Letter from Westminster: Is the mainstream media part of an elite conspiracy?

I have written before about how The Independent, when it was founded in 1986, refused to take part in the government’s lobby briefings. The newspaper felt it was a cosy system that allowed the prime minister’s press secretary to feed information anonymously to the media without being accountable for it.

Our boycott did not last long, because the briefings were put on the record, attributed to the prime minister’s official spokesperson – although in those days the style was spokesman or spokeswoman. And since then the lobby system has been blown open by Twitter. Almost all Westminster journalists are on Twitter and so everyone knows so much more about what they do all day and where news comes from.

Even so, the idea that “mainstream” journalism – that is, journalism done by reputable organisations with large audiences – is part of an elite conspiracy against “the many” is remarkably tenacious.

And it is true that there are a few parts of the Westminster village that are still obscure – despite last week’s bright sunshine bathing the area around the houses of parliament as it was turned into an actual pedestrianised village by the climate change protesters.

I was reminded of this by an interesting interview with Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent of The Daily Telegraph who is chair of the lobby, and who appeared on Matt Forde’s superb podcast. “The lobby” refers to those journalists who have a pass that allows them access to the houses of parliament – and specifically to the members’ lobby, which is otherwise restricted to MPs.

Hope can hardly be accused of being in cahoots with politicians: most of the interview was about his role in reporting the MPs’ expenses scandal 10 years ago. His job now is to chair briefings by the government spokesperson, and to make sure all Westminster journalists have access to basic information about what party leaders are up to, which I can report he does diligently and fairly.

At one point, though, he referred to press releases issued on a “no-approach basis”, and explained it so briefly that I thought it worth elaborating. This is when the government – and occasionally the opposition – makes an announcement under an embargo. That is, journalists are given the information in advance so that they can prepare their reports, but they are not allowed to publish until a given time. These days it is usually 2230hrs, so that it can go on the front of the next day’s newspapers, which usually appear on Twitter around this time.

A “no-approach” embargo, however, is one where journalists are asked not to approach anyone else to comment on the story until the embargo time. It is designed to give the story a clear run so that the initial reporting of it is not coloured by the reaction to it.

It is a questionable practice and I am pleased to say that most journalists tend to regard it as their duty to obtain balanced comment on controversial announcements from the start.

Christopher Hope sets a good example: the more we journalists are open about how our relations with politicians work, the less likely it is that conspiracy theories will take hold.

Yours,

John Rentoul​
Chief political commentator