain sections of the press seemed impervious to any amount of public relations activity: five out of the nine papers analysed - the Mail, Express, Telegraph, The Times and the Sun - reveal coverage heavily loaded against the union, with the Times and Sun giving negligible space to the union viewpoint and choosing to use overwhelmingly hostile sources, narratives and opinions. It concludes that, in line with the findings of previous studies by the Glasgow University Media Group, public relations and media strategies have limited impact, at least in the UK press. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is frequently observed that political communication processes related to elections, political parties and the electorally accountable domains of executive authority have entered a period of great conflict. This article widens this debate, by examining journalists' relations with "quasi-government" bodies--i.e. the myriad of arm's-length public bodies (often referred to as "quangos"), that are appointed to office and that have colonised many official advisory, regulatory and executive functions. Presenting findings from semi-structured interviews with 40 UK-based specialist national and regional journalists, the article demonstrates how even these experienced journalists struggle to cope with the complex and evolving structure of quasi-government in the UK, and how their attitudes are often highly inconsistent. Although most are hostile towards the broad principle of appointive-government, their relations with specific public bodies that fall within this rubric are in the main highly co-operative, and these sources are often deemed authoritative and dispassionate arbiters in the public policy arena. The article concludes by discussing the political implications of the appreciably less conflictive relations evident in the reporting of appointive government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]