That'll teach me. I agreed to be interviewed for a film which will be shown on tonight made by the man behind the . I've just watched it on the web - .

Plenty of political junkies like me do read and enjoy Guido's blog despite the fact that he spends much of his time telling his readers how spineless we in the mainstream media are. That's the theme of his film tonight.

His central claim is that broadcasters need access to politicians so we pull our punches.
Attempting to engage with him in a grown up way I told "Guido" the truth. Namely, that in order for specialist journalists (whether health or legal or political reporters) to know their subject inside out they have to build working relationships with those they report on.

Having worked at Panorama for some years, I know that it is sometimes easier for someone coming from outside to make the big "mother of a blow out" investigation without fear of burning their contacts. I went on to argue that this does not stop me asking the big and tough questions when they need asking.
Silly me.

"Guido" uses my interview to argue that I don't "need to be so craven" and that "I should worry less about my relationship with politicians and more about my relations with viewers".
So what's my answer to him? Grow up.

It the job of broadcasters to report politics in the round. Sometimes that means confronting, challenging and probing politicians. At other it involves reporting, explaining and bringing to life what politicians are trying to do for those who elect them.

There will always - thank god - be a role for partisan, campaigning or satirical reporting of politics elsewhere. However, it will almost always build on or react to what's on the mainstream media. For example, if they want to comment on what Gordon Brown's planning to do as prime minister they'll rely on someone who can talk to him and those around him to find out.

Different folks...

different strokes. I'll keep reading Guido and, if he's honest, he'll admit he watches us obsessively and feeds off what we do.
PS: Much more stimulating is a lecture by Charles Clarke on New Labour and the Media, which reflects his frustration that his efforts to kick start a debate about what Labour should do in the future is seen entirely through the prism of whether he, or anyone else, will challenge Gordon Brown for the leadership.

You will be able to read his text here once he's stood on his feet at 7:30 pm.
UPDATE: Click (word document) to download the text of the speech.
Of course you would say that Nick, wouldn't you?

A bit like the back benchers who vote for policies with which they don't agree with their career in mind, you're part of a closed institution (an industry) that rewards its "employees" for the maintenance of the status quo.
Since Gilligan and the public disembowelling of broadcast journalism even the best of you has taken note of what happens when you mess with "them". You were given a lesson in who your masters really are and few have been brave enough to dissent.

I don't blame you really as there is a lack of will and direction right from the top of your Government funded organisation - and you've seen what happens when push comes to shove. Thanks for being honest enough to let us know it is a career call though.
I would say the Public are the ones who have lost out from all this but that would imply that we were ever winners, or indeed even involved, in the process.

I think you've got a fair point Nick. There seems to be a widespread belief at the moment that all politicans and lobby journalists are involved in some sort of conspiracy that stems from a deep-seated, ingrained bias in news organisations.
Yet you can't just have people like Guido being our source of news, for what he does (although interesting) is not relevant to the lives of most of, and he is not bound by the legal constraints that mainstream media are.

Surely the best thing is to have varying sources of news: different channels, papers, blogs etc- each person has their own mind and the individual ability to reach their own opinions on things.
It's a sad state when not only do we think that all politicians are liars, but that they are also in cahoots with journalists.
Hit a nerve did he Nick?

You basically accept his central charge is correct.
When I watch you from now on I'll know that you pull your punches. Too many of you political journalists pull your punches with the result we have a political class that has no one to keep them honest.

I want someone who doesn't pull his punches - someone like Guido.
Well the politicians need the media as much as the media need the politicians so there are bound to be complex issues of mutual self interest in both promoting stories, or aspects of them conflicting with others of self preservation when one side tries to smother stories which the other wishes to tell. It will never be perfect for all of the people all of the time.

The bigger difficulty for me comes with the "editorial control" and the "line" which a particular journalist chooses to make "stand up". On the rare occasions I find the time to get the same story from several commentators I often wonder if it really is the same story. The emphasis and significance of particular elements are often starkly opposed, primarily by what the journalist chooses to leave untold.

It isn't just politicians who can be economical with the truth.
How often are we presented in News and Current Affairs programmes (the two become increasingly indistinguishable) with a highly slanted one or two minutes introduction from a presenter and an interviewee then given a couple of abrasive questions, often with the answers being interrupted, to try and explain no its not quite like that? All of this conducted to the beat of an unseen and certainly non transparent editorial agenda.

It's not only the politicians who can have a spin to their presentation. The existence of this unshared editorial policy inevitably begs the question of whether there is a "larger" BBC agenda which by the choice of editors, producers, unspoken employment practices etc. effectively creating a culture controls information flow balanced more in the interests of those in power than those of us who pay for it all.

Actually the sort of hatchet job Guido is doing on you and some others is mild compared to the slanted interviews I regularly see BBC interviewers do. As a perhaps less personal example much of the recent BBC reporting of the Budget the opposition parties presentations were cut short in favour of studio analysts comments. Since when were studio analysts views more important than those of elected members of Parliament?

Then Gordon Brown was given a very easy ride as to why he was making the poorest pay more tax or why child poverty has risen under his tax regime both by those who interviewed him and by loss of opposition questions.
Sorry but I do sometimes wonder who the BBC are serving.
I took one look at the Guido Fawkes blog, and it’s not my sort of thing.

I’m sure there’s a place and audience for it, but I prefer something more solid and easy going, and Nick Robinson’s blog is good enough for that. He’s informative, is good at picking the main issues and keeping up some element of surprise, and has developed a respectful and human tone over the time he’s been writing it.
I’m happy enough that Nick has written similar pieces to conclusions I’ve come to or had earlier commented on.

I’m not sure whether that fits anyone ideas of relationship but I’ve found it interesting, useful, and supportive. The same is true of other journalists, like Polly Toynbee or Steve Richards, and some of the comments that people have taken time to add to Nick’s topics.
I have been a fierce critic of Nick, in the past, and stopped watching broadcast news because of his performance, but his coverage of news events in his blog, with its insights and touching observations do connect and raise morale in journalism, politics, and basic simple humanity.

I think, that’s important. None of us is an island. We all stand and fall with each other.

Nick’s doing fine.
I think there is certainly something to be gained from being an "outsider" reporting on events/people. I like reading Guido's blog, but I accept that he, like most other political bloggers have a political agenda.

That is part and parcel of reading blogs: opinion is generally (not always) part of a blog.
That said, I equally value the service that BBC reporters like you, Nick, provide to the country. You strive to put forward a neutral point of view and ask hard questions that you think the viewers would want to ask.

The problem is that it is physically impossible for any person to be completely, 100% objective. By developing any kind of relationship with anyone you report on, you are creating a relationship. Therefore, it is impossible for you to not impart some sense of subjectivity onto the situation.

I am sure that BBC reporters are obliged to negotiate to a certain extent with the people they report on, in order to maintain this relationship. In some sense, that is wrong.
If you accept that, then it is impossible for anyone to argue that professional journalists are "objective".

Objective implies complete centralisation of all viewpoints; it implies that the reporter has a zero relationship with that person; it implies something that is not human.
My feeling is that the BBC should embrace subjectivity. Embrace the concept of allowing people to ask politicians intensely partisan questions.

The real battle is giving equal view time to these opinions, and airing these views to the same extremes at both ends of the spectrum.
At the moment I feel that the BBC is trying to shoot for the bullseye and achieve complete objectivity, when the bullseye does not exist.
Thought you made your point well.

However, give who you work for I don't think you can complain about editing and follow on commentary.
And you shouldn't anyway, as you summed up your point with the Panorama example very effectively.
However, Guido made some good points especially on the current governments use of the empty chair and press release.

Political journalists need to be scrutinised and they need to be reflective on how they conduct themselves. However, saying that, they should take no lessons from characters such as "guido".
What guido doesn't explain to viewers in his film is that he is partisan and right wing.

He scours the mainstream media and blogs for scraps of gossip with which he can then attack the government or the Labour party.
He knows what story he wants to write, and then looks for something/anything to stand it up.
Also, if we are talking journalistic standards, why is newsnight now indulging in anonymous guest reporters?

I think you're missing Guido's point, if I may be so bold...

If you don't 'get the interview' it is the politician who loses the chance to put their case across, not you. You have nothing to lose by being denied 'access' by politicians of any party.
As Guido says, if Labour or the Conservatives refuse to give you access, tell us and move on.

There's always plenty of news that's not considered worthy and if you have spare time because Gordon Brown, Tony Blair or David Cameron is cowardly then spend some time on those ignored issues.
Attempting to engage with him in a grown up way I told "Guido" the truth. Namely, that in order for specialist journalists (whether health or legal or political reporters) to know their subject inside out they have to build working relationships with those they report on.

Why do you, specifically, require a working relationship with politicians? Are you a journalist or not? Do you seriously suggest you must get all your information from politicians and therefore need them for your stories?

Hmmmm, maybe Yates should form a working relationship with Levy and Turner lest he doesn't gain any information, or is that not how the system works?
Regain what little credibility you once had by ignoring nasty, vindictive little men with an agenda like Ireland, and the various politicians who you seem to rely on for your work, and gain a reputation as a journalist by going out and working for the information.
Besides that your working relationship should be with me and the likes of me, the public.

I thought Paul Staines' interview on Newsnight showed him up as a naive and foolish dilettante.
He did, however, claim that you were the source on the 'second email system' issue with regard to Ruth Turner's document detailing her concerns with Lord Levy.
Is this true?

If so, how can you possibly justify such a move?
Guido and others have exposed how disingenuous the Government spin machine is. The extent of it all is truly appalling.

I'm extremely glad he's there, even if he is ruffling the feathers of the cosy relationship between the mainstream media and the political set.
I think half of the problem is that rather than reporting the news, the political journalists are given air time to make there own comment on political events. Whilst the journalists have a unique take on events and often have interesting things to say, they are themselves reliant on good contacts and are liable to think beyond the story they're reporting on, to the detriment of disclosing what we all have a right to know.

Thanks for hosting the Charles Clarke speech - I've taken the liberty of linking to it. With appropriate credit.
The relationship between national media and national politics you describe in Guido's report is perfectly valid.

But increasingly irrelevant. Roy Greenslade pointed out as long ago as 2002 (in an article for the BJR) that the slumps in political engagement, voting turnout, newspaper readership and TV news viewing are not coincidental.
Clarke's analysis of the agenda setting processes ten years ago is quite valid.

But also increasingly irrelevant. While fears about losing control of the political agenda to bloggers such as Guido are overplayed, the certainty is that politicians are going to have engage with the public in a very different way to that of the past.
Although I agree with one of Guido's points - that Newsnight shouldn't feel the need to provide balance, when Ministers refuse to be cross examined on TV, I thought the guy actually made a complete prat of himself .

His arguments were pretty simplistic and he showed himself to be very clumsy when he refered to Lord Levy's trial, in the same breath as asserting that he was careful not to be prejudice!
He also showed that even anomynous bloggers need to build relationships when he asserted that it was you who'd given him the two emails tip - I presume you won't be sharing your insider knowledge so freely in future.
It still stuns me how little many of the BBC viewers understand of how exactly journalism works, or on occasion doesn't work.

I'm less surprised how little Paul Staines aka Guido understands it. Clearly the only reason he got the Newsnight slot was the researchers on the programme have recently read a load of fawning rubbish in the right-wing broadsheets about the equally right-wing blogger who fools no-one but his sycophants that he is some kind of hero for the honest masses. If the researchers and subsequent assistant producers, producers and editors had any sense about them, rather than a skewed view of one miles around Whitehall and one-and-a-half miles around White City, then perhaps they'd have picked a more insightful and less obviously partisan blogger.

Like I said, next time try and get someone who is into real political blogging, not ego-blogging.
Nick Robinson cannot defend the indefensible. He sits behind his ridiculous thick rimmed glasses
Thanks, Mr Pickles, that's a pretty good demonstration of "indefensible" right there.

Funny thing - occurrences like that make me suspect that the criticism being levelled at journalists is little more than "they have manners". Oddly enough, many of the same people can be heard whining incessantly about the illusory "Political Correctness gone too far", and for much the same reasons.
Sheesh, learn some social skills already!

Can those blaming Nick Robinson et al., for not openly antagonising their sources, really run their own lives without reliance on others, without fear of losing support and making adversaries, and without concern for spilling the beans over what are such daily shenanigans - including the antics of one's employer and other sponsoring agencies?
If those critics are so committed to openness, that they are without need to constantly keep their mouths shut, in others interests, let alone their own, then those folk will be totally supported by financially independent means, and will be enjoying a fully sovereign and autonomous existence.

They will, most certainly, be unemployed and yet dependent on no one.
If however those respondents are much like ourselves, then I cannot see how they can possibly live their own lives in the way they so wish that others would. How have they escaped the scrap heap, if not the dung heap?

Those folk are though, raising important, and wider issues, about how society is run, and the predicament we all face (including politicians) in whether to be unpopular and then unsupported, by saying what needs saying and doing, rather than being popular and successful in telling folk what they want to hear.
Such major issues with wider implications, need considering far more fundamentally, than as mere criticisms of individuals or even of a whole profession.
How far can anyone be expected to ignore the consequences of what he or she does; and even to ignore the affects that that will have on their options and ability to do the same on future occasions?

What those critics are identifying and complaining about is a feature of society itself. And in saying that, I am not implying therefore, that social “reality” is something that we must accept and follow, rather than (collectively) change. But entailed therein, is the recognition that you will not prevent or stop people from following what are the rules of the jungle, without either getting them out of the jungle or changing the rules.

People’s behaviour is a response to their circumstances – to what confronts them. Before anyone is going to (rationally) behave differently, there has to be changes in what their behaviour is a response to, involving real changes to the social structure, and in this case, particularly in respect of the highly disproportionate distribution of those exclusive (and so monopolistic and exploitative) rights known as “ownership” and which produce those same extensive forms of sponsorship, which riddle society from top to bottom and constitute its controlling features –also from top to bottom – in those “free” but unfair, exchange conditions where all, including the rates of exchange, depend on each party’s differential bargaining power – on the extent of their wealth - ownership.
I am now 80, but in my early 20s, I made some rather quick advances, and became widely regarded (by those who matter) as having potential prospects - since my efforts were (you could say inevitably) tied up with those other property interests.

It was a veritable formula for success, given the wealth and power of such collateral backing in interests and sponsorship
Without going into the (interesting for me) details, I confronted the alternatives of putting certain principles before those of my sponsors and myself, or simply ignoring the problem, worrying about something else, or about nothing at all. (The issues had nothing to do with legality or criminality – merely (sic?) matters of equity.

)
The middle choice of compromising between principles and self-interest, was not possible, but never occurred to me anyway. It would only have led to my slower rather than faster (and more extendedly painful) finale and curtains to any such uniquely extensive and promising prospects.
Of course I put principles first - or I would not be telling you this story – and others with consciences and concern for principles will have faced similar, if lesser, dilemmas as continuing sagas throughout life.

The point is however, that while I can swank here about that significant instance of my youthful morality, I did find, that when I was reduced to working for those, who otherwise could well have been working for me, that I did many times, and even more so in that position, have to jettison principles and to accommodate myself to what was both in their and my own interests – given that I was then in a greater state of need and dependency.
Indeed it is an irony, that had I put my own interests first, in that first important encounter, then I might not have needed to face (and give in to) the same problem so frequently in future life. As a less dependant person and with more control over things, I would have been in a better position to have avoided such capitulating situations.

For strange as it may seem, following your principles, leads you into a position where it is very difficult to have any principles at all.
That may be why those who start off their lives as the world’s greatest moral crusaders finish up as the world’s worst scoundrels.
.

. . .

whatever am I saying?
. .

. . and where would such an admission ever be likely to get me – or anyone else?

At on 29 Mar 2007,

I think my vote goes to Guido!
He points out how you don't need a relationship with your political contacts -and it is true. Your job is to tell the people, through the BBC, what the politicians are up to.

The politicians know who you are, so they are the ones who need a relationship with you, not the other way around.
You are on the TV every day (practically), they are the ones who need your services - without them, they become that MP, whatsit from up north. People don't look at political news for political celebs - they just want the unadulterated news.

You admit to being soft on your politicians because you need the story, but you actually sound like a bad salesman who discounts because he doesn't have the nerve to push for the best price - just in case he loses the sale.
I don't expect you to understand this analogy, but from my armchair, I can see I am wasting my time watching the BBC for political news.