Tag: ITV

VOTERS CHEATED BY TV DEBATE SHAMBLES

 

CAMERON SPOILER

It is a moving picture as I write, but David Cameron’s insistence that he will only do one TV debate with all the parties is the latest episode in a sorry saga that reflects badly on the Prime Minister

The TV companies had set the dates for three debates, two with seven parties and a head to head between Cameron and Miliband, before the Prime Minister’s very late move on Wednesday night. So will the TV companies back down or stick to their format and dare to empty chair him?

The endless wrangles have been yet another blow to the prestige of politicians. After 2010, the public now expect their potential rulers to subject themselves to this sort of scrutiny. This principle should have underpinned the discussions this time acknowledging that it was going to be more complicated than five years ago. This is because we have a coalition, and potentially other players because of the fracturing of politics away from the traditional parties.

Instead of trying to find a way through the difficulties, the TV companies have had to engage in a game of cat and mouse with David Cameron. The Tories have the age old fear of all incumbents that they can only lose by taking part. They fear putting themselves on the same level as their opponents. They also fear a “Natalie Bennett” episode.

This is nothing new. In my early years as a broadcaster my attempts to get constituency debates between candidates were often thwarted by what I came to call the “coward’s clause”. Election law required all candidates to agree to take part. It gave incumbent MPs a veto and both Labour and Tory MPs played that card. Later on the law was changed to say that all must be invited to take part but none could veto. Hence the opportunity for an empty chair arises in relation to the 2015 Election Debates.

It will be very interesting as one can’t believe that David Cameron would risk an empty chair but neither can one imagine Sky and Channel 4 showing Ed Miliband taking part alone on April 30.

Leaving the question of Tory participation aside, there are other problems with the format of the debates as proposed by the TV companies until Wednesday night. . We are not going to have a threesome of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. I think the coalition partners and their potential replacement as the head of the government should have debated together. Cameron and Clegg would both have had to defend their record in government and criticise each other with Miliband throwing in his two-penneth. The coalition’s record would have been debated.

Given the Lib Dems current weak showing, I agree with the Cameron Miliband head to head bringing us a debate between the only two people who credibly can be Prime Minister. Cameron has now specifically rejected this.

But the third debate should have only involved parties fielding candidates throughout the United Kingdom. The arrangements, if they stand, for not one, but two debates, on April 2 on ITV and the BBC on April 16 are a mess. 7 parties will take part including the SNP and Plaid. The argument for the latter two is presumably on the basis that they could be players in deciding the policies of the UK government in coalition negotiations. Well what about the Democratic Unionists? They may well be players in the post election stramash. This is a fair point made by Cameron on Wednesday night. It seems the Prime Minister wants one debate with eight candidates.

Leaving aside the politics of the “hydra” debates, what will voters get out of seven or eight people all trying to have their say. There is a great danger it will either be a messy shouting match or so dull and formulaic that people will switch off.

CONSTITUENCY FOCUS: HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON.

UKIP are fading a little in the polls and the North West is not the most promising region of the country for them. Some have their eyes on Bootle where Deputy UKIP leader Paul Nuttall faces a massive Labour majority. More likely is Heywood and Middleton where last autumn’s by election left Labour’s Liz McInness just 617 ahead of UKIP.

She should be saved by the bigger turnout of Labour voters in a General Election but a word of caution. UKIP have a good candidate in John Bickley and working class voters, disillusioned by Labour, can see from the by election evidence that three hundred odd votes could have seen Labour ousted.

Follow me at www.jimhancock.co.uk.

ELECTION TV DEBATES:ARE THEY CERTAIN?

THE COWARD’S CHARTER

Things have gone mighty quiet about the election TV debates.

The TV companies have set the dates and made the draw for who goes first but the Prime Minister has yet to confirm his participation. So the big questions are, will David Cameron take part? If not will the TV companies dare to empty chair him?

The endless wrangles have been yet another blow to the prestige of politicians. After 2010 the public now expect their potential rulers to subject themselves to this sort of scrutiny. This principle should have underpinned the discussions this time acknowledging that it was going to be more complicated than five years ago. This is because we have a coalition and potentially other players because of the fracturing of politics away from the traditional parties.

Instead of trying to find a way through the difficulties, the TV companies have had to engage in a game of cat and mouse with David Cameron. The Tories have the age old fear of all incumbents that they can only lose by taking part. They fear putting themselves on the same level as their opponents. They also fear a “Natalie Bennett” episode.

This is nothing new. In my early years as a broadcaster my attempts to get constituency debates between candidates were often thwarted by what I came to call the “coward’s clause”. Election law required all candidates to agree to take part. It gave incumbent MPs a veto and both Labour and Tory MPs played that card. Later on the law was changed to say that all must be invited to take part but none could veto. Hence the opportunity for an empty chair arises in relation to the 2015 Election Debates.

It will be very interesting to see if Cameron dares risk an empty chair in the Sky/Channel 4 debate on April 30. On the other hand would the broadcasters actually have Ed Miliband on his own?

FORMAT CHEATS VOTERS

Leaving the question of Tory participation aside, there are other problems with these debates. We are not going to have a threesome of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. I think the coalition partners and their potential replacement as the head of the government should have debated together. Cameron and Clegg would have both have had to defend their record in government and criticise each other with Miliband throwing in his two-penneth. The coalition’s record would have been debated.

Given the Lib Dems current weak showing I agree with the Cameron Miliband head to head bringing us a debate between the only two people who credibly can be Prime Minister.

But the third debate should have only involved parties fielding candidates throughout the United Kingdom. The arrangements for not one, but two debates, on April 2 on ITV and the BBC on April 16 are a mess. 7 parties will take part including the SNP and Plaid. The argument for the latter two is presumably on the basis that they could be players in deciding the policies of the UK government in coalition negotiations. Well what about the Democratic Unionists? They may well be players in the post election stramash.

Leaving aside the politics of the “hydra” debates, what will voters get out of seven people all trying to have their say. There is a great danger it will either be a messy shouting match or so dull and formulaic that people will switch off.

CONSTITUENCY FOCUS: HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON.

UKIP are fading a little in the polls and the North West is not the most promising region of the country for them. Some have their eyes on Bootle where Deputy UKIP leader Paul Nuttall faces a massive Labour majority. More likely is Heywood and Middleton where last autumn’s by election left Labour’s Liz McInness just 617 ahead of UKIP.

She should be saved by the bigger turnout of Labour voters in a General Election but a word of caution. UKIP have a good candidate in John Bickley and working class voters, disillusioned by Labour, can see from the by election evidence that three hundred odd votes could have seen Labour ousted.

 

THE PUBLIC TRIAL OF PETER RIPPON

I was first in the queue for a seat at the grilling of the BBC Director General over Jimmy Savile on Tuesday. God knows why George Entwhistle volunteered for the ordeal that befell him because, having set up two inquiries, he should have been lying low not exposing himself to MPs who wanted quick answers or an easy headline.

 

What we got was a very inexperienced DG caught in the headlights and choosing to hang out one of his senior programme editors to dry. If I was Peter Rippon, now “standing aside” from the editorship of Newsnight, I would take the transcript of the Culture Select Committee report to an employment tribunal if he loses his job permanently.

 

Entwhistle expressed his embarrassment and regret that Rippon’s blog on why he had spiked the Savile investigation was not accurate. He said Rippon’s reasons for not transmitting the report were not defensible. He (Entwhistle) would have transmitted it. He made it clear that he had suspended Rippon rather than the editor having volunteered to “stand aside”.

 

If your boss went on national media and treated you in the same way, how would you feel? The DG laid down his friend for his life big time.

 

The pain Rippon must be feeling at his treatment by Entwhistle must only be exceeded by his angst that he did not transmit the report on Savile’s vile behaviour. The fact that ITV scooped the BBC on their own story is a source of huge frustration throughout the corporation and explains the furious civil war that has now broken out.

 

Rippon is being accused of being sat on by people higher up the BBC chain of command or of lacking the courage to back his journalists. So let’s hold on a minute and reflect that we are all operating with the help of hindsight. A year ago Entwhistle, as Head of BBC Vision, had no qualms in making tribute programmes on Savile a centrepiece of his Christmas schedule. Although rumours and allegations about Savile had been around for years, Entwhistle must have felt them so insignificant that a tribute to Savile’s talent and charity work was entirely appropriate.

 

It reminds us that just a year ago Savile was a national treasure and the people of Leeds lined the streets as his coffin passed.

 

It was against this background that reporter Liz Mackean and producer Meirion Jones were preparing to bring Savile’s reputation crashing down. So, although Rippon allowed the production to get to an advanced stage, he must have looked at the state of opinion as it was then. Savile had just died amid public acclaim and the BBC was planning a Christmas celebration of the dead star. He was entitled to take a deep breath before giving the final go ahead.

 

Two more factors may have affected his decision. One was the huge responsibility that is put on individual programme editors in the BBC. They can talk to colleagues, but it is their call. It is a protection against pressure coming down from above, but it is an awesome individual responsibility in the end.

 

The other factor that might have weighed on his mind is the Trafigura affair. Peter Rippon was the editor of Newsnight in December 2009 when the BBC withdrew an allegation that the company’s dumping of hazardous waste in the Ivory Coast was directly responsible for deaths there. The report was the work of Meirion Jones and Liz Mackean. The pair rightly went on to win a major award for investigative reporting but reports suggest the BBC faced a bill of £3m if they had fought Trafigura in court.

 

The BBC is once again at the mercy of those who are always looking for reasons to bring it down. It has not handled this matter well and may well face further embarrassing revelations. But at the end of it all let’s remember that the person who bears ultimate responsibility for this is not George Entwhistle or Peter Rippon, but Jimmy Savile.

HILLSBOROUGH AND MEDIA MATTERS

HILLSBOROUGH

A brief word on the latest revelations around Hillsborough, and then I’ll move on to my main topic.

It appears a senior police officer in the Merseyside force helped to fuel the slander against Liverpool fans while rank and file bobbies were expressing their disgust at the accusations in The Sun.

It’s worth bearing in mind that the force was led by Chief Constable Ken Oxford who, it appears, was troubled with Anfield being turned into a shrine for the victims. With someone like that at the head of the police force, perhaps the revelation is not such a surprise.

Policing has moved on and the Merseyside force is now hopefully more sensitive to the community they serve.

Anyway it is not the papers relating to the Merseyside force we want to see but South Yorkshire. Why haven’t they leaked? Why are we now told it could be late this year before we get the full release of documents? I hope it is only personal details that are being redacted. The suffering has gone on long enough. Let Bishop James’ Commission report without further delay.

 

MEDIA MATTERS

Peter Salmon should be the next Director General of the BBC. I’ve spent the last few days with people involved in one of the most important job creators in the North West…. the media.

The Nations and Regions TV conference was held in Salford this week and there was the suggestion that our very own Peter Salmon should leap into the top job at the Beeb.

Salmon’s career has equipped him for the post. He went from Granada to a range of top jobs in the BBC and ITV culminating in him masterminding the corporation’s move to Salford in the face of fierce, prejudiced hostility from the southern based national press.

Incidentally on that subject did you spot the howler in the Telegraph the other day? While running one of their anti-BBC in Salford stories, they said Media City was in the MIDLANDS!

Now that error was written by a journalist and passed by a sub editor in one of our main quality papers. The North is a land of which they know little and the error is a powerful argument for redressing the media bias with a critical mass of production up here.

 

LOCAL TV

Do you want local TV? Jeremy Hunt does and has identified Preston, Manchesterand Liverpool among the first places for its roll out.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has a poor opinion of regional television. He told the Salford conference that we only had it because it was based on where the transmission masts were in 1955 when ITV got underway. He says major cities in the USA have 6 local TV services providing much more local content.

The problem with this idea has always been making it pay. Channel One in Liverpool and more recently Channel M in Manchester failed the viability test.

Hunt believes he’s cracked the problem by getting the BBC to stump up £30m for the 44 stations which the Secretary of State believes can operate on a half million pound budget a year.

 

RED CARD FOR THE LOWER DIVISIONS ON THE BEEB?

If you support clubs like Morecambe, Preston and Oldham you will be concerned about rumours that the BBC may be dropping its coverage of non-Premier League football.

The Football League Show and Late Kick Off give vital coverage to the lower leagues at a time when much of the media is obsessed with the Premiership.

At the conference I had a chance to question the BBC’s Head of Sport Barbara Slater who said “discussions were ongoing”.

I understand the Football League are desperate to keep the BBC on board and are only asking for a modest amount for their coverage.

For the BBC to claim they can’t afford to continue covering the lower leagues would be a desertion of their public service duty.