Most of what passes for political journalism would fit better in a gossip column.
Political journalism should be about the issues that affect our lives,
what the policies are, what the ideas are.
Every year these get less and less of a look in, in favour of the personalities.
And the more outrageous those personalities the more coverage they get,
because they contribute to the spectacle.
How did this reality TV star Donald Trump become president of the United States?
Because they're all reality TV stars, nowadays to become a successful politician,
you have to be a reality TV star.
They make a reality TV star of Nigel Farage by putting him on question time every bloody week.
Those who thrive in this world are those who understand:
It's about spectacle and not about substance.
Donald Trump is a classic example of this, this is a guy who totally gets spectacle,
as a lot of proto-fascist do.
Fascism is all about symbol and sensation and spectacle.
So by creating a political world of spectacle, as opposed to a world of substance,
you actually create outlets and openings for fascism which weren't there before.
And the rise of the far right across the world,
to some extent, is a result of the complete degradation of political journalism.
Good reporting requires real depth, it requires knowledge
it requires research, it requires time, it requires money.
Sure there are still some great journalists but they work at the margins.
Whereas the journalists whose work is central are the ones who do the least actual journalism.
They're the ones who mouth pre-existing positions.
In the extreme case they're the newsreaders who read somebody else's script.
Look at who gets interviewed in the newspapers,
by far and away the biggest category of people who get interviewed is actors.
There's loads of professions in the world, loads of people
doing really interesting and fascinating things.
And yet it's actors...
Of course what the actor represents is spectacle, the actor is there to present spectacle.
Because spectacle is the central feature of the media and substance is peripheral.
Why have we become obsessed by particular figures and particular personalities?
Could it be because that's the only thing of politics we ever see?
Actors on a stage put in the spotlight rather than the people that they affect,
rather than the issues, the policies the real world impacts.
it's not about the powers that shape the world it's not about institutional power.
Because to deal with that, not only do you have to do some real journalism,
but you also have to challenge and confront powerful interests.
If you want to get on in the world you do not challenge and confront powerful interests, that's fatal.
Basically the media is one big dinner party. The senior figures they tend to know each other,
they tend to have very similar backgrounds.
And they think they represent the world, they think they're ordinary Joes and Janes.
Then when people ask for something different,
when they want a politics which actually represents them,
when they take to the streets to complain about the fact that they can't get good jobs good houses.
That the living world is falling apart that climate breakdown is happening in front of our very eyes.
They're treated as irrational, crazy, marginal.
Who are these people? How dare they, what are they up to?
So you can't report them in a balanced or measured way.
"Who is spider-man? He's a criminal that's who he is!"
You have to see them as some horde, some rabble, behaving in a completely irrational way.
Even if what they're representing is people's genuine demand for a fairer world,
then the one we've got at the moment.
I know this I've been in this game for 33 years now,
and I've gradually become aware of the total detachment of senior media figures,
from those on whose behalf they claimed to speak.
It's a chilling realisation to see just how removed, how unrepresentative of the world that they claim to report.
So is the media reformable? Could Rupert Murdoch be persuaded to change his mind?
The Bartley brothers, Lord Rothermere?
Could the BBC be turned into an organisation which actually focuses on the substance,
rather than the spectacle?
No, it's not gonna happen.
They're constitutionally, institutionally committed to the way they are.
And it seems to me that the only effective challenge we can make,
is to develop and build alternative media...
...I can think of Double Down News as one potential example.
It's great, this is exactly the kind of thing we need to do,
where we can actually talk about the substantial issues.
Where we can bring to people's attention the stuff which isn't being said:
The stuff which is important and not salient,
rather than the stuff that's salient but not important.