Search

This essay critically assesses the "demonology of spin" which has dominated British political journalism, and academic writing on public relations since the rise of New Labour in the 1990s. It reviews the history of British political public relations (PR), and traces the emergence of journalistic hostility to the professional communication practices of New Labour in government. This "demonology" is viewed in the context of the professional rivalry born of mutual interdependence between PR practitioners and political journalists, and assessed as an inevitable consequence of that competition. While arguing for ethical constraints on both PR and journalistic professionals, the article concludes that an adversarial relationship between both groups is an important safeguard against the excesses of either. [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]

The article discusses the relationship between media and the British government. According to the author, governmental systems differ in the explicitness of their management of information, and Fascist and Communist systems in the twentieth century saw information as a legitimate tool to control the masses and governments in military and other one-party systems seem also to accept it. He stressed that in the country, as seen by foreign journalists and observers, there appears to be a large gap between what is publicly known, and what is unofficially and unattributably understood.