[OccupySheffield] LAMENTABLE MEDIA COVERAGE AND STATE

[David Kirkham]

"LAMENTABLE MEDIA COVERAGE AND STATE
DECEPTION - THE SCANDAL OF NHS
LEGISLATION." By Aeron Davis (24 March 2012), Professor of Political
Communication, Goldsmiths College.
He is the Author of "Political Communication and
Social Theory." (2010).
His partner is a London GP.
The Health and Social Care Bill has just passed through Parliament. A huge step
towards privatising the NHS has been taken. The most cherished of UK public
institutions is being dismantled and large private providers are already signing
contracts. All this is against the wishes of a large majority of the public and an even
larger majority of health-care professionals.
Continued.
2.
A big question is why did the national news media fail to cover the issue clearly,
honestly and accurately? Their failure to hold David Cameron, Andrew Lansley and
their colleagues to account, or to adequately represent the views of professionals and
the public was, at times, very frustrating. It demonstrates the weakened state the UK
news media. If hacking reveals the deficits of tabloid journalism, this failure
represents the deficits of eseriousf broadsheet newspapers and national broadcasters.
In many respects, one should look to the actions of the political class first. David
Cameron had a seven year career in corporate public relations. The Conservative
Party went to extremes to manage its image on the NHS, to obscure its true
intentions, and used every trick in the media management playbook to do so. The
Conservative-led Government went well beyond spin as it regularly and blatantly
misled and now misleads the public about the NHS and the bill.
The very weak opposition from the Labour Party and the leaderships of the BMA and
many professional bodies added to the problem. The Department of Health had
already been infiltrated by McKinseys consultants under New Labour (see Player and
Leys, 2011 ª ). For most of the last year, Labour was unclear on its own policy
direction ª and thus was virtually silent. Equally importantly, the leaderships of the
BMA and several Royal Colleges, bypassed their memberships and were in active
dialogue with the Government. Few initially were prepared to condemn the bill
publicly. So, without authoritative and high-profile opposition, why should journalists
have been concerned to investigate and cover the large, highly complex details of the
bill?
There are now chronic problems in political journalism generally. An
over-dependency on Westminster sources, and a general unwillingness to cover
detailed policy matters, are two important failings of UK news (see Davis, 2010 ª ).
Far too often, actual legislation is not considered newsworthy enough to report unless
there is internal party conflict or scandal attached. There is also a problematic
hierarchy for newsgathering that ensures government sources dominate, with the
official opposition trailing behind. Far too often other smaller bodies, groups of
professionals and the wider public are excluded altogether from the reporting beat.
These problems are common across the UK broadsheet press, whether they be from
the left (Guardian ª ), centre (Independent ª , Times ª ) or right (Telegraph ª , Mail
ª , Express ª ) of the UK political spectrum. They are also too apparent in national
news broadcasters including the BBC .
Continued.
3.
This was all too apparent for much of 2011. Professional opposition was widespread.
Keep Our NHS Public ª , 38 Degrees ª , Spinwatch ª and others began scrutinising
the bill and campaigning at an early stage. New local BMA groups sprang up all over
the country in an attempt to force their leadership to engage with its ordinary
members about their concerns. Numerous articles and blogs appeared, written by
health professionals who had scrutinised the bill in far more detail than politicians or
journalists[i]. Public meetings took place regularly - and across the UK, not limited to
England. Many demonstrations took place. Marathons were run. Barely any of this
was reported or drawn upon in the early stages, or appeared in smaller pieces and
letters buried within. Opposition stories focused primarily on disgruntled Liberal
Democrats.
Under such circumstances, far too often the Government was given too much space
to set the reporting agenda and to define the debates themselves. Serious concerns at
all levels were ignored until very late. Perhaps the most concerning of these was the
Conservative Leadershipfs total disregard for democratic institutions and practices.
On Andy Coulsonfs advice, Lansley and Cameronfs long-term privatisation agenda
was completely obscured in opposition and during the election. The headline pitch
was about securing the NHS: ecutting the deficit not the NHSf and eno more topdown
reorganisationsf. The plans were not part of the published Coalition Agreement.
Lansleyfs long term links and dialogue with private health care lobbyists and
providers was barely mentioned (see Spinwatch ª ). The same went for the part
played by McKinseys. It was also clear to all professionals on the ground that many
parts of the bill were already being implemented all through 2011. Civil servants
repeatedly blocked the publication of their own risk assessments. Why wasnft this
disdain for democratic process challenged in media reporting?
Similarly, lies and misrepresentation were regularly reported on front pages without
challenge. The NHS was portrayed as being inefficient and having comparatively
poor health outcomes ª in comparison to other countries. But much of the evidence
used was certainly debatable (see Roy Lilley ª ). Cameron and Lansley regularly
stated that the majority of doctors supported them ª . But, from an early stage polls
showed that two thirds of doctors were very concerned and critical. Towards the end
it was over 90%.
Continued.
4.
That GPs were already forming themselves into Clinical Commissioning Groups
(CCGs) was promoted as a sign of positive embrace ª . But GPs were given no
choice as they watched PCTs being dismantled and new funding structures imposed.
News coverage continually reported the line that doctors would be in charge of the
budget and that this was about doctor empowerment and patient choice. As doctors in
the newly formed CCGs have already found out, their influence over the NHS budget
is actually more controlled by Whitehall than ever. CCGs are also having to look to
private consultancies to take on key management roles. GP power looks like it will be
no stronger than
before.
All along, Lansley, Cameron, Clegg ª and then Shirley Williams publicly stated there
was no privatisation taking place. The word ereformf is the most common description.
But, plain and simple, this is a large step towards privatisation. Bupa, currently
flooding the UK with advertising, knows this. So do Virgin, Sainsburyfs, United
Healthcare, Circle, and Care UK.
What is happening is ereactionaryf and eregressivef and threatens to take the UK
public health system back to its pre-1945 state. ’20 billion of eefficiency savingsf are
really ’20 billion of ecutsf. Again and again Government words and phrases have
gone unchallenged - until the last months of the bill. When they were, professional
association objections, were all too easily discounted as the calls of eself-interested
unionsf. Labourfs challenge, now led more convincingly by Andy Burnham, was
dismissed as eopportunisticf. Lansley was chastised for failing to clearly explain the
Governmentfs case to the public ª . His real failure was his inability to mislead as
convincingly as Cameron..
In the last months, Labour, the BMA and most of the Royal Colleges joined in
publicly condemning the bill and demanding its withdrawal. That was widely
reported. General coverage and editorials, even in the Conservative-supporting press
(Telegraph, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday ª ), became more critical. Some
journalists, such as Polly Toynbee of the Guardian, objected loudly and regularly.
But, by then, the bill had progressed too far and too publicly for the Conservative
Leadership to be able to pull back.
Continued.
5.
Commentators have suggested that this might be the current Governmentfs Poll Tax
moment. A far more appropriate parallel is Iraq 2003. Then, and now, the Prime
Minister and a small cabal, forced through a momentous policy decision through a
mixture of stealth, threats and lies. They did it with utter disregard for democratic
processes, Parliament or public opinion. Far too many journalists failed to ask
questions or seek alternative opinions over a protracted lead-in period (see account in
Davis, 2010 ª ). Unfortunately, this is set to continue. We have an under-resourced
news media, incapable of critical self-reflection on its out-dated practices and
failings. They are little match for a ruthless administration with a media management
operation as slick and determined as any peace-time government we have ever
witnessed.
END of Article.
This Article was circulated by:
Wendy Savage MBBCh, FRCOG, MSc(Public Health) Hon DSc
19,Vincent Terrace, London N1 8HN
020-7837-7635
Good analysis of the poor co verage of the Bill .
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/aeron-davis/lamentable-media-coverageand-
state-deception-scandal-of-nhs-legislation.
David Kirkham
 

 


      UK Uncut is a grassroots movement taking action to highlight alternatives to the government's spending cuts      To keep up to date, follow us on Facebook      and Twitter      You can also sign up to receive emails when someone lists an action near you    
 


 From: jonashe at ashes.f9.co.uk
To: alijbrown at blueyonder.co.uk; sheffield.uncut at hotmail.co.uk; jm.czauderna185 at btinternet.com; Jofiz12345 at aol.com; mike.simpkin at mixim.org.uk
CC: petergarbutt at hotmail.co.uk
Subject: NHS: Circular 2012-10 & 11 (KONP)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:43:56 +0100










Dear All
 
I'm not circulating this too widely because I suspect 
some of you have it already and I don't want to clog up e-mail boxes 
unnecessarily.
 
Jon


 




Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:46:42 +0100
Subject: Fwd: Circular 2012-10 & 11 
(KONP)
From: sheffieldanticutscampaign at gmail.com
To: 




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <carrie at burngreave.net>
Date: 
25 March 2012 22:45
Subject: Fwd: Circular 2012-10 & 11 (KONP)
To: sheffieldanticutscampaign at gmail.com





---------- 
Forwarded message ----------
From: Bill Ronksley <billronksley at hotmail.com>
To: 
Cc: 
Date: Sun, 
25 Mar 2012 22:22:27 +0100
Subject: Circular 2012-10 & 11 (KONP)






-- 
Sheffield Anti Cuts Alliance is a grass roots 
working class anti cuts organisation bringing 
together trade unionists, campaigners, students, the unemployed, pensioners and 
disabled people against the cuts.
http://sheffieldanticuts.wordpress.com
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.email-lists.org/pipermail/occupysheffield/attachments/20120326/baadc98f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Cir.2012-10 (KONP)).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 127976 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.email-lists.org/pipermail/occupysheffield/attachments/20120326/baadc98f/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Cir.2012-11 KONP.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 85893 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.email-lists.org/pipermail/occupysheffield/attachments/20120326/baadc98f/attachment-0003.pdf>