Politics

With parliament in recess, the press has a vital role in holding the government to account | Roy Greenslade


Where was the compassion? The overwhelming mainstream media response to the announcement that Boris Johnson had tested positive for Covid-19 was anything but sympathetic. It was summed up by a Daily Mail headline which pointedly asked whether Johnson, his ministers and advisers had not practised the social distancing they had preached.

Similarly, the Guardian referred to accusations that the prime minister had been guilty of nonchalance by failing to heed his own advice to the public. Amid the crisis, he may not be held to account. But the Sunday Mirror, reflecting the consensus viewpoint, argued that later “he will have serious questions to face.

Altogether less serious was the Mail on Sunday’s suggestion, on the thinnest of evidence, that the EU’s Brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier, was the source of Johnson’s infection. This nonsense had a Trumpist feel to it, a pathetic attempt to take the spotlight off the prime minister it slavishly supports.

Symptoms are defined by the NHS as either:

  • a high temperature – you feel hot to touch on your chest or back
  • a new continuous cough – this means you’ve started coughing repeatedly

NHS advice is that anyone with symptoms should stay at home for at least 7 days.

If you live with other people, they should stay at home for at least 14 days, to avoid spreading the infection outside the home.

After 14 days, anyone you live with who does not have symptoms can return to their normal routine. But, if anyone in your home gets symptoms, they should stay at home for 7 days from the day their symptoms start. Even if it means they’re at home for longer than 14 days.

If you live with someone who is 70 or over, has a long-term condition, is pregnant or has a weakened immune system, try to find somewhere else for them to stay for 14 days.

If you have to stay at home together, try to keep away from each other as much as possible.

After 7 days, if you no longer have a high temperature you can return to your normal routine.

If you still have a high temperature, stay at home until your temperature returns to normal.

If you still have a cough after 7 days, but your temperature is normal, you do not need to continue staying at home. A cough can last for several weeks after the infection has gone.

Staying at home means you should:

  • not go to work, school or public areas
  • not use public transport or taxis
  • not have visitors, such as friends and family, in your home
  • not go out to buy food or collect medicine – order them by phone or online, or ask someone else to drop them off at your home

You can use your garden, if you have one. You can also leave the house to exercise – but stay at least 2 metres away from other people.

If you have symptoms of coronavirus, use the NHS 111 coronavirus service to find out what to do.

Source: NHS England on 23 March 2020

But, like the Telegraph titles, it was out of step with the general tone of media coverage which has passed through three phases. These rapid changes of approach echoed the swiftness of the pandemic’s grip on public imagination. Johnson’s dilemma was met initially with a measure of understanding that soon elided into a large dose media credulity.

During that honeymoon period, it was largely accepted that Johnson was acting correctly by following scientific advice advocating “herd immunity.” This was challenged by other scientists, such as William Hanage, but counter arguments got little media traction. When the government performed a U-turn in mid-March the BBC tamely accepted the false No 10 line that its strategy changed because the science had changed.

More than a week passed before the second phase saw natural journalistic scepticism kick in. Johnson found himself fielding pertinent questions. Did he really think “herd immunity” was either a practical or moral response? Sure, he was relying on the science, but were the scientists on which he was basing his policy right?

Watching his press conferences, it was possible to sense a growing frustration among the questioning political editors. They were polite, as was he. He took care to name them – “thank you, Laura” … “yes, Beth” … “where’s Heather?” – and, after repeating his central messages about handwashing and social distancing, he passed the trickier inquiries to his scientific wingmen.

As an exercise in transparency it just about held up, although it didn’t really amount to public accountability because it was impossible for the journalists to be as fierce and forensic as MPs in the Commons during prime minister’s questions. Nor were they able to ask supplementary questions. The problem of dealing with Johnsonian evasiveness became more apparent when the conferences were staged remotely.

At the beginning of last week came the third phase: overt hostility. It was unsurprising to find the anti-Tory Daily Mirror in the vanguard with its accusation that Johnson and his government “were criminally slow to respond to the threat” and lamenting the “mixed messages and an absence of clarity”.

But the “Boris distancing” took hold even in papers previously sympathetic to the government’s plight and even in those noted as fervent cheerleaders for Johnson. Look, for instance, at the Sun’s unexpectedly pointed criticism in a leading article which echoed the Mirror’s viewpoint.

It took Johnson to task for taking far too long in enacting legislation to enforce social distancing. “The Sun,” it said, “has largely backed the Downing Street response so far … But there is a shambolic ‘on the hoof’ feel to it now.”

Another whose faith was shaken, was one of Johnson’s most enthusiastic press supporters, the aforementioned title’s political columnist, Trevor Kavanagh. Looking to a future public inquiry into the handling of the crisis, he suggested a likely outcome: “It may be that Boris Johnson was too soft, too trusting, too unwilling to make hard choices.”

If Kavanagh’s jibe surprised No 10, then the Times’s leader last Monday must have come as a shock. Johnson’s performance “has been chequered”. Why had he “disappeared from view” in February? Why had he failed to preside over the first Cobra meeting to discuss the pandemic? Why, even as the scale became apparent, did he not take greater measures? The Times’s conclusion was laced with sarcasm: “The country needs to know that Mr Johnson has a coherent strategy. Otherwise the prime minister who dreamt of being Churchill may find himself cast as Neville Chamberlain.”

At the end of the week, the Daily Mail joined the growing chorus of disapproval by accusing the government of having been “lamentably behind the curve” and urging it to “raise its game … fast”. The Sunday Times took a similar line. Why had Britain not tested as widely and efficiently as Germany?

The Observer was amazed at the lack of testing kits, as it was with the failure to procure extra stocks of ventilators and personal protective equipment.

This media criticism should not be viewed as cynical or carping. Newspapers, in company with broadcast news outlets, have been doing their job. By refusing to accept the official narrative, they have disrupted the government’s agenda and, on the positive side, have played a key role in changing the direction of public policy. They held power to account and found it wanting.

Now, with parliament in recess, their job becomes even more important. They must go on questioning and harrying the prime minister. They have to find a way to ensure that an executive backed by an 81-seat majority does not misuse its own version of self-isolation to pursue the wrong route in the difficult weeks ahead.



READ SOURCE

Leave a Reply

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.